Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2004/08/08

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] WAS: Color(u)r or B&W? NOW: RAW vs JPEG?
From: tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant)
Date: Sun Aug 8 23:16:04 2004
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040808125118.00a2f280@pop.2alpha.net> <41170178.6020102@planet.nl>

Nathan Wajsman said:
>>> On the RAW vs. JPEG issue, the Copenhagen shots were all JPEGs (highest
> quality setting). But I have gotten wiser quickly and now shoot only
RAW.<<<

Hi Nathan,
I know I asked the other day about shooting RAW or JPEG and the consensus
was to shoot RAW by several digi folks. As Tina pointed out, in RAW it's
like a negative. So I started to shoot RAW and a couple of things became
obvious.

1:
I really didn't see any difference! So maybe what I need is a skilled digi
shooter at the computer with me to point out what looks different when I
down load the memory card to machine for sizing, levelling, printing etc.

2:
However! What ticked me off in RAW after the first few frames was the delay
after tripping the shutter before I could shoot the next frame. The first
time the image stayed exactly as I shot it in the view finder along with the
little square red icon indicating the image was being transferred to the
memory card. Or I believe that's what is happening when you see it. And
while that was going on everything is locked up and you can't shoot until
the red icon disappears.

And because I lost a couple of very interesting quick changing moments
waiting for this recording to complete it's phase, my immediate re-action
was... "screw this I don't have time for this crap!" And immediately
switched back to highest quality JPEG and things returned to normal shooting
as though I were using an M7! Accept this was my Digilux 2! And in JPEG I
now knock off some pretty quick frames when I have to.

So why and what did you see different in your using RAW? And becoming wiser
in doing so? Another gripe I have about RAW is, it's like using a 20
exposure roll instead of a 36 . As in on a 256 card in RAW you get about
half the number of frames.

Dang I sure must be missing something here?
ted
















" <nathan.wajsman@planet.nl>
To: "Leica Users Group" <lug@leica-users.org>
Sent: Sunday, August 08, 2004 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Leica] Color(u)r or B&W?


> Peter--
>
> Thanks! The most important part of your post is:
>
> >
> > Speaking of texture, the 10D photos have a very different "look" to them
> > than your film shots.  Not better or worse, just different.   I can tell
> > they're digital without being told.  Then again, they still look like
> > Nathan pictures, so it doesn't seem that using the digital is cramping
> > or changing your style.
>
> This is very much what I hope will continue to be the case.
>
>
> Nathan
>
> -- 
> Nathan Wajsman
> Almere, The Netherlands
>
> General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
> Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
>



Replies: Reply from nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] WAS: Color(u)r or B&W? NOW: RAW vs JPEG?)
In reply to: Message from pklein at 2alpha.net (Peter Klein) ([Leica] Color(u)r or B&W?)
Message from nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman) ([Leica] Color(u)r or B&W?)