Deciever Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I have the most experience with image manipulation(maybe you can see it in my sig \/ ;) and knowing that my first real camera(wish it was a real SLR, though) Panasonic DMC-FZ7 will not include the ability for me to edit the RAW source of the image kinda saddens me.... :no: I'd just like to know for those who have it as an option if you actually use it? And has it been used any by you or saved your butt at any times you can recall? And will it limit some things manipulation wise that you just frankly cannot do at all or as well as you could if you had the RAW source. I've read one article about a guy who talked about RAW and he seemed very against it saying it was rarely useful for him and the camera does a much a better job processing the image and does it a lot faster. And that his girlfriend prefered the cameras processed jpegs over his tweaked RAW images..... Is this guy just an idiot who doesn't know how to use adobe or what? here is his article http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
va7kbh Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I always use RAW because sometimes my camera (Digital Rebel SLR) or I sometimes guess the exposure wrong. RAW allows much more in-depth manipulation of image data without destruction, unlike editing JPEGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deciever Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) wish I could have afforded a Rebel XT I was just about willing to make a few credit card payments to get it too...then I realized the lenses would set me back as much as the camera itself not to mention I'd have to make sure I always bought the more expensive IS lenses -.- ...... I supose I will have to learn to make sure I get the exposure and what not right the first time round oo. My camera will have the option to shoot in TIFF which I will certainly make use of for real important shots that I know I will want large. I also did some searching for a hacked firmware for the FZ7 so I might be able to intercept the RAW image data before Venus gets a hold it.... but to no avail.... :whistle: Does anyone know why cameras do not use PNG? It makes so much more sense than TIFF I'd imagine? royalties? Also does RAW really take that long to open and process? The guy from the article above acts like it takes ages and says it took him 30 seconds to open one up? The article was made in 2005 and sense he is a photographer I assume he has a decent computer with plenty of ram(1gb) and a 2ghz+ cpu but maybe I am wrong :D Edited May 16, 2006 by Deciever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KC Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Why would .png make more sense, in your view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deciever Posted May 16, 2006 Author Share Posted May 16, 2006 (edited) Why would .png make more sense, in your view? it is a lossless format much like TIFF with the exception of a really good compression algorithym which is also newer than the TIFF format hence the reason why it is able to obtain smaller file sizes. I for one will convert any TIFF images I take to PNG immediately. Also from what I have read it seems that some cameras that save in jpg will slightly process the picture to be sharper than the RAW or TIFF..... I'd prefer no unneeded processing such as that, because that is what an image editor such as photoshop is for IF I think it needs to be done and trust me I normally duplicate the original layers of what I edit 50 times or more to experiment with what works and what doesn't =) shoot that is the best part lol.(being able to enhance a photo greatly without anyone realizing it was processed through photoshop, unless of course you want it abstract looking \/ ) Edited May 16, 2006 by Deciever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monkeh Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Nope, it's just too inconvenient. I ONLY shoot RAW if the conditions are horrible, because once you get familliar with how your camera works, nailing the exposure isn't that difficult. (D70 /w 18-70mm) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted May 16, 2006 Veteran Share Posted May 16, 2006 Ken Rockwell isn't an idiot IMO. Like many other photographers, he likes jpeg more than RAW. When you get used to your camera with pro and cons, some will pick jpeg as their jpeg is "tweak" correctly. When you have no idea how the picture will look like, I find better to shoot in RAW more as already said (like Monkeh said). I also like shooting RAW+jpeg. In that case, I have the best backup possible (RAW) and a small jpeg file where I can have it now to show on web, send email or anything else. It's more an opinion and feeling than anything else IMO. Many pro photographers use jpeg even if they are fully aware what RAW is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
instant.human Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 i do RAW+jpeg. the only thing you must do is buy a big memorycard. but thats what you have to do anyways so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted May 17, 2006 Veteran Share Posted May 17, 2006 i do RAW+jpeg. the only thing you must do is buy a big memorycard. but thats what you have to do anyways so... Indeed, I have 3x2GB Cards and that fits my needs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deciever Posted May 17, 2006 Author Share Posted May 17, 2006 for now I have purchased a 1gb for $32 but it should be a really fast memory card which should help sense I keep hearing this FZ7 is really fast. I will get a 2gb later or maybe a 4gb if the price takes a tumble =). I prefer compact flash cards those things capacities can get crazy high at a lower price. So does RAW consist of what 3 color RGB layers? and luminance and chroma layer? And there is no good way to reverse it once it is in jpg or tiff? It really does not make much sense way all prosumer cameras would not offer RAW... after all it is RAW beofre it gets processed to jpg but I supose it is not that big of a deal. Panasonic probably felt it slowed down the write speed but really I think TIFF is bigger than a RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Island Roots Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 I'm relatively new to the DSLR market; been in it for a couple months. I've only shot in JPEG; I assume that once I become more comfortable with my camera and in working with RAW, I'll shoot JPEG+RAW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted May 17, 2006 Veteran Share Posted May 17, 2006 Don't waste your money to buy fast SD card. I don't think the speedy memory will make the difference while shooting. Unless you want a faster card to transfer all your pics over your computer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deciever Posted May 18, 2006 Author Share Posted May 18, 2006 Don't waste your money to buy fast SD card. I don't think the speedy memory will make the difference while shooting. Unless you want a faster card to transfer all your pics over your computer All 1gb cards I saw were no less than $20 and then there was the extra $5 for shipping so I think I can spare $7 extra dollars to go from x50 to x133 =) that and I hear that the FZ7 is a very fast camera when it comes to lag time between pictures but I have also read some who said it was slower than they expected compared to how fast panasonic said it is. I think the weak link would be the card.... But yea if it was double or maybe even $10-$15 more I probably would have just toughed it out. And also depending on my results I might prefer taking pictures I really like as TIFFs and not JPG, so they will take a considerble amount more and having a write speed of 15.5 MB/s vs 7.7 MB/s might make a noticeable 1-3 second difference lol and in a years time that might save me thousands....in seconds.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pink Floyd Veteran Posted May 18, 2006 Veteran Share Posted May 18, 2006 Well you are lucky to pay these prices I guess. Here where I live, there is a significant price difference between a 1x and a 66x (ultra ii) card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts