Untitled Document

Dan,

I'd like your take, either here, or in a future article on Raw image processors. I don't question the value in having access to the raw image. OTOH, there are a growing number of practices and beliefs, tied to raw image processing, that are divorced from the appearance of the final image.

IOW, the cargo cult's hold in the photographic world is as firm as ever.

http: //www.physics.brocku.ca/etc/cargo_cult_science.html

Mike Russell

www.curvemeister.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Sigh, this is definitely the case. I've now written several articles for various pubs attempting to lucidly explain the difference and when to shoot which of Raw or JPEG or both, but as with many aspects of photography there are many people anxious to believe that applying more technology is the most essential ingredient to improvement. On our Forums we get many forums of the form, "Gee, I guess to get images as good as the others I see here I need to shoot Raw". As hopefully all of us on this list know:-), Raw is a tool, not a silver bullet.

But Raw also helps sell hardware & software so there is a lot of industry weight being thrown behind it which accelerates the "stampede". One article I did in '04 that's online is:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1625132,00.asp. I've done an update

which should be available soon.

--David Cardinal

http://www.nikondigital.org

http://www.cardinalphoto.com

___________________________________________________________________________

There are such overwhelming advantages in principle to shooting RAW versus JPEG that off-the-top I find it difficult to see what there is to discuss about this subject. Some of those who stake this claim have tested the alternatives. Of course there are images for which it will make no APPARENT difference - but there must be many others for which it does. Unless someone is prepared to yet again slug through a representative sample of the universe of images comparing the outcomes or post-capture processing in RAW versus JPG, not only is there little new evidence to talk about, but I would see this as rapidly degenerating into the kind of inconclusive debates that have happened over 8 versus 16 bit editing and RGB98 versus ProPhoto. Not to be misunderstood - we should remain open-minded about such things - and if Dan can bring striking new valid empirical evidence to the table on this subject, all the more power to him. I am only sounding a note of caution about the high risk of this topic to evolve in the direction of sterility.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Mark--Potential final image quality is only one aspect of the issue. JPEGs are quicker & smaller which saves time (downloading & processing) and money (flash cards, hard drives, backups, software). Many work-a-day pros shoot several thousand images a day or at least a week (I shoot nearly 100K/year, and I only spend about 1/3 of my time really in the field), so the overhead of storing and processing NEF files can be daunting--especially on a deadline.

The tradeoff between that and the potential image quality difference is a real one for many photographers, depending of course on what they shoot, how much they shoot, and what their final output is.

Bear in mind that uncompressed Raws from high-end D-SLRs are now over 20MB each so a 4GB card "only" holds 200 and 100K of them takes up 2 TB of storage.

--David Cardinal

http://www.cardinalphoto.com

http://www.nikondigital.org

___________________________________________________________________________

OK David, quite so. No-one can question that what one uses depends on what one needs and can manage. I was focusing on the main issue that is open to debate.

Cheers

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

Mike Russell writes,

That's part of my standing plan, to devote two of the remaining six columns to issues of raw workflow. I haven't decided how to split it up between Camera Raw and other products. The problem with making comparisons is that this is a rapidly developing area. It's not completely clear what the market wants and not every useful feature is already in the products.

When a product like Aperture comes out, the Camera Raw team doesn't just sit there eating bonbons and reading romance novels. They study what other people are doing and think about what improvements they can put in their own next release. And every other vendor AFAIK behaves the same way. A year from now we're going to be seeing raw modules that are much more different from what we have now than, say, Photoshop CS2 was from CS1, or CS3 presumably will be from CS2. So, I would rather speak in general terms about raw manipulation rather than talk about product specifics that are highly changeable.

If I do write this, the reason it will be late in the year is that people have given me a ton of Camera Raw v. JPEG images for Professional Photoshop and it will take me a long time to slog through them all. I have some preliminary impressions but am not ready to share them.

Certainly a number of vendors are seizing on "the raw workflow" as the next big thing, so of course it has to be positioned as something really indispensable. As with most next-big-thing concepts, it will be (actually, it already is) hard to separate the real advantages from the hype.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

On Jan 5, 2006, at 12:14 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

Dan,

I believe that it is becoming important to caution that handing off Raw files to service bureaus is not a good practice; an even worse practice than handing off files that are not a appropriately prepared for the printing conditions. Most of your readers understand that they are responsible for the outcome of their conversions, but I'm guessing that some might not share this awareness.

Raw is more and more being misunderstood by print customers who insist that Raw is the cat's meow in photo technology, and that service bureaus are behind the times for not accepting Raw files. The same thing happened with the introduction of ICC based color management where the myth-hype of color perfection sent a message that folks could deliver ill-prepared files and magic would happen.

So, I ask that at least a caution be offered to readers who might not yet understand that the workflow begins with them. It might read like the caution label on a car battery that states that one should not drink the contents, but it might be helpful for readers to understand the dangers.

Sorry for the vent.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

On 5-Jan-06, at 10:14 AM, Dan Margulis wrote:

As part of your procedure Dan you should definitely attempt to answer this question: if you know the limitations of Jpeg post exposure, can these be compensated for at the time of the exposure? In other words, can a skilled practioner with good equipment get the same result going jpeg or RAW? In all situations, or just some?

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

Yes, it is increasingly common for photographers to be asked to submit Raw files. The initial, sort of reasonable 'excuse', was verifying that the image was in fact a "true photograph". Some magazines (and photo contests) did this as a way do keep from getting conned with fraudulent photographs (the fact that Raw files can be generated probably hasn't troubled their sleep yet).

But more recently it has become more common practice for stock agencies and others. We've actually added a feature to our software product to "also submit Raw image" by request of our users, mostly pro photographers. This is a little scary as I completely agree that Raw files are really just piles of "colored mud" until interpreted. So I'm not claiming this trend is a good or a bad thing, just echoing that it is growing.

If there was a standard for interpretation of Raw data (extended DNG or codification of the Adobe .xmp instructions or something similar) then at least it'd be similar to the embedded profile situation, but for right now there is no standard for interpretation, so it is technically even more likely to result in confusion.--David Cardinal

___________________________________________________________________________

ron wrote:

in all situations? I just returned from a last minute project.. (you are going to love this).. I needed to photograph a cowboy preacher, with hat and bible in-hand..at sunset with large cross located on the side of a hill.. to cut to the chase.. he was late.. I had less than a ten minute window to setup and make my exposures.. I generated 148 images.. the sun had been down for about 15 minutes when I started... you tell me.. would jpeg with nearly zero flexibility (except for problem solving via DM techniques) be your format of choice... not mine.. I like raw.. extra hard drives are too cheap not to take advantage of that option.. sure, if I were sitting on the edge of a college basketball game where I had previously tested the lighting environment and needed to generate 9+ images per second and send them over a wireless setup.. I might default to the jpeg.. the primary reasons for generating a jpeg in place of raw are: 1) I left my other compact flash cards at the office and needed the extra images or 2) I was scrolling through the endless menus on my camera and failed to return to the correct setting, raw. enjoy the evening, jim bean

___________________________________________________________________________

On 5-Jan-06, at 5:38 PM, jimbean wrote:

Yes, this certainly sounds like an occaision where RAW is warranted. If this is typical of what you do, then RAW is probably the way to go.

I don't agree with you that jpeg has nearly zero flexibility. And once you've processed a RAW file, you don't have to "problem solve via DM techniques"?

I could add a couple of more significant items to this list.

-I got tired of processing images in order to show them, use them, etc.

-I couldn't see any difference between the processed RAW image and the jpeg I shot, if I shot it well as a jpeg.

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

Greetings!

I shoot in Camera RAW. Can the techniques outlined in Photoshop LAB Color be applied to these .crw files? The author's comments about CRW and LAB were just ambiguous enough to leave me even more confused.

I hope one of can, in a paragraph or two, rip the veil of confusion from my eyes and/or send me to a link or two!

Jon Veigel

___________________________________________________________________________

On Jan 5, 2006, at 5:25 PM, JONVEIGEL wrote:

Typically, you use any of the controls that you want or that are available in your raw processing application of choice, and then, after you have a processed tiff in Photoshop, proceed as you would with any other image. Because of the nature of the raw image, I don't think you can work on it directly in Lab. Anyway I do what I just described, and on about half of my images, use Lab corrections.

Peter Figen

___________________________________________________________________________

Since I acquired a Canon 1Ds in October of 2004 I have been using it in RAW+JPG mode, so I see both. I have made about 5000 photographs with it since I bought it. I cannot think of a single frame worthy of post-capture processing for which I could not do a significantly better job processing the RAW image in Photoshop rather than using the in-camera JPG - and that is from one of the best professional instruments on the market. Cameras simply don't process JPGs as intelligently as we can process RAW files, and once we try to further adjust a JPG - sure there is some flexibility, but we are nonetheless into all the well-known constraints of the JPG format.

Mark Segal

___________________________________________________________________________

I can think of several situation where jpegs are just as good as RAW:

-any known lighting situation, such as flash, studio lighting, indoor locations where you've been before or done lighting tests, etc.

-most photography shot on a tripod where time and consideration can be given to all the things necessary to make a good shot, including white balance, exposure, focus, etc.

-most photographs where auto white balance works well, ie most outdoor photography

Yes, this is not an all inclusive list, but it happens to cover 98% of the photography that I do.

Your mileage may vary, particularly if you

-are a news photographer or for some reason can't plan ahead for conditions

-have to shoot at high ISOs most of the time

-cannot bracket exposures, for whatever reason

-shoot a lot of very small faces (very large group shots), or round man-made objects

RAW files have the most flexibility but it is at a price. Why drive a semi-trailer everywhere you go when you can do many jobs just as well in a car, or maybe even walk?

If you have professional equipment then certainly you have the capability to shoot excellent jpegs. Don't want in-camera sharpening? Turn it off. Don't like what auto white balance gives you? Then use a pre-set, kelvin, or manual setting. Don't have enough exposure latitude? Bracket and stack your exposures and use blending modes, or photograph with fill-flash.

Lastly, as far as jpeg artifacting being a problem I think that's highly over-hyped, if you shoot the highest quality jpegs in a good camera. I have a Canon D5 and it is excellent, but I've shot thousands with a 10D and made many fine photographs. I don't believe that Canon are the only ones who know how to make a good jpeg.

Jpegs have their limitations just like everything else, so did film and so does RAW. Just because you shoot RAW doesn't give you the ability to be sloppy, but you'll certainly pay a high price for carrying all that data around down the line. What if you don't need to?

The buzzword these days is "workflow" which really means that everyone is finding the file processing quite burdensome. If you cut your lumber with some care to begin you may find it quite helpful.

Suggestion: don't take my word for it. Don't take somebody else's either; go and do your own tests. Make prints if that is your end result and use that as your final evaluation, not what you might see on the screen at 1600%.

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

Henry Davis writes,

This is really no different from handing an Adobe RGB file to somebody you haven't vetted--it's a form of masochism. As always, the key is to keep image manipulation out of the hands of strangers. If you know the people involved and know that they know what they're doing, by all means give them a Raw file. But to give an unknown service provider the opportunity to ruin a job during a conversion is only for those who like to play the blame game after it happens.

In fairness, the provider may be doing the same thing in reverse. That is, a knowledgeable provider is just as right to assume that an unknown photographer is clueless about color matters as a knowledgeable photographer is to assume that an unknown provider is. So, the provider may assume (correctly) that it is easier to achieve a desired result from a raw file than from one a photographer has hacked at.

Naturally, this scenario (the photographer supplies a raw and a "corrected" version, and the provider elects to throw the corrected version away) is very different from one in which the provider converts a supplied RGB file in a stupid way. In the first case the action had best be specifically authorized by the client, because the provider is 100% responsible for the result--if the photographer's effort is in the trash, the photographer is off the hook.

If, OTOH, the provider can just say, look, I processed this image in the normal way and here's what happened, then the photographer is going to take the fall. The provider throws away the .xmp file, drag-opens the Camera Raw file, accepts the default of automated color correction, designates it Adobe RGB, and clicks Open. Owing to a rather strange choice of interface design, this file immediately opens in Photoshop *interpreted as sRGB in spite of the Adobe RGB designation*, if the provider has his system configured to ignore embedded profiles, as so many do. Now he converts to CMYK, prints the job, and tells the client that the photographer was totally incompetent.

IMHO, in this scenario, the provider's conclusion is correct, but for a different reason than what he thinks.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

Yes, there are striking similarities in the context of workflow and responsibility between Camera Raw and ICC color management - with AdobeRGB being an excellent example. The results of your surveys tell it like it is, and I can affirm that print service providers are facing even higher expectations from an increasingly inexperienced clientele. It seems that there is some sort of strange inverse relationship between advancements made in the tools and the willingness of the users to use them in an appropriate manner. As I wrote to you some years ago, the marketing promises and hype that accompany these advances hardly spend one word about their proper uses. Now, with Camera Raw, novices are expecting service providers to make their poor exposures meet their expectations, and they do not see any justification for additional fees for making this effort. They have read a bit about it, and are again being persuaded by the marketing, that magic will take place with the click of a button. As they see it, technology has made perfectly printed images so easy to produce that they turn a deaf ear to print providers' explanations regarding the truth about the subject.

After reading your reply, there seems to be a question that is sort of begged:

Why would one who is competent to supply a corrected Raw file not be just as competent to supply a press ready, CMYK file, thus saving the print provider from further conversions, adjustments or mishaps?

Thanks, Dan.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Henry--That's an easy one for me to answer, at least for myself and others with similar lines of business. Many, many photographers have extensive experience with RGB based color and color correction, but little or no experience with CMYK. A second reason is that of course providing a press ready CMYK also assumes that they know something about the particular output device and process, which they may not.

To take me as a simple example, I'm barely literate in CMYK and send many images into a variety of publications & clients. I can provide a corrected RGB file no problem--many years of experience in that, but not only would I not be competent to create good CMYK files for their various presses, but frankly the editors or buyers I work with probably wouldn't even know what specs to give me or even (in some cases) what country or plant or press the output will be printed on. Sometimes (say a book or annual report) I may send in the images months before they even know how it will be printed. Or for magazines they might print in different languages in different countries on different equipment, etc.

So personally I'm happy to stay in RGB for my client work, although of course for printing I need for my business (postcards, brochures, etc.) I have to beard the lion and produce CMYK, but it is always with some trepidation!--David Cardinal

___________________________________________________________________________

I agree with what you say about the photographer preparing a high quality digital file. However, final conversion that would be done by the photographer would be to a generic CMYK and CMYK conversion by the printer would ensure that the best file is prepared for their press.

I have only one client that requests RAW files and I include on the CD an Adobe RGB that I have processed in Phase One software, it is then up to them to use which they prefer. The majority of my clients wouldn't know what to do with a RAW file.

David Barr

--

Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography

Simplify your Search http://www.photobar.com

___________________________________________________________________________

I think the thing we forget is that all digital cameras alway shoot in RAW, and in fact almost all contain a very powerful and efficient RAW processor.� By this I mean that the raw data comes off the CCD no matter what, and the question is do we want the camera to process it, or just save it to the card� as-is and process it later.

My camera contains almost exactly the same RAW processing controls as the software on my computer.� It's got everything from color space to sharpening, noise reduction to color mode, resolution to compression. � I can even upload one or more custom curves to apply to the images. � And it does all this at 8 frames per second.�� My computer� doesn't even start to think about processing a RAW in 1/8 of a second.� I measure the time it takes in number of cups of cappucino I can drink while running a batch.� The power of the in-camera raw processors is truly amazing, it really shows what you can do with a properly designed integrated hardware/software solution.

So I think the answer is that a skilled practitioner CAN produce the same result in JPEG as he/she could in RAW, in almost all cases.� But you really have to have your ducks in a row, if not it is surely nice to have all that extra data to play with. � Bottom line, shooting JPEG requires a lot more skill.�� That's probably why a lot of pros use JPEG, EG David Cardinal.�

Do I shoot JPEG?�� Nope, I'm not skilled enough with the camera.� Maybe someday.�� I sure will save a lot of $ on hard drives and cappucino.�

Ivan Histand

___________________________________________________________________________

Ivan:

I would agree with you mostly.

Saving on hard drives and cappucino are not to be discounted, but the real cost of RAW is your time.

Ron Kelly

___________________________________________________________________________

David,

I see your point, but still it seems to me that one who is proficient in making biscuits ought not be too troubled with making corn bread.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

David,

Thank you for your response.

I'll venture that very few of your clients are indeed mind readers, and printing companies are less than eager to expend resources in guesswork.

Problems arise during explanations for the differences found in the printed version vs. expectations that are based on the display of larger color spaces - even when the best separations are made for the print conditions.

It is understandable that photographers and print brokers desire the mythical scan or capture that can be used for anything and everything, but it's not reality, and worse, it can be a real drag for all concerned. I'll offer an example, and leave color out of the scenario altogether:

The photographer's project is for a multi-page brochure for an automobile manufacturer. The photographer, in an effort to increase his margin, decides to handle the layout, providing files to the print provider. Each page of the brochure will contain 30 - 1.0 x 1.5 inch pictures of cars.

When the print run is delivered, the main complaint is that the cars don't look sharp and snappy like they should. The previews looked much sharper, and the files had sufficient resolution, therefore, the printing service must have messed up the job.

The problem turns out that each picture was practically right out of the camera, weighing in at 36MB in RGB but reached 48MB after conversion to CMYK. Now, may I say, regardless of advances in processing power and cheap space etc., this is not only a bad practice, but it could also be considered bad etiquette to put 30 of these monsters on a page.

The reason for the poor edges was because of the excessive resolution. Now, this one is a real zinger to try to explain to some folks, but there is simply a maximum resolution that an imagesetter can utilize. I can attest that this very situation has been growing along with the growth rate of the resolution of digital cameras. As cameras have gone from 4 to 6, to 8, to 12 megapixel and so on, there is little or no thought given to resolution at print size - except by print providers who are all too aware of the issue.

You may have heard people say, "a scan is a scan is a scan", or "a good digital camera file can be used for lots of diverse purposes". If they are shot and prepared properly, there is great flexibility to be had from them. But it does take some effort, and this is the part that is being missed. Don't misunderstand - the real pros who are in the know understand their responsibilities and provide properly prepared files. But, like Dan's survey shows, we are getting more and more poorly prepared files. My concern is that this situation will continue to grow unless a better effort at education takes foot.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Amen to that. I'm always amazed when I compare the difference between the

speed of my camera processing images & how long they take on my "state of

the art" computer!

In the spirit of full disclosure, I shoot Raw (or Raw+JPEG) much more often

than I used to (from 2000 to 2003 I pretty much shot only JPEG). This is for

several reasons:

1) I'm doing more large format "art" printing, where the extra control of

the Raw file, control over noise reduction, lack of any possible JPEG

artifacts (although I think with the new cameras they are really almost

invisible) is worth something to me.

2) Compressed Raw on the Nikons is now exactly as fast as uncompressed Raw,

and frankly isn't much larger than the high quality JPEG. Okay, so

compressed Raw is a horror to some, as I'm only getting 9.5 bits of linear

data instead of 12. So for really tricky images I switch to uncompressed if

needed.

3) The newest cameras have super-large embedded previews in them anyway

(actually of higher overall quality than the full image from my old D1) so

image browsing of them can be as fast or faster than the JPEG equivalent if

you have software that can read them

4) Photoshop ACR has gotten good enough that I can easily open most images

right into Photoshop quickly without having to suffer through the Nikon

Capture portion of the workflow.

That said, I am still stunned by the quality of the out of camera JPEGs on

my D2X. When I shoot Raw+JPEG it often requires minutes of fiddling in ACR

(or firing up Capture or Bibble) to equal (let alone surpass) the quality of

the JPEG. There are some interesting technical reasons why that is more true

now than ever, but too long to meander through in an email.--David Cardinal

___________________________________________________________________________

Ron Kelly writes,

I'm not positive that I understand this correctly but I think you are expanding the inquiry further than I can afford. I definitely have opinions on how photographs should be exposed but my books are already cumbersome enough without adding photographer-specific content. So, I've always drawn a line at the point of capture. The picture has already been taken for better or for worse, and we have what we have. Given an existing file, then yes, we want to test whether a good Photoshop operator can get the same result either way.

Now, *could* you shoot differently to make a more easily correctable JPEG? I think so, in principle, but you would have to be very, very careful. The danger of trying to make delicate maneuvers in relatively gross environments like a camera, or Camera Raw, or LAB is that it's easy to damage the picture, too, sometimes beyond your capability to fix it.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

Why I would not send RAW files out is because different raw converters extract different dynamic range, exhibit different false colouraton of highlights, deal differently with banding, introduce different demosaicing and colour artifacts.

A good file converted with a poor or inappropriate tool can end up in the bin.

Same as a good RGB file converted using poor CM system, bad profile, or just unskillfully - prints the way you do not want to name it.

--

Best regards,

Iliah Borg

___________________________________________________________________________

In a message dated 1/6/06 11:23 AM, David Cardinal wrote:

Yes, but let's not forget that the difference between the camera and you is that you are able to customize your choices and then go back and change your mind about the results, whereas the camera gives you one result, and one only, and the original RAW data go lost in the process.

That difference must be worth your time on the computer, in my opinion.

--------------

Marco Ugolini

Mill Valley, CA

___________________________________________________________________________

In a message dated 1/6/06 11:19 AM, Henry wrote:

This is how I see the trends in light of my years in the field of imaging:

For a long time now a growing push has been occurring towards lower prices (salaries included), tighter deadlines, decreased professionalism, unrealistic expectations (at times even ridiculously so), together with a general atmosphere that sacrifices concerns of quality to the altar of pervasively prosaic ones (budgets and profit margins, mostly).

Incidentally, and increasingly so, many companies (my former employer among them) end up viewing education as just another one of the "expenses" to be cut to boost the bottom line.

To me, these factors all seem to conspire to make the problem intractable by simple good will and individual dedication, or desire to be educated. It just seems to me that a far larger dynamic is afoot here, and sporadic isolated efforts will not suffice.

Not to be misunderstood, I myself am all for education and professional standards: it's the way I have been striving to behave in my professional life (with results to be judged by others). But I also believe that if one wishes to turn around such a powerful push toward mediocrity, one must also be clear-eyed enough to contribute to a collective effort to turn it around, which to me is the only way not to end up beat, cynical, alone, and sunk by it.

Best regards.

--------------

Marco Ugolini

Mill Valley, CA

___________________________________________________________________________

Hello Iliah.

What you say seems logical but, when you send transparencies to a magazine (like National Geographic), they can have them scanned a hundred different ways to suit their taste and they are paying good money for that privilege, why would it be different with digital files ? You may like your snow scenes to have a purplish overtone but maybe the editor doesn't, isn't it better to let him choose what he knows is best for his purpose ?

Andre Dumas

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear Andre,

Raw is not a developed transparency. Raw is latent image.

Raw is not designed for a specific "developer", like E-6 or K-14.

"scanned in a hundred different ways"? or "carefully scanned and post-processed further"?

How submitting a high quality TIFF file makes post-processing for snow tint more difficult? Attempts to colour-correct before demosaicing, especially to apply local adjustments, are a good way to get artifacts.

Nature of raw development of Bayer pattern has very little to do with colour, contrast, brightness... Raw development is interpolation, like resizing. Take it from somebody who developed a raw conversion programme :)

--

Best regards,

Iliah Borg

___________________________________________________________________________

Mark Segal writes,

This claim is so far in excess of anything I've ever heard that I have to ask for more details as to what you're doing to these files and why you consider that the same things couldn't be done to JPEGs.

AFAIK everyone accepts that the color-correction tools within Camera Raw are crude compared with what exists in Photoshop proper. Therefore, I think that even the most rabid advocates concede that finetuning is best done in Photoshop. If the original JPEG is reasonably good there's no claim that I'm aware of that preprocessing it in Camera Raw would help the subsequent correction.

What I've always said is the likeliest correction use for raw modules is in the case of images such as the type described by Jim Bean, where the JPEG is of dubious quality. In that case, it might be easier to move closer to the desired result in the raw module than to fix the whole thing in Photoshop.

As I pointed out in another post, I've got a truckload of Raw + JPEG from various cameras, various photographers. I've opened them all and played with some of them. I've set aside quite a few for further study. It's too early for any firm conclusions, but certainly I am not seeing more than a quarter where I have even a suspicion that the raw file might be useful.

Two of my sources sent 1Ds files, but only one sent them in Raw + JPEG form. I see no indication that there would be any gain at all in working on the raw files rather than the JPEGs, but it's a limited sample, so I'm willing to leave open the possibility that there's something 1Ds-specific that results in inferior JPEGs. If you are willing to provide files for publication with an explanation of what you think can be done with them that can't be done as well in JPEG, contact me offline.

Jim Bean: that goes for you, too. I've got lots of Raw files but their quality is pretty good generally. If you have Raws that were shot under adverse conditions that you think are instructive and are willing to part with, contact me offline.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

I was surprised to read on this list that some people think it better to have RAW conversion done in camera. I have always shot in camera RAW prefering to post process with Phase One. The greatest benefit of this I've found is the ability to set color temperature for each picture.

Could you give us the benefit of your considerable experience on this issue.

David Barr

--

Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography.

Stock and assignment photography and

specializing in all aspects of agriculture.

___________________________________________________________________________

Dear David,

Was I saying that? Raw converters are improving, very substantial changes in demosaicing are continuing to be introduced. You can expect RML and Aperture floating point support to be extended. There is a long way until this can be introduced in cameras. And even then - how often are we going to change firmware in the cameras? Camera with raw processor is something like Polaroid pack. Separate development will always be better.

Best regards,

Iliah Borg

___________________________________________________________________________

No You were not saying that. Other people on the list did feel that it was better to use the in camera conversion. I didn't believe this and I thank you for your opinion that confirms what I already thought, that it is better to use RAW conversion software after the shoot.

David Barr

--

Photobar Agricultural Stock Photography.

Stock and assignment photography and

specializing in all aspects of agriculture.

___________________________________________________________________________

One only has to see enlargements made from Jay Meisel's jpeg files to understand that there is nothing wrong with the format and that it is capable of wonderful clarity and saturation.

In my case though, necessity has shown me that since most of what I do has to be reproduced in sizes ranging from the web to sometimes 5 stories tall, the blockiness of jpeg structure is personally objectionable. And even then, this is something which anyone will not see unless it is pointed out. But If I see it, and it does not please me, then it is just "my" thing and I don't want or care to have others agree.

Paco Márquez

661 McKinley St.

MIramar

San Juan, PR 00907

787-721-8554

787-587-7384 Cel.

http://www.pacomarquez.com

___________________________________________________________________________

Henry Davis writes:

The problem as I see it Henry is too many people that are under the impression that "a digital camera file is a digital camera file and that they are all created equal."

When I supply a file I give the client a file based on the size that they request. If they are printing at 3 inch by 4 inch then that's what they get or if they aren't sure I ask what is the maximum size they might use the picture and base the high res file on that size.

I was on assignment with an art director and during the photo shoot, for a corporate brochure, someone gave the art director a 3.5 inch floppy disk telling him there were some picture they had taken on it that he could use. Note several pictures on a 1.4meg floppy. Needless to say they were of no use.

David Barr

___________________________________________________________________________

Marco,

Thank you for your reply. That Dan, and other members of this forum, have some influence in the print trade is the reason that I believe that this is as good a place as any for resolving issues and recommending efficient workflow with respect to Camera Raw. The example I used illustrates some of the confusion that exists - and the example is not even color related.

Your points are well made and I agree that the "larger dynamic afoot" may be beyond our influence. It is amusing from my perspective to observe the growth in numbers of inexperienced print customers wanting/demanding the quality that they have seen in projects that were accomplished by the best and most experienced. Yet, if disappointed with the results of their own print project, they often do not want to listen to any recommendations that would improve the results - especially if it requires any effort on their part. The larger dynamic may just be "human nature" but this would not have been offered as an excuse even 20 years ago.

Some folks are earnestly eager to learn and their efforts will set their work apart. Others, however, will continue to fill pages with over-sized, ill prepared files. The collective effort of this forum is a good place to begin to disseminate the best practices for Camera Raw. The next step is one of getting this communicated to the general public.

It would be great if Dan would make available a pdf on this Camera Raw that would be suitable for printing companies to distribute to print customers or maybe some links that might direct them to resources on this topic. Still, it should be stressed that it is the one who prepares the files that is responsible for the outcome.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Well put, Henry. I agree that this forum is a good place to help build that

larger response that I mentioned in my message, and that individuals have an

undeniable role to play within that broader effort.

Thank you.

--------------

Marco Ugolini

Mill Valley, CA

___________________________________________________________________________

pulled from marco's comments:

In a message dated 1/9/06 11:12 AM, Henry wrote:

that is easy to say... however I am currently launching a handful of files (for three separate polical campains-not a typo) to a real cross section of printers.. three newspapers, the good, the bad, the worst.. conventional cmyk to an area printer that refuses any attempt to answer questions about their process/techniques-thank goodness their printing is better than their proofing, another handful of billboard images printed in cmyk(inkjet),and an out of state direct mail company that when you ask them a question ..both the graphics team at the direct mail place and the head guy at the billboard printer each stated: ink limits/etc doesn't matter.. we run everything through a rip and that takes care of it... and the reality that much of tomorrow's work will be short runs printed (RGB?) on an ever evolving 'digital press'.. toner?, ink, inkjet ink, melted crayons (how many products are already crowding the market).. and the really crazy part is that many of the customers/consumers accept extremely poor work as not only acceptable..but they are actually proud of their project... it is going to take more than a grass roots effort from everyone on this list to make even the slightest dent in the 'progress' demonstrated by today's output devices... certainly it is a near miracle that we have the current capapiblities and certainly the highend services demand qualified and capable associates working towards perfection... but on this list, photographer's lists, inkjet printer lists.. people continue to split hairs over unrealistic gamut expectations that may or may not even be detectable (or relevant) by the viewer .. including lengthy discussions of colors that likely occur only on a specialty color target... it would be great if dan were to distribute a CR pdf for use by print customers but would that actually accomplish anything ... jim bean

also, was everyone/anyone planning on paying dan for the pdf? jb

___________________________________________________________________________

on 1/9/06 9:50 PM, jimbean wrote:

Jim, Henry, Marco and others on the topic,

My clients don't want to hear of any of this stuff. They want to take pictures like they did with film have them developed / printed and get back consistent pleasing results. They essentially want the same when these photos appear in 4 color printing.

They didn't care to hear any of the technical stuff when we did scanning and don't care to hear it now with digital photos. In fact the knowledgeable ones will ask why are there so many formats, as in, more than 100 native camera RAW file formats, as well as DNG (Digital Negative), JPEG and TIFF.

I can't answer this either. All the RAW formats and processors beleaguer me too. If anything I'd want to simplify all this before trying to go out and explain all this to our clients and public.

Lee Clawson

2/\V/\7 Studio

___________________________________________________________________________

lee wrote

amen to that.. you are correct, even when things go down the tube.. the clients/customers/consumers didn't really have a high expectation (or an educated eye) in the first place..(although we each acknowledge our responsibility to do what we believe is best?) some doctors tape you up and only a slight scar remains.. other times after great effort and advanced stitching techniques.. a somewhat larger, more obvious scar is apparent.. but to the patient.. its all the same 'quality'... enjoy the day, jim bean

___________________________________________________________________________

On Jan 10, 2006, at 10:48 AM, jimbean wrote:

Some people get all of the easy clients!

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

On Jan 7, 2006, at 11:13 AM, colorman042000 wrote:

Andre,

There may be some photographers who may not want nor appreciate a photo credit when the decisions of an art director publish an image that doesn't represent the photographers intentions.

Camera Raw files can be processed in oodles of ways that misinterpret the photographers intentions.

Camera Raw is very nifty format, but it opens a whole new can of worms.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Henry writes,

I probably will make something available late in the year once the next book is finished. I think I will have some good recommendations but there is a lot of testing ahead. It would not be responsible for me to come up with such a document now.

Dan Margulis

___________________________________________________________________________

---Henry wrote:

I agree. I have also seen many photographers' transparencies that were not printed "as is", the printed version improved upon the original and I'm sure the photographer must have been grateful that it did. In our case, most photographers send their transparencies "as is" and our magazine has to take it from there, this gives us and the photographers a lot of flexibility.

Very true Henry, no photographer wants to see his work come out badly in print but nor does our magazine so the photographer knows that our art department will get the best output possible from his transparencies. Another advantage to this workflow: when a story includes work from two (or more) photographers we can white balance all images for a uniform appearance.

We are a farm magazine so these methods suit us well but I can imagine that our way of doing things would not be acceptable in many other fields of photography.

Andre Dumas

___________________________________________________________________________

I appreciate what you are saying, Andre. You are right that no one in the process would want a picture to come out badly, but photographers could be justifiably upset if their intentions were overruled in favor of some other, say, "more artistic" approach.

In workflows where Camera Raw files are being delivered, Adobe Camera Raw is only one tool that might be used to begin the process of making a print ready version. With this one tool, there is already a growing misunderstanding of aspects that don't even concern color. Like I said, the Camera Raw format presents some really nifty ideas. But, so do race cars,

speedboats, nail guns, chain saws, etc.

Henry Davis

___________________________________________________________________________

Thanks, Dan. Even this late into the game, Camera Raw seems to be presenting some users with mysteries that are becoming myth.

Henry Davis