----- Original Message ----- From: "Toralf Lund"
Subject: Re: Why I Haven't Yet Switched
It seems to me that RAW also ought to be able to give you the same output as JPEG without requiring extra work, though. All the information is available, isn't it? I mean, the colour balance settings etc. applied to the JPEG are stored in the tags of the file aren't they? So it should really be possible to get the same print/file view as with the JPEG with no user interaction whatsoever. Maybe the problem is poor software, or perhaps missing RAW support in simple apps due to the lack of a common file format. If something like DNG gets widely adopted, maybe we'll see more software that will display/print directly from files of that format, just applying the default colour transformations?
One can do batch conversions using the camera's profile, as they are tagged into the RAW file (at least they seem to be), or any preprogrammed or prechosen profile chosen by the user during conversion to a more usable file format, but there isn't much point in doing that versus shooting jpeg in the first place, and you are still using computer time, which may or may not be an issue.
I do batch conversions all the time, I have created about a dozen different profiles covering various lighting setups. They get me close enough to show rough proofs to my subjects, but I go back to the RAW file for the files I want to create a finished presentation from.
The concept behind shooting RAW is that it takes control of the image processing away from the camera and gives it to the photographer. The other side of having this control is that you must be ready and willing to invest the time into exercsing this control.
Software improvements may make this process faster, faster computers will probably play as great a factor, since the amount of data processing going on during RAW conversion is pretty huge.
William Robb
