On Sun, 25 Sep 2005, Powell Hargrave wrote:
I agree it is a good policy to save all RAW files and storage is cheap. I
do save the RAWs if the image is difficult to get right or if it is an
important shot. A majority of my shots are easy to get right and not of
great import.
Saving just a high quality Jpeg makes file browsing, organization and
back-up much simpler.
If I do someday wish I had the RAW and if I admit it on the list you all
may say "I TOLD YOU SO!"
Powell
I consider the RAW to be the master. Everything done to an
interpolated copy (whether it be jpeg, tiff, png, bmp, PICT, etc, etc) is
just that... an interpolated copy. There are a lot more advanced RAW
interpolation algorithms coming around. Every step from there forward
loses information, quantizes resolution, and represents a (gulp)
"generation loss."
In fact, just recently, the raw converter I use (dcraw) completely
changed its internal algorithm. It now has much less color aliasing
artifacts with no visible decrease in resolution. Between that and color
management (including white balance, etc), there's no way I'd live with a
single snapshot of the RAW.
Actually, RAW is a fairly efficient form of storage. Considering
that there's 12 bits of "monochrome" data, and sort of real image based on
it it either horribly lossy (JPEG), or horribly inefficient (16
bits/channel RGB TIFF), or both (8-bit RGB TIFF).
I generally render out low-med quality JPEGs from the RAW images I
take. Then only the 10% or so that are worth dealing with are rendered
more carefully. It's debateable (to me) whether or not those JPEGS are
even worth archiving. RAW is non-negotiable.... :)
-Cory
--
*************************************************************************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
*************************************************************************
