Actually, it is about RAW. If you shoot JPEGs, all you have to worry about is filtering out the junk and crop/sat/usm. Not having to convert images saves a LOT of time when you're going for volume. Few current dSLRs will bog down when you're bursting JPEGs, especially medium JPEGs. Plus the 20D makes awesome JPEGs.
See my long boring post. Probably it didn't make sense, but I mostly agree with you but am still experimenting with raw.
No kidding. One of my co-workers just spent $18K on a new motor.
That's like three 1DMKII's or 2 1DsMKII's or as they say in the UK,
quite a bit of kit
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Future proofing
What does everyone think about the issue of shooting JPEG or RAW today and how it impacts what you can do with your images in the future?
Camera and software manufacturers are constantly trying to improve their RAW processing tools. As computers get faster, designers can make their processing algorithms even more complex. So over time we can be pretty sure that there will be improvements in RAW processing. The difference between todays tools and the tools we will have five or ten years from now might be insignificant, or it might be very noticable. I can see an argument for shooting RAW just to keep as much data as you can, because although with today's tools you are satisfied with a camera generated JPEG, with tomorrow's tools you might not be.
On the other hand an argument can be made that ten years from now Photoshop 16 (or will it be called Photoshop CS 8 ) will be able to open and save JPEGs, but it might not be able to open a 20D or D-70 RAW file. So if you want to be able to open your files in the future, JPEG is the way to go. IMHO I think over the next year or so we'll see Adobe's DNG or a rival format become the format of choice for long term storage of RAW files and the long term compatibility issue will be taken care of.
If you haven't figured it out already, I'm a RAW guy. I'd like to hear from one of the JPEG folks on these issues.
What does everyone think about the issue of shooting JPEG or RAW today and how it impacts what you can do with your images in the future?
Camera and software manufacturers are constantly trying to improve their RAW processing tools. As computers get faster, designers can make their processing algorithms even more complex. So over time we can be pretty sure that there will be improvements in RAW processing. The difference between todays tools and the tools we will have five or ten years from now might be insignificant, or it might be very noticable. I can see an argument for shooting RAW just to keep as much data as you can, because although with today's tools you are satisfied with a camera generated JPEG, with tomorrow's tools you might not be.
On the other hand an argument can be made that ten years from now Photoshop 16 (or will it be called Photoshop CS 8 ) will be able to open and save JPEGs, but it might not be able to open a 20D or D-70 RAW file. So if you want to be able to open your files in the future, JPEG is the way to go. IMHO I think over the next year or so we'll see Adobe's DNG or a rival format become the format of choice for long term storage of RAW files and the long term compatibility issue will be taken care of.
If you haven't figured it out already, I'm a RAW guy. I'd like to hear from one of the JPEG folks on these issues.
yeah, that's a constant worry. i think that older formats will continue to be supported, i'm wondering, how hard is it to leave the .cr2 support in adobe camera raw? prolly not that hard...
but - to be certain, i make a fs jpg of all my "final" images, and i keep that, too.
On the other hand an argument can be made that ten years from now Photoshop 16 (or will it be called Photoshop CS 8 ) will be able to open and save JPEGs, but it might not be able to open a 20D or D-70 RAW file. So if you want to be able to open your files in the future, JPEG is the way to go. IMHO I think over the next year or so we'll see Adobe's DNG or a rival format become the format of choice for long term storage of RAW files and the long term compatibility issue will be taken care of.
I've had good experiences with jpeg 2000 which adobe supports (but it's a "goodie", not installed by default. jpeg 2000 supports lossless, 16 bit images in all the colorspaces (LAB, CMYK as well as GS and RGB.) From what I understand Tiger (the next major rev of OS X) will support jpeg 2000 in some fundemental way that will allow many applictions to support it automatically. Jpeg 2k files are a lot smaller than tiff or psd files and contain essentially the same info. They are slow to make, though.
BTW, why be a "raw guy" or a "jpeg folk"? I think that's like being a "hammer guy" vs being a "screwdriver guy". Understand the tools available and then pick the right tool for the job instead of subscribing to a religion.
yeah, that's a constant worry. i think that older formats will continue to be supported, i'm wondering, how hard is it to leave the .cr2 support in adobe camera raw? prolly not that hard...
You're right. For now, it's no big deal to leave older cameras in the Camera RAW plug in. However, I can see two reasons why Adobe might pull older cameras out at some point in the future: 1) The amount of code for Camera RAW starts to get out of hand - If Camera RAW starts to rival Photoshop in terms of size, Adobe is going to look for ways to trim some fat. 2) If there is a radical change in how Camera RAW interacts with the rest of Photoshop, Adobe may not want to spend the resources to update all of the cameras, especially if some of the cameras have been out of production for years.
You're right. For now, it's no big deal to leave older cameras in the Camera RAW plug in. However, I can see two reasons why Adobe might pull older cameras out at some point in the future: 1) The amount of code for Camera RAW starts to get out of hand - If Camera RAW starts to rival Photoshop in terms of size, Adobe is going to look for ways to trim some fat. 2) If there is a radical change in how Camera RAW interacts with the rest of Photoshop, Adobe may not want to spend the resources to update all of the cameras, especially if some of the cameras have been out of production for years.
Personally, I think the whole RAW thing will eventually go away and all the cameras will produce the same lossless format. For a while this looked as if it might be tiff, but RAW is smaller. Once the IP issues of jpeg 2k are worked out, perhaps that will work. Anyway, if (once) the camera manufacturers standardize, the whole raw converter thing will start to look like a dinosaur.
BTW, why be a "raw guy" or a "jpeg folk"? I think that's like being a "hammer guy" vs being a "screwdriver guy". Understand the tools available and then pick the right tool for the job instead of subscribing to a religion.
Poor choice of words on my part. I agree 100% that RAW vs. JPEG is just another control on the camera and there are times when you need to adjust that control. When I say "I'm a RAW guy" I mean that when I'm out shooting for myself, under normal conditions, 9 times out of 10, the camera is going to be in RAW mode. However, when the situation calls for it, I shoot JPEG.
Personally, I think the whole RAW thing will eventually go away and all the cameras will produce the same lossless format. For a while this looked as if it might be tiff, but RAW is smaller. Once the IP issues of jpeg 2k are worked out, perhaps that will work. Anyway, if (once) the camera manufacturers standardize, the whole raw converter thing will start to look like a dinosaur.
I hadn't thought about that but you're right. A few years from now the typical digicam is going to have more computer horsepower than a current desktop computer. It wont be a big deal to write files off in some ultra trick format that currently isn't practical.
yeah, that's a constant worry. i think that older formats will continue to be supported, i'm wondering, how hard is it to leave the .cr2 support in adobe camera raw? prolly not that hard...
Prolly is, actually. It becomes an explosion after time as more and more new RAW formats come around. Already there are some RAW formats not supported. Its why proprietary files are bad, and standard formats (i.e. DNG) are good. Imagine, Andy, if your Canon EOS-1 took a different film emulsion than a pro Nikon body. And that EOS-1 took different film emulsion than an EOS Elan. Which was different than a Canon point-and-shoot 35mm. I think you get the idea.
Further, this problem extends well beyond Adobe Camera Raw. Say I purchase an Epson P-2000 photo wallet, and in two years I buy a new camera body that has yet another RAW format. My wallet doesn't understand it. I have to wait for an update, assuming Epson will do so. All big if's.
Standards are what make the pace of technology manageable.
...Adobe is going to look for ways to trim some fat. 2) If there is a radical change in how Camera RAW interacts with the rest of Photoshop, Adobe may not want to spend the resources to update all of the cameras, especially if some of the cameras have been out of production for years.
I think this is a part of the reason Adobe wants DNG/Adobe Camera Raw
to be adopted. It simpliefies support for the various different RAW formats
and allows them to contain some of the bloat.
While I agree that keeping support for cr2 is 'easy', it adds to the support
cost over time. By support I mean things like feature & compatibility testing
in new releases in addition to traditional customer support issues.
The real worry is whether or not manufacturers will support a
standard they don't have a great deal of control over or worse, if a
vendor like Canon decides to "extend" the standard once it's adopted
(ala IIS/IE).
Ian
Moderator Journeys/Sports/Big Picture :: Need some help with dgrin?
Comments
That's like three 1DMKII's or 2 1DsMKII's or as they say in the UK,
quite a bit of kit
Ian
What does everyone think about the issue of shooting JPEG or RAW today and how it impacts what you can do with your images in the future?
Camera and software manufacturers are constantly trying to improve their RAW processing tools. As computers get faster, designers can make their processing algorithms even more complex. So over time we can be pretty sure that there will be improvements in RAW processing. The difference between todays tools and the tools we will have five or ten years from now might be insignificant, or it might be very noticable. I can see an argument for shooting RAW just to keep as much data as you can, because although with today's tools you are satisfied with a camera generated JPEG, with tomorrow's tools you might not be.
On the other hand an argument can be made that ten years from now Photoshop 16 (or will it be called Photoshop CS 8
If you haven't figured it out already, I'm a RAW guy. I'd like to hear from one of the JPEG folks on these issues.
yeah, that's a constant worry. i think that older formats will continue to be supported, i'm wondering, how hard is it to leave the .cr2 support in adobe camera raw? prolly not that hard...
but - to be certain, i make a fs jpg of all my "final" images, and i keep that, too.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
BTW, why be a "raw guy" or a "jpeg folk"? I think that's like being a "hammer guy" vs being a "screwdriver guy". Understand the tools available and then pick the right tool for the job instead of subscribing to a religion.
Poor choice of words on my part. I agree 100% that RAW vs. JPEG is just another control on the camera and there are times when you need to adjust that control. When I say "I'm a RAW guy" I mean that when I'm out shooting for myself, under normal conditions, 9 times out of 10, the camera is going to be in RAW mode. However, when the situation calls for it, I shoot JPEG.
Prolly is, actually. It becomes an explosion after time as more and more new RAW formats come around. Already there are some RAW formats not supported. Its why proprietary files are bad, and standard formats (i.e. DNG) are good. Imagine, Andy, if your Canon EOS-1 took a different film emulsion than a pro Nikon body. And that EOS-1 took different film emulsion than an EOS Elan. Which was different than a Canon point-and-shoot 35mm. I think you get the idea.
Further, this problem extends well beyond Adobe Camera Raw. Say I purchase an Epson P-2000 photo wallet, and in two years I buy a new camera body that has yet another RAW format. My wallet doesn't understand it. I have to wait for an update, assuming Epson will do so. All big if's.
Standards are what make the pace of technology manageable.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
to be adopted. It simpliefies support for the various different RAW formats
and allows them to contain some of the bloat.
While I agree that keeping support for cr2 is 'easy', it adds to the support
cost over time. By support I mean things like feature & compatibility testing
in new releases in addition to traditional customer support issues.
The real worry is whether or not manufacturers will support a
standard they don't have a great deal of control over or worse, if a
vendor like Canon decides to "extend" the standard once it's adopted
(ala IIS/IE).
Ian