OpenRAW survey

[Steve Randles]

http://openraw.org/survey/

 

During the past several months, photographers have become increasingly aware of the actions of camera makers to conceal - and in some cases, to encrypt - information stored in RAW image files. These actions have raised concern about whether a trend toward more proprietary RAW image formats could lead to fewer choices of software to edit RAW files from new cameras. They have also shaken photographers' confidence that RAW files taken with older camera models will be supported in the future.

 

 

Here is your chance to put your feeling/thoughts across.

 

Steve

[Guest CJS2]

Sorry if I'm behaving a little thick Steve, I know of RAW, think I have RAW on my Nikon D100 probably an early version. Never used it, have no idea how to, what are the advantages to the amater? Every one I know uses JPG, and would probably be unable to view it if I sent a pic in RAW?, that includes the Sea Angling magazine I write for. OK, I am being a little nieve, but thats about the strength of RAW in my book. Same to me as, 35mm and large format, its for the anorack and pro? Also, it seems a lot of us on here use quality pocket P&S and 'prosumers', I certainly use my Canon S50 a lot, have no idea if it has RAW, doubt it?

 

Non of the above is intended as a put down, its the way I see it at the moment, does one need the extra complication ???

 

Same as 'EXIF' have no idea how to get it for my pic, it is simply adding complication that I dont understand, turns me off!

 

CJS2

Edited February 2, 2006 by CJS2

[Steve Randles]

Same as 'EXIF' have no idea how to get it for my pic, it is simply adding complication that I dont understand, turns me off!

 

Well, compliacation will occur at some stage during using a comp, like the first time you ever sat in front of one. But my point here is your did learn how to use it, for what you want to do.

 

 

As for RAW vs Jpeg in general, its pretty simple really. Jpeg is compressed and as such loses image quality because of it, and everytime you save that image thereafter you lose yet more quality from the image. For example.

 

Take photo, compress to card --> Lose quality

Transfer from card to PC --> Lose quality

Edit picture (ie resize) -->lose qaulity

 

Thats 3 simple steps to get a picture from where you took it, to the web and all will have lost some quality along the way.

 

RAW on the other hand is an uncompressed file format, meaning no loss of quality and as far as the photograph itself goes its wysiwyg.

 

Add to that that when its transferred to your pc and later on backed up to DVD or CD, there is still no loss of quality at all.

 

To use RAW files they really need to be processed and then saved as tiff files or Jpeg or even as a psd (photoshop file). However, there are viewers now that will allow you to view them on windows systems.

 

RAW converters also allow you far more flexibilty in the post processing where even the exposure can be changed, allowing you to correct any mistakes that may have been made during the time the photo was taken, the options here are endless. But the main one is that its an uncompressed file, with no quality loss that you can reopen time and again, reprocess as you choose whilst still retaining the best possible image quality.

 

As it stands at the moment though, I too use jpeg but as soon as I get my new memory card (1GB as opposed to the 256's I have now) I will have the space to be able to switch to RAW as file sizes are nearly double the size from Jpeg.

 

Steve

[Guest CJS2]

Ok Steve, As for EXIF, I'm still totaly baffeled, have the little program on the comp but have no idea how to use it. It may be my dyslexia that gets in the way although, as you say, 'when needs must . . .', I do overcome a lot of hurdules, but its hard work, and worst of all if I dont keep it up, and go back in a few weeks time its almost back to square one!

 

RAW? I see the point, but as soon as you turn it into a JPG file, does the compresion/deteriation start? Pros., I can see the point, serious competition work again . . . yep, but for fidling around on here for instance, we all use JPG, we enjoy our selfs, so its a level playing field?

 

For the dedicated amater why not, its part of the enjoyment to see just how far you can go, been there in a previous life. I will get around to looking seriously at my RAW on the Nikon, but by then I suspect the world will have moved on?

 

What your take on the fact that so many on her seem to use P&S, and how it affect your question on RAW.

 

[rabster]

The DSLR I purchased in December has the facility to shoot in RAW mode. To date I've only done so once or twice. My reluctance to use RAW is largely down to being slightly overfaced with the high level of post shot RAW file processing that's possible. There seems to be too many things one can tweak & to my untrained/amateur eye I'm worried if I mess with the image too much I'm going to over guild the lily. I'm hoping that as my JPEG photoshop skills improve I'll feel more confident processing RAW files.

 

One question, can you print out a RAW file, or do you need to convert it to TIFF or JPEG first? & if converting, which will produce the best print, i know a tiff file is the larger therefore less compressed, but I'm sure I've read somewhere that JPEGs are better for images than TIFF??

[poledark]

Only problem I have with Raw is the time it takes to write to the mem card, OK if the subject is stationary but no good for bird shots (unless you are lucky enough to get "that shot" first time)

 

I used to have an early Sony digi with only .5 mgp and so I would lose quality at an astonishing rate, after only a few "moves" the pic became unuseable.

As a compromise, I take pics in jpg mode and then save them in tiff on the PC, but only if I want to keep them.

 

Den

Edited February 2, 2006 by poledark

[Steve Burke]

As a compromise, I take pics in jpg mode and then save them in tiff on the PC, but only if I want to keep them.

 

Snap! I do the same. Any subsequent changes I make are then to the original TIFF file, which stays saved. But then my camera hasn't got a RAW facility, and so I've no experience of what improvement I'd get.

 

Is it noticeable?

Edited February 2, 2006 by Steve Burke

[chesters1]

my cam can provide RAW but the software only converts it to TIF rather than let me play before converting it.

full everything its a 35mb file on the camera

Edited February 2, 2006 by chesters1

[Lid]

Transfer from card to PC --> Lose quality

Are you sure Steve? I thought you had to open a JPG file for update and then save it again to get the reduction in image quality. Surely the transfer process from card to PC is just a copy action, and so no degradation?

[Steve Randles]

Isn't saving to hard drive, exactly that?..saving?