Heard an interesting claim today

Nero

Senior Member
So I attended a presentation at a local camera club tonight and the man giving the presentation was talking about printing your images. During the presentation he casually mentioned that, in his mind, RAW is overrated and "on its way out." Quite a few people laughed, including me, and for a second I thought he was joking but I think he was being serious.

I think his reasoning was something about how everyone has a different method to doing RAW files and no-one will be able to read them all which sounds ridiculous as that's what people are doing. I don't know, maybe I misunderstood him. Anyway, thought I'd share this as I figured you guys would get a chuckle out of this.

I would like to point out that this was NOT a young hipster, wannabe photographer as you might think but a man in his 60's at least (I would say.)

Sent from my SM-N920W8 using Tapatalk
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
In the not to distant future, all you may have to shoot with is either your smartphone or very expensive professional gear. Entry level DSLRs will likely become as rare as instant film cameras and film and processing for amateur use.
 
In the not to distant future, all you may have to shoot with is either your smartphone or very expensive professional gear. Entry level DSLRs will likely become as rare as instant film cameras and film and processing for amateur use.

I think you may be correct. Smart phones are getting better every day.
 

Bikerbrent

Senior Member
I can't wait to see the first smartphone with a real 500 mm f/4 lens! ;)

WM

I don't think you will. However, you will be looking at a $20,000 investment to get the pro level DSLR and lens. Nikon, Canon, ET-all can't afford to make a $2500 consumer DSLR and 500mm lens for the 200 or so customer base which is what will soon be the case.
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
I don't think you will. However, you will be looking at a $20,000 investment to get the pro level DSLR and lens. Nikon, Canon, ET-all can't afford to make a $2500 consumer DSLR and 500mm lens for the 200 or so customer base which is what will soon be the case.


So, you're telling me to get it now while the gettins are good!

WM
 

Vixen

Senior Member
Looks how they raved about CD's... and now LP's are making a comeback. I think I'll have on to my cameras for just a little longer. Maybe the idea of DSLR's won't die as fast as you think
 

mikew_RIP

Senior Member
I can see raw hitting the sidelines in a lot of situations especially with the vast number of photographers that only take holiday and family snaps ( could be like that already), sometimes i wonder how many of the new members we get then lose after a few posts are put off by the raw push from forums like this.
Raw is not needed to be able to take pictures and enjoy photography its only needed if the desire to take it further is there, raw is something most of us choose to use but in camera jpegs are getting better all the time.
Digital has made photography easier cheaper and quicker than the film days raw can start to reverse that situation for many owners.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
To me, JPEG is the equivalent of autonomous driving. It is the inevitable future, and most people don't care or like the convenience, but as an enthusiast, do you really want to leave all the decision making to a computer? Uhmm....
 

Eduard

Super Mod
Staff member
Super Mod
So I attended a presentation at a local camera club tonight and the man giving the presentation was talking about printing your images. During the presentation he casually mentioned that, in his mind, RAW is overrated and "on its way out." Quite a few people laughed, including me, and for a second I thought he was joking but I think he was being serious.

I think his reasoning was something about how everyone has a different method to doing RAW files and no-one will be able to read them all which sounds ridiculous as that's what people are doing. I don't know, maybe I misunderstood him. Anyway, thought I'd share this as I figured you guys would get a chuckle out of this.

Not trying to stir the pot and for perspective, I only shoot in RAW. I've seen many articles by sports photographers that use jpg in order to maximize capture speed. One reason some folks are moving to or considering mirrorless cameras is the ability to have image "preview" via EVFs. In the Fuji world, the color profiles are so well regarded that shooting jpg only is a frequent topic of conversation.

To me, JPEG is the equivalent of autonomous driving. It is the inevitable future, and most people don't care or like the convenience, but as an enthusiast, do you really want to leave all the decision making to a computer? Uhmm....

I can hear it now, "Siri, capture the image of INSERT NAME while making the background blurry and colors pop."
 

Iansky

Senior Member
I did transition across to Fuji Mirrorless after a career (20+yrs - 11yrs in Berlin working for US Government until the fall of the wall then 9 yrs back here in UK) as a working photographer using Nikon as the primary 35mm units.

As much as I enjoyed the Fuji's, the IQ and tactile operations after using the Nikon D3s and D810 did not cut it for my style of shooting sporting events etc so back to Nikon - I have never been able to have the confidence in JPEG only shooting and still to this day find that I can pull more from my Raw images so will continue to shoot Raw.

It is very much a "Horses for courses" case and for many JPEG's deliver what the user wants but for me RAW is the way.
 
Last edited:

Blade Canyon

Senior Member
I made the mistake last weekend of setting my camera to "JPEG only" so I wouldn't have to worry about memory space at an all day event. It was quite a letdown to realize how much editing ability I gave up when processing the pics later.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
For many, a camera a device to capture images, and for some, it is a raw material collector from which they make an image for viewing by others. Two very different views of the visual arts and they are going to be used. For the former, it is primarily a memory enhancement activity while for the latter, it is an original visual experience not a reminder of what was before.
Both are perfectly valid uses for cameras and often both uses are intended by the same photographer at different times.
So in regards to the capture style, JPG is almost perfect, it does not need post processing to serve its purpose, if fast, and takes up less memory. Phones nowadays are a fine substitute for a dedicated camera. Last winter we took a trip to 3 new countries for both my GF and myself and I took a D800 and some lenses, up to the carry-on weight limit, plus my Note 4 phone. Total count was about 2000 shots with the phone and 1500 with the DSLR which represented the ratio of art/or potentially printed images to vacation memory reminders. Some of the mountains we hiked in deep snow were at 14,000ft and and -24 degrees and the phone worked flawlessly but the D800 batteries had a battery life of only minutes. I carried a batch of batteries knowing that the battery chemistry really slows down in the cold.
Most my shooting is with a DSLR and depending on the application or final use, I shoot with RAW and JPG and use the jpg if possible for things like events where the organizers want files in their hands quickly but for portraits, fashion, outdoor or studio multiple light shoots, RAW is the standard. JPG is very good, much better than needed in most cases unless serious exposure problems exit since they are not very flexible files. Metering options are getting so good that more and more, JPGs are pretty darn well exposed.
So a long comment just to say both RAW and JPG have very good reasons to recommend them. Neither one is going away because the do different jobs.
RAW files for the D850 are around 100Mb each at full uncompressed mode which means some RAW fans will switch to JPG when there is no compelling reason to store such a large file. I got the chance to use a D850 last week and looking at the rear screen and on my monitor, I have the distinct impression that unless badly set in manual mode these files will not need many if any post processing. The colors and detail are the best I have seen, regardless of format. Is this possibly what the speaker at the club might have meant, that rendering engines are getting so that more ends of the spectrum application can use JPG SOOC?
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I made the mistake last weekend of setting my camera to "JPEG only" so I wouldn't have to worry about memory space at an all day event. It was quite a letdown to realize how much editing ability I gave up when processing the pics later.
Did the same thing once... Came to same conclusion.

I'm not saying JPG's don't have their place, they certainly, do... I'm just not IN that place very often.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
... So a long comment just to say both RAW and JPG have very good reasons to recommend them. Neither one is going away because the do different jobs. ...
Is this possibly what the speaker at the club might have meant, that rendering engines are getting so that more ends of the spectrum application can use JPG SOOC?

Thanks for your well-reflected thoughts, Stan. Not sure I agree with your RAW/JPEG conclusion when looking down the road, though. If current trends continue, the ratio between RAW and JPEG may become so low that only specialized pro software tools, at pro prices, will continue to support the ever evolving RAW formats. I agree JPEG quality is getting better all the time, and I am blown away by what phones can do these days as long as their limitations (low light, reach, ...) aren't exceeded, but it will be a sad day when photo amateurs find themselves unable to use RAW as part of their artistic workflows because mass-market support for it has dried up.

This is admittedly a gloomy scenario, but I see the general trend pointing in that very direction.
 

spb_stan

Senior Member
Do you really think that where there was interest in RAW that providers would not be found? It is far easier to develop a RAW rendering program than design a new camera. There will always be people willing to fill even small niche markets in software. There are full featured programs out there which are free and highly sophisticated such as RawTherapee. Even the pro market is not so tiny, a million or more full time pros and 10s of millions of serious amateurs, too large a niche to ignore. It is more likely that Nikon and others drop out of the consumer market and focus on higher end equipment, than software companies drop out of supporting raw.
 

lokatz

Senior Member
So far, even the niches are fairly big. While RAWs get more complicated (think about focus stacking or post-shot focusing), meaning the complexity goes up, the niches will become smaller. All I can say is I really hope you're right.
 
Top