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.
The point would be keeping your options open, obviously... But the post
I responded to suggested that raw didn't really give you more options,
but rather that you had to choose between using the camera profile and
doing the job on your own at the time of shooting...
The way I see it, using computer time is a bit of an issue if it also
means user time that has to be spent before you can print anything (if
a print is what you want) where you could output the file directly with
JPEG.
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.
Which to me sounds like the sensible way of doing it.
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.
Of course, but like I said, ideally, investing extra time should be an
option that allows you to get even better pictures, not something that's
required to get something usable.
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.
Does it really require *that* much processing? Obviously, you have to do
some kind of maths for ever pixel, but I do that all the time... Maybe I
should try to get the image processing gurus at work to implement the
"bayer pattern" colour space, or have a stab at it myself...
- Toralf
