We are making gross generalizations about a whole classes of people, photographers, soccer moms, web-site flacks, etc, based on a handful of anecdotal examples. OK, I'll add mine. I consider my brother to be a very good photographer. Well composed shots of well chosen subjects, well edited. Willing (and obsessive enough) to do careful work in PS. He had transitioned from ME-Supers to PZ-1, and then to a Panasonic (?) digital P&S 4-5 years ago. Last year after seeing my *ist-D, he finally went to a DSLR. (*ist-DS ? One of the D variants in any case.) This spring we spent a few days together. "Shot RAW" I told him. "Why?" he said. Just do it I said, and I gave him a reference to Ben Long's book on Getting Started with Camera RAW. (This is a slightly more basic book than the other similar book often mentioned here on the list but whose author's name I forget. Fraser?) A couple weeks later he called me. He had bought the book, read it, went out and tried some RAW and jpeg comparison shots, and was a convert.
I would imagine that I would be totally clueless about the existence of and potential benefits of RAW if it weren't for tracking discussions on this list. I don't often read articles in photography magazines, and when I do it is about technique, not about technology.I think Ken's approach is a good one - shoot jpegs when that is good enough for the purpose, shot RAW when you need the extra ability to manipulate. But I would rather limit the number of things I have to think about. I have one monk-in-monastery shot from Bulgaria a couple of years ago when I was trying to manage card capacity by being very selective about when to use RAW. The shot was a fleeting opportunity, I couldn't have switched to RAW even if I had thought of it in the rush to focus, compose, steady, and shoot. And I think I really need a RAW file to bring out the maximum from that shot! Because of that shot and a few others my strategy has become one of shooting RAW always, no exception. All of the RAW files get processed to a "pretty good" quality jpeg, which as Ken has found is usually good enough (to make small prints, to do a slide show via my parents-in-law's TV, to download to my iPod.) If there is one I particularly like, I go back to the archived RAW files and do real work on it. Stan (aka the peripatetic Pentaxian...) On Dec 16, 2006, at 3:49 PM, George Sinos wrote: > I always find this discussion a bit entertaining. Especially when I > hear that question about why people buy an expensive SLR to shoot > JPGs. > > I don't think most of the folks that hang around this group have a > real appreciation for how little most non-hobbyists understand about > photography. I do not mean this to be condescending. There is very > little reason why most folks would know anything about how and why a > camera works. > > Other than the auto hobbyists on this list, it's unlikely that most of > us have anything more than a very rudimentary idea of how a car works. > > On this list, among relatively hard core hobbyists, there is an > on-going discussion about Raw vs. JPG. No consensus, even among those > that know. > > Among my personal friends and friends in the workplace, a few might be > aware of raw. Most take the camera out of the box and never learn > where anything but the power switch and shutter button may be. A few > of the more technical types have flipped through the manual. They > bought the camera because someone told them it was good, and they > wanted to get rid of shutter lag. Most of the other features are > needless complication. > > I get a lot of "soccer-moms" and grandmas in my Saturday photo > classes. Again, the terms are not used with disrespect, but meant to > give you an idea of who is in the class. There are always a few > exceptions, but most still treat me like a high-wizard when I > introduce them to the shutter button half-press. Many of the people > in these classes drop off their memory cards at the local Wal-Mart and > have a CD and prints returned (although in the last year or so this > group is shrinking.) Few know how to use the software that came with > their camera. No more than about 30% or so use photoshop elements. > > There are all good, intelligent people. In their own fields they know > way more than I. They just don't want or feel the need to mess with > raw files. > > So when Phil Askey or other reviewers spend a lot of time on the JPG > performance, it's because it is very important to a lot of people. > > We are a very, very small part of the audience. > > My concern is that we've reached the point where most people will > never see any difference among the major camera vendors offerings. > The "pixel-peeping" doesn't really help them make their purchase > decision. It deters them from looking at other features that might > have a bigger effect on their results. > > I'm sure we all know the guy with a $1000 SLR that prints his photos > on no-name, bargain paper using refilled ink cartridges. > > I'm happy to see that Consumer Reports and other groups have started > to try to debunk the megapixel madness. > > See you later, gs > <http://georgesphotos.net> > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
