Something That I Never Thought About

[rpcrowe]

I always shoot RAW and I am impressed with the improvements of Adobe Camera RAW 7 (in Photoshop CS6, Lightroom 4 and to a lesser extent in PSE-11). However, there is an advantage to shooting RAW that I have not previously considered.

When RAW capture is used you have a "bucket of information" captured and ready to be worked with. However, the capture is non-destructive and you can revert any time back to the original RAW image.

This means that I could, if desired, revert back to some of my original RAW images that I captured and processed in ACR-6 and then re-process them in ACR-7 if I so desired. This capability to re-process in a more efficient program can perhaps improve some images. IMO, ACR-7 can provide better imagery, especially at the edges of the envelope, than can ACR-6.

If I shot with JPEG, whatever the camera's logarithms had decided my image should look like is what I would have to work with. I "may" be able to re-open an image and tweak it a bit with a new improved program (CS-6 rather than the earlier CS-5 and lower Photoshop editions) but, I would not have the control over the final image that I would have if I reverted back to a RAW image. And, if I had not saved the original as a duplicate, I would not be able to reprocess "from scratch".

Many JPEG shooters state, "If the photographer is accurate in the original capture, JPEG is just fine!" I will agree that todays JPEG capture can provide mind boggling quality but, I also occasionally shoot under troubling conditions in which a totally accurate capture is not always possible. This can be because of the lighting conditions or because I made a stupid mistake. That is just me, I am "sure" that none of the CiC members ever make mistakes....

Sure, someday, The RAW might change and make the present RAW "information bucket" obsolete. But, if we still have the ACR edition on our computer that will be able to open and process the RAW image, that should be no problem.

[Mike Buckley]

This means that I could, if desired, revert back to some of my original RAW images that I captured and processed in ACR-6 and then re-process them in ACR-7 if I so desired.

I am aware of a pro photographer who participates at another website who thought so highly of the latest improvements in ACR that she immediately began converting all of her old RAW images using the new release.

[Glenn NK]

Richard and Mike:

Since I upgraded to LR4, I've been converting my images with the new process (literally thousands to work on, but some aren't worth the bother). I'm pretty well finished all my landscapes and flower images. And it has been worth the effort.

In many cases, I've been able to bring out more details, particularly in the highlights where I thought they were blown out.

I will not enter into a RAW/JPEG debate, but am glad that I shot all RAW images as it appears that more information can be extracted from the RAW data from the sensors than was previously believed. I would hazard a guess that a JPEG has much less latitude in this respect (and I'm quite sure my guess is accurate - at least all the book writers keep harping on the extra processing capability of RAW data - can they all be wrong?)

Glenn

[orlcam88]

RAW just gives you so much flexibility that I don't even consider using jpeg.
I've gone through a few of my older photo's shot at RAW that I couldn't easily adjust at the time and now a not so great photo can become great (to my eyes at least)!

[DanK]

Following up on Glenn's comment:

In LR4, every time you open an image that you processed with a previous version, you get the option to update the processing of the single image or the entire filmstrip. I never do the entire filmstrip, but I routinely do images to which I have returned. The updating is non-destructive and can be reversed if you don't like the new version. I have had that happen a few times, usually when the edits were extensive and would have to be substantially revised with the new process. The whole thing takes only seconds.

There are of course people for whom shooting jpegs is a perfectly reasonable option, but this notion (which I realize is not yours)

"If the photographer is accurate in the original capture, JPEG is just fine!"

makes no sense whatever to me. It is analogous to claiming that if you shoot film and make the original capture correctly, there is no reason to do your own developing or darkroom work because whatever parameters are in the local shop's machinery will be fine. The issue is whether one processing algorithm, written with no knowledge of your particular image, is fine, as long as you are careful in taking the shot. It will be sometimes, if you are lucky, and it won't be a lot of the time. Even in the B&W days, the best photographers (e.g., Ansel Adams) spent a great deal of time optimizing developing for particular images. There is no reason to avoid shooting jpeg if it meets one's needs, but to imply that the greater flexibility of developing that raw affords is only important if you are sloppy in using the camera is silly.

[AltayHan]

The key is the file format ... if the versions of ACR in the future support the format of the current raw files of our cameras, we will always reprocess our files -whenever we want- with the new processing technology coming to us with new ACRs.

But, if, for example, Canon forgets about the old raw files and adapts an entirely new raw file format for their new cameras, then Adobe may choose not to support old raw file formats in the future after a period of time.

Indeed, I think that we may say bye bye to 8-bits JPEGs in near future ... I think that 8-bits display technology will come to end soon ... and we will hear the term HDR more in near future. Of course, then, we will not call it HDR for there will be no LDR.

[orlcam88]

...But, if, for example, Canon forgets about the old raw files and adapts an entirely new raw file format for their new cameras, then Adobe may choose not to support old raw file formats in the future after a period of time....

I had the opposite issue where PS2 didn't support the new RAW format.
Adobe has a free software that'll convert it to DNG format. For older formats that are no longer supported, Lightroom has the converter built in. If you don't have lightroom, then the converter download can be found here:
windows: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...atform=Windows
for MAC: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=5518

DNG was created by Adobe so that there is an open standard format for all RAW files. I convert all of my RAW files to DNG so that I can open them in virtually any software without worrying about support of the file.

Here is a link that shows the pros and cons:
http://photographylife.com/dng-vs-raw

[GrahamH]

I generally agree with the sentiment about shooting RAW. I usually shoot RAW+JPEG. Until today, when I popped off over a 1000 JPEG only.
First cricket match I've been to in a long while, standard wasn't world class, but entertaining as a photographic subject.
I had two main issues that prompted me to JPEG only - although if I had the resources (money - and far more than I have access to, disposable or not) I would have still shot R+J.
Frame rate - I can choose 1/3/8/12, however I can only shoot for around 1 1/2 dozen. In JPEG only I can shoot for a couple of dozen (the exact figures escape me and are easily found in a manual at home).
Rate of emptying in-camera cache is too slow. It can take 14s (class 10 SD card - even slower with class 4 and don't even bother with a slower no-name card than that) to clear minimum. With the JPEG, it seems a lot quicker (haven't had time to do the actual measurements).
I would love to have had the opportunity to lighten the darker skin of so many of the players, even though it was overcast conditions (at least I had that in my favour), the contrast is worryingly high. Admittedly, everything has been checked on the back of the camera only, hopefully things aren't as bad when I get home.
Graham.
Great learning experience though.

[dan marchant]

Completely agree Richard. After getting Lightroom 4 (a major step up from PSE9) I went back and reworked some of my better images. I figured it would only be worth doing the really good ones, then I found that it was so much better that several of the (what had been) lesser images started to shine.

As to RAW vs JPEG my view is that shooting JPEG gives you a JPEG, while shooting RAW gives you the same JPEG and the option to have a whole bunch of dramatically different JPEGs as well.

[AltayHan]

Thanks for the links, Orlando ...

Of course, DNG is the second alternative now for our raw files and I hope that the industry will meet at such a common standard in the future.

I had the opposite issue where PS2 didn't support the new RAW format.

For being able to use DNG converter, like ACR, it has to understand the raw language of your camera. Adobe is always updating it for including new cameras and their raw files. So, whenever you have a new camera, you may not convert your raw files to DNG format with the converter ... you have to wait Adobe for coming updates for the DNG converter. In this respect, there is no difference between the converter and ACR or Lightroom. If a raw has support in ACR and Lightroom, then it has also support in the converter.

[rpcrowe]

Speaking about burst capture in RAW... I shot the demolition of a power plant a while ago. I used my 7D and recorded on a Lexar Professional 400x 16GB UDMA, CF Card. I chose the low speed burst of my 7D (3FPS) because I had never shot a demolition/implosion before and I wanted to capture the action from start to finish..

I captured 60 frames from the beginning of the implosion to the point at which there was just smoke, dust and debris left.

My camera never stopped shooting during the entire implosion and it only stopped when I released my finger from the button!

I have not tried to determine the longest possible burst at maximum speed nor have I attempted to ascertain how long the camera would have kept firing at 3 FPS.

BTW: Due to sheer laziness; I have not upgraded to the latest firmware for the 7D.

I have noticed that slower cards do not have the same capability when shooting with the 7D. Especially if capturing in JPEG + RAW...