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: nathan.wajsman at planet.nl (Nathan Wajsman)
Date: Sun Aug 8 23:24:33 2004
References: <5.1.0.14.2.20040808125118.00a2f280@pop.2alpha.net> <41170178.6020102@planet.nl> <005f01c47dd6$d1ad85e0$87d86c18@ted>

Hi Ted,

I agree with you that on the Digilux 2 RAW is a nuisance for the reasons 
you describe. The reason it takes forever before you can take the next 
picture is that the Digilux 2 has a tiny buffer in which to store the 
images before writing them to the card. A DSLR like my Canon 10D has a 
much larger buffer, so I can take 9 pictures in sequence before I have 
to pause to let the camera finish writing them to the card. Also, the 
write speed is much faster. Finally, I use a 1 GB flash card which 
allows me to shoot 141 pictures in RAW mode before I have to empty it or 
put in a new card, so that is quite acceptable--after all, it is much 
faster to change the card in the camera than to change film, which you 
have to do every 36 images.

As for RAW vs. JPEG--if all you want to do is make a straight print or 
web posting, then the high JPEG settings will produce good results. But 
if you want to make more extensive corrections of exposure, color 
temperature and the like, then RAW gives you unmatched flexibility (even 
compared to film). As someone has said, it is like having a negative and 
being able to develop it in another developer if you don't like the result.

Nathan

Ted Grant wrote:

> 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
>>
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information
> 

-- 
Nathan Wajsman
Almere, The Netherlands

General photography: http://www.nathanfoto.com
Seville photography: http://www.fotosevilla.com



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?)
Message from tedgrant at shaw.ca (Ted Grant) ([Leica] WAS: Color(u)r or B&W? NOW: RAW vs JPEG?)