Keith....I think you have misread what I wrote and developed a blind spot for the smileys
No - but I've got ""animated gifs" turned off in my browser and only see the "laugh bounce" smiley in its initial
grumpy state!
That's why I don't choose animated smileys!
Whether or not it's elitist though Adrian, I really do think it's a very fair assumption that many or most serious (whatever that means) photographers use RAW, simply because of the increased options it delivers for bringing the maximum quality out of the image file. And there
isn't any debate about that advantage.
However you have inferred, correct me if I am wrong, that the best can only be achieved by shooting RAW.
I'm saying that a RAW file gives you the
best chance of getting the best out of the image.
Your argument goes down the toilet somewhat when there are jpeg shooters winnning top awards, yes there are some out there: Steve Young is one of them.
It doesn't go down the toilet at all. Steve's image really isn't about "image quality"
per se so much as it is about capturing a moment - I freely admit that shooting it in RAW probably won't have made a huge difference
for that image because it doesn't look like it was in particularly challenging light conditions. But if it'd been in bright light and the whites on the bird were blown to bits, it would then be
much easier to deal with in RAW.
As an aside, I've got old Birdwatch mags where Steve Young acknowledges the advantages of shooting in RAW, so if he's shooting jpeg now it isn't because he doesn't accept the potential advantages of RAW.
As a further aside, I've seen quite a few of Steve's images, online and in Birdwatch, and they've pretty much all looked rather "flat" - I get the sense that he often chooses to shoot in light conditions that don't push the relatively limited dynamic range available to jpeg.
I had the pleasure of photographing with another, his name escapes me for the moment, he won an international award when he had photographed seals being culled in Canada...just think, photographing snow in jpeg, it's impossible isn't it:-O.
Winning photography awards is no proof of the advantage of one file format over another Adrian - and don't forget either that the
two examples you've been able to quote hardly add up to an avalanche of evidence for your case. As for shooting in snow, you're choosing to inaccurately characterize the point I'm making. It might not be impossible to shoot snowy situations in jpeg,
but it's a damn' sight easier to do in RAW.
And - again - with subject matter like that, it wouldn't have mattered if he'd captured the scene on a Polaroid or a Lomo - the
content, not the image quality, would be the point of that image.
I am sorry if you are offended by my thinking a lot of stuff on the internet is anal
Honestly, I'm just disappointed rather than offended, Adrian - it's simply a very unhelpful observation, apparently based more on a personal prejudice than anything else. Max is asking an honest question about an area of his photography that
can provide real improvements, and to suggest that an interest in the world of RAW converters is "anal" is likely to be very - and unfairly - discouraging.
Perhaps the OP should just examine closely why he should change as though the pressure from RAW shooters is not enough:-O
There are no Real World disadvantages to the use of RAW and undeniable benefits, Adrian - there's simply no good reason
not to.
Here's another advantage of RAW which I and many other RAW shooters positively revel in: as RAW conversion software and the demosaicing algorithms in them improve, it is a really satisfying kick to revisit old RAWs and re-convert them in a new program or a new version of an existing converter - the improved image quality that frequently results gives a new lease of life to old images that might not quite have made the cut previously, and makes already good images even better.
The bottom line for me and other RAW advocates -
Max, are you still reading? It all boils down to this - is that
we've satisfied ourselves that real advantages exist to shooting in RAW. On the (safe) assumption that we're not idiots to a man, it is also reasonable to assume that we've made this choice because we can see the benefits of doing so.
Here's a very accurate summary of why RAW is a good idea. If none of this persuades a given photographer, that's dandy: but it doesn't make it less true.
