Day by day, more digital cameras have RAW format in their standard and it’s becoming more popular. For professional photographers that use digital cameras RAW is nothing new. I will try to explain what RAW format consists of in my own words so you could understand the general idea.
What is the difference between RAW and JPEG or TIFF format? To simplifie, when you are taking picture in JPEG or TIFF format, the camera automatically makes some adjustments as white-balance. The RAW format is… raw. It captures the the same image you see in your camera viewfinder converted to digital data. The rest is left for you to decide: you can reproduce the scene just as you’ve seen it.
The advantage is obvious: you get control over the image all over the time: from shutter movement till the final print. You make photo just as you like it. Camera’s processor works like a film: you can see no image until you enhance it in graphic program. Which one? The story begins here. There is no such thing as RAW standard; it means that each camera producer has its own RAW format. And that complicates the work a little. The positive thing about it is that they offer software that supports it. You can also use a third-party software.
With all the advantages as flexibility and huge image data, it’s not a perfect cure. Your skills are still valid. Even more. RAW cannot fix a bad exposure, you are still the responsable of making the possible as good as you can. Actually, I do not consider this as a disadvantage; more like a come-back to classical photography where you control the whole process. The only difference is that you have all your darkroom in your computer.
The subject has been discuted many times. Nevertheless, I am going to put my grain to the granary.
Digital photography is a fact today. It is not a novelty or a curiosity anymore. It has become as normal as the fork. I had the pleasure to live in those remote times when a digital camera was just an idea. The Minolta compact camera I have been given for Holy Communion was really something. I am not about to complain about the pass of time, don’t get me wrong. I think it is just a nostalgy I feel about it all. And I am almost sure that the arguments of the both folowers or adversaries of digital photography is nothing but a struggle between pragmatics and romantics.
I am of the second ones. My vision of photography is to capture the moment before it slips away. I like when I can touch the film. It speaks to me. It has some story behind it. It cannot be destroyed by accidently pushing a button but it is kinder and gentler. I cannot get any sensation from a binary code numbers.
I am not as romantic as you may get me. Digital technology has its advantages and it is undoubtedly true. First of all, its practicality. The images stored on your hard disc, quietly, easy to share with your mom or friend hundred miles away in one second and when you want a print – just send it to the web studio. In deed, it is more comfortable than searching for a good and cheap photo studio; specially when it is raining outside. Nowadays, in our global civilization of fast-food and road warriors, it is more comfortable. I just wonder, who has time to shoot all these photos? Knowing, that the 95 percent of a pictures taken in the world is a crap and bedroom non-of-all-ambiguous photos, I can easy imagine that the majority of digital photos ordered through the web serviced labs are buisnessmen’s toes when sitting in a plane.
I am bitter, yes I am. My nostalgy for “remote times [that] are always better” makes me talk like this. I hope that the plurality of today’s world will let us enjoy what we prefer; whether it is old-fashioned or not (the fork is eternal, I believe). What I am affraid of is that my beloved, old-fashioned photography will be too expensive to enjoy it.
I can only comfort myself with belief that the spirit is priceless.