I really don't see a big disadvantage to raw formats, except maybe file sizes. I don't use the camera maker's included computer software as I haven't found one that's any good on the usability front. The quality of output might be great, but they're not very good at other things.
The camera's built-in JPG compression is often inferior to raw + external software even on high end cameras, saving raw very often bypasses softening and edge enhancement that can't be completely turned off in the camera's setup.
To me, file size is important. I have a managed Aperture library, and because I set my DSLR to JPG, standard, my photos are around 2 MB. If I were to use JPG, fine, that file size would become way larger without giving me much more detail. Only if printed larger than a square meter.
I installed an SSD PCIe card in my Mac, and since it is not cheap file size matters again. Of course if you use a HDD it shouldn't matter, and yes, I could create a referenced lib with all my masters on HDD. But I digress.
I fully agree on the software from the camera manufacturers, as their software tends to be way less usable and polished as the software Apple puts out. On a side note, I really would like for Apple to release an update to Aperture, as it's now over 24 months without an update.
I will however check up on your softening and edge enhancement remark. That could open my mind to rethink my workflow and opinion.
Comments
To me, file size is important. I have a managed Aperture library, and because I set my DSLR to JPG, standard, my photos are around 2 MB. If I were to use JPG, fine, that file size would become way larger without giving me much more detail. Only if printed larger than a square meter.
I installed an SSD PCIe card in my Mac, and since it is not cheap file size matters again. Of course if you use a HDD it shouldn't matter, and yes, I could create a referenced lib with all my masters on HDD. But I digress.
I fully agree on the software from the camera manufacturers, as their software tends to be way less usable and polished as the software Apple puts out. On a side note, I really would like for Apple to release an update to Aperture, as it's now over 24 months without an update.
I will however check up on your softening and edge enhancement remark. That could open my mind to rethink my workflow and opinion.
Thanks much.
Here are the official Apple lists of RAW cameras supported going back to Mac OS X 10.5 'Leopard', the operating system introduced in 2007:
Official list of supported RAW cameras in Mac OS X 10.7 Lion:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4757
Official list of supported RAW cameras in Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3825
Official list of supported RAW cameras in Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard:
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1475
Great idea, throw away half the data and call it an improvement. RAW is used by serious photographers who need the headroom afforded by raw files.
thus, now not to be Cannon Pro/Fuji X10 properly working, your great idea "apple"
some additional info. here, find that : http://blog.freemonthlyphone.co.uk/apple/extra-ordinary-new-apple-ipad-4g-wi-fi-review/
TALE