D2X Gossip

Craig: The other side of the coin:

RAW workflow is just a different kind of workflow to JPEG. In most cases you need a different photo browser, a different image editor (CS vs Elements), and more storage. Transfers take longer - especially if you use USB2 vs cardbus - and there is just plain that extra step.

But then again, if you NEVER touch the raw files, then the only extra step is the extra image transfer time. I don't usually fill a card, even shooting RAW, so I think media size probably falls out of the equation too.

If you don't touch the RAW files this year, or even next, I'm sure you will want to come back to some of them eventually. There have ben MANY times where I have gone back to JPEG images before I started shooting RAW and I've said to myself "dangit, where's my shadow slider!"

Back to my original point - RAW workflow is different workflow, and I guess it's intimidating to some. But it need not be.

Cheers

James

How many pros shoot JPG underwater?  If there are any there needs to be some serious education. 

I know one other pro who shoots JPG, and he claims that it's better than RAW, but that's because his RAW workflow isn't quite right. And that's a big deal -- these guys have lots of re-learning to do, and some of them actually get better results shooting RAW than JPG (even though you can just use the manufacturer's converter to get even better results, by default, at least, on the Canon side -- I'm not too familiar with Nikon's RAW conversion results, but I hear they are great).

Charles Hood, who works for Dive Magazine in the UK, shoots mainly JPG. DIVE's art editor hates TIFF(!) and Charles shoots too much to have time for RAW conversion. He was also a winner in the Wildlife Photog of the Year (but I don't know if that shot was a jpg).

Alex

Hey Alex, I was in Bermuda at their BSAC, was going trough some BSAC Dive magazine killing time before my lecture, and I stumbled on your article about dusk diving, great suff and let me tell you, a lot of people commented on that piece. Jolly good show!

who cares what person shoots in what format. Is it not the FINAL image that counts? Does anyone really think Ansel's original from film images are as good as his finished prints?

I personally shoot exclusively in RAW for anything, unless I have to attend some crappy party where people just want images to document it as such. Only then is it jpeg.

Ive always disliked the N vs C thing. People get so wrapped up in that crap, and often times forget it's the person BEHIND the camera that counts. I'd like to see the 'chimp heavy' digi shooters just TRY to go back to film, and shoot as well. Better yet, take all these people and give them a disposable uw camera, and THEN see who can take a decent picture.

Yes, the tool matters, but both of these cameras are amazing. Let it be the IMAGES that speak, and perhaps.....just perhaps....we can just sit and enjoy them for a change.

Just my 2 cents.

Best,

Stu

www.stuartphotography.com

As an active decision, Doug Perrine shot JPG for his Wildlife Photographer of the Year winning photograph.  At the time, he was shooting a D60 and would most likely not have gotten the shot had he been waiting for the RAW files to flush out of the slow D60.  This is what he says. I guess he was banging off shot after shot because the action was so crazy.

 

I know one other pro who shoots JPG, and he claims that it's better than RAW, but that's because his RAW workflow isn't quite right.  And that's a big deal -- these guys have lots of re-learning to do, and some of them actually get better results shooting RAW than JPG (even though you can just use the manufacturer's converter to get even better results, by default, at least, on the Canon side -- I'm not too familiar with Nikon's RAW conversion results, but I hear they are great).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As I remember, Doug said he was shooting fast and furious in ambient light and the D60 wouldn't have allowed that in RAW mode. Being near the surface and not using strobes, JPG is less of a penalty. Also, usability has improved since the D60 with the exception of the S3 I suppose.

I think the workflow point is exactly it. People need to take the time to learn and RAW isn't harder, it's just different. I had the hardest time getting some of my friends to shoot RAW because they were intimidated. Once they gave in and tried it they were sold. For some reason people feel conforted to know they get a JPG right out of the camera.

High volume shooting is another matter and something I don't do, but C1 is a tool specifically designed to support it. I don't personally care for its UI but experienced photographers who defend it all seem to like its support for high volume batch converting.

In the end I think its a matter of investing time in learning how to do things. You should never modifiy your original file so why must it be a JPG? I'm a firm believer in maximum quality, 16 bit editing, broad color spaces, and automated conversions to my target output devices. JPG aquisition makes no sense at all in that context. I think it does make sense for photojournalists and possibly event photographers. If you have 0 minutes to edit before you deliver, as these guys sometimes do, then JPG makes sense. We never have that problem underwater and we need more editing as well.

who cares what person shoots in what format. Is it not the FINAL image that counts? Does anyone really think Ansel's original from film images are as good as his finished prints?

 

I personally shoot exclusively in RAW for anything, unless I have to attend some crappy party where people just want images to document it as such. Only then is it jpeg.

 

Ive always disliked the N vs C thing. People get so wrapped up in that crap, and often times forget it's the person BEHIND the camera that counts. I'd like to see the 'chimp heavy' digi shooters just TRY to go back to film, and shoot as well. Better yet, take all these people and give them a disposable uw camera, and THEN see who can take a decent picture.

 

Yes, the tool matters, but both of these cameras are amazing.  Let it be the IMAGES that speak, and perhaps.....just perhaps....we can just sit and enjoy them for a change.

 

Just my 2 cents.

 

Best,

Stu

www.stuartphotography.com

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think Ansel's final results would have been so good had he knowingly chosen an inferior aquisition format. If Ansel were shooting digital today, which he most certainly would, he wouldn't shoot JPG.

I'm proud to be "chimp heavy" and I consider it a compliment to be recognized for knowing how to use my equipment to maximum advantage. Does knowing the technical aspects of your camera somehow make you an inferior photographer? Are you somehow more of an artist if you don't know? If you truly believed that the final image is all that matters then you wouldn't demean shooters for their "chimp heavy" techniques. Will taping over your LCD make you a better photographer?

Terms like "chimping", "pixel peeping", and "measurebating" are simply juvenile insults created by insecure people who feel threatened by new technology and those who understand it better than they do. None of these things are bad in any way, and the ability to "chimp" is probably the greatest advantage digital brings to underwater wide angle shooting. (chimping BTW is reviewing your image after the shot to make sure it is correct, heaven forbid)

I'd reiterate that there's no Nikon vs. Canon stuff here, certainly not coming from me. The discussion is about flaws in testing methodology that lead to invalid conclusions. If you don't have anything personally invested in the brands then you don't get emotional.

I'm proud to be "chimp heavy" and I consider it a compliment to be recognized for knowing how to use my equipment to maximum advantage.  Does knowing the technical aspects of your camera somehow make you an inferior photographer?  Are you somehow more of an artist if you don't know?

I couldn't agree more. Knowing and exploiting the advanced technology of these high tech DSLRs has enabled us to produce many new types of underwater image. Images that were impossible to achieve on a transparency. Available light fliter photography and underwater telephoto were two techniques that couldn't be practically achieved on film. Some of my most creative and original uw images come from a detailed understanding of the technology.

Alex

As with any craft, the faster it is mastered, the sooner you don't have to think about it, those are the (constantly evolving) tools at our disposition and this field of photography is one that benefited the most from the advance of RAW files, I shoot a lot of top side JPG, mainly for a ''I need this yesterday'' line of client, would'nt be caught with my shorties down underwater, I would go so far as to say the less you dive, the more you should depend on RAW, I dont have access to convinient diving around here, so keeping atune to u/w photography is not as easy for me or a lot of us up north, having a nice fat juicy RAW files will bail my sorry a_s until I unrust myself back in the groove.

BTW I must have spent the best of 25 years in a darkroom trying to come up with something close to Ansel Adam, some people are not from this planet, I know technology was not the issue, since I had way better gears than him, technique is what made the difference, and I doubt he would have switched to digital but that point of view is moot since the ol'fella is not here to debate this issue, it's just that when you've seen B&W perfection, well it remain perfection, if it aint broken dont fix it. I personnally destroyed my darkroom (did'nt want to sell or give away that source of toxic waste) and do all my B&W in digital, but hell I'm far from perfect

As with any craft, the faster it is mastered, the sooner you don't have to think about it, those are the (constantly evolving) tools at our disposition and this field of photography is one that benefited the most from the advance of RAW files, I shoot a lot of top side JPG, mainly for a ''I need this yesterday'' line of client, would'nt be caught with my shorties down underwater, I would go so far as to say the less you dive, the more you should depend on RAW,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is in line with my way of thinking. In fact, I love shooting f*!% for that reason. I invest more of my energy creating images, and less editing and refining. The format will never make or break a truly good image.

Enough talk - going diving