Posted: Fri Aug 01, 2008 5:42 pm
(article originally posted to the photoshop_elements group)
I'm being a bit of a rabble rouser here, I'll admit, but I hope you'll bear with me.
I am putting forth the contention that RAW is, for most people, is a fad. I am only partly tongue in cheek with what I'm about to say here.
Here's an analogy that will help illustrate what I mean. The composite inputs - and more recently the digital inputs - on the back of your TV are capable of a better image than the normal RCA or even S-Video inputs. To use them, you get the appropriate equipment capable of producing the signal, hook it up, and bingo, you get a nicer image. How much nicer? The difference is subtle, frankly, and 99 percent of the public is happy with the RF input to their TV.
Contrast this with RAW, which is touted as being a great improvement in every way to picture quality. To use it, you need a camera that is capable of producing a raw image. Fair enough. No additiional cable is needed becuase the same data path works for raw as for jpeg. Now, here's the rub.
Problem 1: selecting raw processing software.
Instead of sitting back and enjoying your better image (as was the case with composite or DVI video), you *must* process your raw image using special software. There are a number of choices of which software to use, including from the manufacturer, or from Adobe. In general, the manufacturer knows his camera, and is able to extract a nicely balanced, default image. You'll often hear the complaint, in the Camera Raw forums, that Canon's or Nikon's raw processing software does a better job getting skin tones or foliage right. The response from Adobe, quite rightly, is that they are not privy to specific camera specifications. Ok, fine. This leads to the next difficulty. Imagine, if you will, that using the composite inputs on your monitor required this kind of investment and decision making - most people would not do it, particularly if the results were not obviously better.
Problem 2: calibration.
You could easily spend most of your remaining photography career on this aspect alone. A large percentage of the discussion of Camera Raw has to do with calibrating your particular camera to match the default behavior of the manufacturer's raw software. There are various calibration scripts - notably by Thomas Fors - that take a Color Checker image and iterate to select the best settings for Camera Raw's calibration sliders. This form of calibration is a will o the wisp because each image has a different set of colors, and different demands on color rendition. At the moment, another calibration method, the DING profile editor, is being touted as a replacement for calibration scripts. We'll see.
Problem 3: the emperor's new clothes.
This is the key to my "fad" comment. For a professional, you would think even a subtle improvement would be significant. I know of several professionals who do not use raw, but instead take well-exposed tiff or jpeg images. The results are completely extraordinary - large images with excellent color. All done without raw. To then turn around and claim that every amateur out there owes it to himself or herself to shoot in raw is simply not true. If your exposures are good (and this is easy to verify with digital's instant feedback), odds are a raw image will not provide much, or indeed any, improvement in your final image.
BTW - I am still waiting for an example of a well exposed image that is demonstrably better than a high quality jpeg of the same subject.
Problem 4: it's a brand new workflow.
Buy a book, and read it. Buy a colorimeter and calibrate your screen. Potentially buy a new monitor, because your new calibrator says it can't calibrate your monitor. All of these things take time to ramp up. Again for what result?
Photoshop workflow, involving adjustment of highlight, shadow, neutral, color saturation, etc, has been well worked out over a period of a decade or more. Excellent results are possible, and it is easy to learn how to do it by the numbers. Camera Raw, like most raw processors, is a largely visual process, and it is hard to apply by-the-numbers procedures.
Problem 5: RAW accelerates the software treadmill.
In any rapidly evolving technology, the software and hardware treadmill speeds up, and equipment that was excellent a year ago, like the D200 for example, is now passe. You need a D300. Or, now, a D700. Each time you step up, you run the risk of obsoleting your old software. This means a new version of Elements so that you can get the latest version of Camera Raw, and *hope* that Adobe will support your new camera before it is too late. BTW - you will probably find that that new Adobe Camera Raw book that you bought is for the Photoshop version of ACR, not the Elements one. Surprised that they are even different? That's the software treadmill for you.
Conclusion: the light at the end of the tunnel.
What's a poor photographer to do? The answer is simple. Ignore the silliness and take well composed, well exposed images and you will be one happy camper. Stick with proven principles and you'll get the same excellent photographs that people were getting before the RAW fad kicked in. Expose your images reasonably well, adjust the highlight, shadow, and neutral, and use the other excellent tools that are already in Elements.
Whew - done now. Keep in mind that RAW does have some distinct advantages - my contention, though, is that the improvements are very subtle - more subtle than the various video inputs on the back of your TV - and, again IMHO, it is foolish to jump into the complexities of RAW before you have mastered the other important elements of photography.
I welcome any comments, of course, and will respond to the ones that are in the spirit of discovery and fun.
Happy curving.
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com
I'm being a bit of a rabble rouser here, I'll admit, but I hope you'll bear with me.
I am putting forth the contention that RAW is, for most people, is a fad. I am only partly tongue in cheek with what I'm about to say here.
Here's an analogy that will help illustrate what I mean. The composite inputs - and more recently the digital inputs - on the back of your TV are capable of a better image than the normal RCA or even S-Video inputs. To use them, you get the appropriate equipment capable of producing the signal, hook it up, and bingo, you get a nicer image. How much nicer? The difference is subtle, frankly, and 99 percent of the public is happy with the RF input to their TV.
Contrast this with RAW, which is touted as being a great improvement in every way to picture quality. To use it, you need a camera that is capable of producing a raw image. Fair enough. No additiional cable is needed becuase the same data path works for raw as for jpeg. Now, here's the rub.
Problem 1: selecting raw processing software.
Instead of sitting back and enjoying your better image (as was the case with composite or DVI video), you *must* process your raw image using special software. There are a number of choices of which software to use, including from the manufacturer, or from Adobe. In general, the manufacturer knows his camera, and is able to extract a nicely balanced, default image. You'll often hear the complaint, in the Camera Raw forums, that Canon's or Nikon's raw processing software does a better job getting skin tones or foliage right. The response from Adobe, quite rightly, is that they are not privy to specific camera specifications. Ok, fine. This leads to the next difficulty. Imagine, if you will, that using the composite inputs on your monitor required this kind of investment and decision making - most people would not do it, particularly if the results were not obviously better.
Problem 2: calibration.
You could easily spend most of your remaining photography career on this aspect alone. A large percentage of the discussion of Camera Raw has to do with calibrating your particular camera to match the default behavior of the manufacturer's raw software. There are various calibration scripts - notably by Thomas Fors - that take a Color Checker image and iterate to select the best settings for Camera Raw's calibration sliders. This form of calibration is a will o the wisp because each image has a different set of colors, and different demands on color rendition. At the moment, another calibration method, the DING profile editor, is being touted as a replacement for calibration scripts. We'll see.
Problem 3: the emperor's new clothes.
This is the key to my "fad" comment. For a professional, you would think even a subtle improvement would be significant. I know of several professionals who do not use raw, but instead take well-exposed tiff or jpeg images. The results are completely extraordinary - large images with excellent color. All done without raw. To then turn around and claim that every amateur out there owes it to himself or herself to shoot in raw is simply not true. If your exposures are good (and this is easy to verify with digital's instant feedback), odds are a raw image will not provide much, or indeed any, improvement in your final image.
BTW - I am still waiting for an example of a well exposed image that is demonstrably better than a high quality jpeg of the same subject.
Problem 4: it's a brand new workflow.
Buy a book, and read it. Buy a colorimeter and calibrate your screen. Potentially buy a new monitor, because your new calibrator says it can't calibrate your monitor. All of these things take time to ramp up. Again for what result?
Photoshop workflow, involving adjustment of highlight, shadow, neutral, color saturation, etc, has been well worked out over a period of a decade or more. Excellent results are possible, and it is easy to learn how to do it by the numbers. Camera Raw, like most raw processors, is a largely visual process, and it is hard to apply by-the-numbers procedures.
Problem 5: RAW accelerates the software treadmill.
In any rapidly evolving technology, the software and hardware treadmill speeds up, and equipment that was excellent a year ago, like the D200 for example, is now passe. You need a D300. Or, now, a D700. Each time you step up, you run the risk of obsoleting your old software. This means a new version of Elements so that you can get the latest version of Camera Raw, and *hope* that Adobe will support your new camera before it is too late. BTW - you will probably find that that new Adobe Camera Raw book that you bought is for the Photoshop version of ACR, not the Elements one. Surprised that they are even different? That's the software treadmill for you.
Conclusion: the light at the end of the tunnel.
What's a poor photographer to do? The answer is simple. Ignore the silliness and take well composed, well exposed images and you will be one happy camper. Stick with proven principles and you'll get the same excellent photographs that people were getting before the RAW fad kicked in. Expose your images reasonably well, adjust the highlight, shadow, and neutral, and use the other excellent tools that are already in Elements.
Whew - done now. Keep in mind that RAW does have some distinct advantages - my contention, though, is that the improvements are very subtle - more subtle than the various video inputs on the back of your TV - and, again IMHO, it is foolish to jump into the complexities of RAW before you have mastered the other important elements of photography.
I welcome any comments, of course, and will respond to the ones that are in the spirit of discovery and fun.
Happy curving.
Mike Russell - www.curvemeister.com