It's probably worth mentioning that many of us never use any camera software. A card reader is inexpensive and much more efficient, although it assumes you have Photoshop or a similar program to handle the files in.

Just a thought.

We've just finished the session at ADAPS, and the conclusions drawn were unanimous, both from the RAW users and the JPEG users.

1 RAW capture reproduces fine detail better in many subjects
2 JPEG capture can be superior in some circumstances
3 All the A3 prints taken in isolation looked fine, the differences only being apparent when they were directly compared.
4 We liked the CS2 RAW Converter
5 For those who only make A4 prints the difference is not that important

Will it change the ratios? Here the poll reveals that 20% use JPEG and 80% use RAW. At ADAPS 10% use RAW and 90% use JPEG.

It will be interesting to see if these statistics re-align in favour of RAW. I'll keep you informed!

Thank you to Arthur for the valuable input.

We'll be "going live" with this issue at ADAPS tomorrow night, and I appreciate the contrary views and ideas. For a lot of our photographers they are given the feeling that they should be using RAW, but they aren't, and they don't necessarily know much about it. Others are confirmed RAW users and we will find out why.

It's all a matter of exploring the possibilities, a bit of education and from all accounts there will be some very lively debate.

I'll let you know how we do!

Thanks, Matt, more good info!

Thanks for that, George, all your points duly noted and into the mix!

OK, here goes with the rest of my thoughts on the process.

There is indeed a lot to think about in the whole procedure, but I do believe that if we start with the best possible image then everything else will fall into place. So we need correct exposure particularly, and although I have seen many references to being able to alter the exposure in the RAW converter, if the exposure is right to begin with then we don't need to. I expose as if I were using slide film, and seem to have no problem in this.

Colour temperature can be adjusted here, or later in CS2 via the photo filters. There's something else to assess - which is better?

Sharpness in general should be done last, which seems to imply that it's better done at the end in PS. Something else to check out.

The ability to adjust highlight and shadow contrast is interesting.

And then I created an 8 bit TIFF. I can't see the point in making a JPEG at this point, which seems to spoil the effort IMHO. Of course we could create a 16 bit TIFF and maybe we should.

My conclusion as regards issues like these is that I will use RAW capture when I want to capture lots of fine detail in the best way possible, making the prints have a distinct edge over the JPEG route. This is an issue of image quality rather than the ability to alter the image parameters after capture. This is why I think it's important for us to understand what we are trying to achieve and then use the appropriate techniques. I think RAW will from now be a part of the process.

I will also be using JPEG capture and I have yet to fully assess which subjects this will be appropriate for, but I suspect that portraiture may well be one of them.

In digital photography the end result required is important in selecting the settings used, and I won't be using RAW files and 6.1MP images to put pictures on eBay or ePHOTOzine!

I'll be interested in any comments, as contentious as you like....

The trouble is, both sides of this discussion have no idea what the terms of reference and abilities of the other side are. I don't dispute that the RAW capture will enable crisper, sharper results, and as Matt says above we also agree that there is no more resolution as such in the RAW capture, as this is sensor dependent.

Far from flying in the face of reason, I have been testing the possibilities and challenging the received wisdom to see for myself. I think I can produce better prints from JPEG captures than many people can produce using RAW, but that is more of a reflection on the other parts of the photographic process. In the same way, Bert Hardy made the point in the 1950s by producing his famous Box Camera series.

In the end a great picture is worth more than a technically superior one.

However, back to the point. I concluded that RAW capture gave superior results. In some cases JPEG can result in a more pleasing print. I also concluded that RAW is not necessary for a lot of purposes, even high quality printing. And probably the ability of the printer to render the detail is a factor there in any case.

I actually have no axe to grind one way or the other, but the real message is "Don't accept the received wisdom as the absolute truth, try it for yourself and make your own judgement for your own work."

But please, feel free to be as brutal as you like, it's certain to be a lively evening on Tuesday when I present this subject at our ADAPS Digital Night.

This subjecy merits a longer evaluation, but the initial conclusions are as follows.

First the software. I have tried Pentax Photo Lab (poor, leaves lots of chromatic abberation), CS2 (very easy to use and effective), Rawshooter Elements 2005 (not so nice to use as CS2 but just as effective)

On screen, it can clearly be seen that, from 200% onwards at least, the detail in a RAW shot can be rendered significantly more clearly. However, there is no more detail revealed, it is just crisper. This is similar in a way to how films of different speeds behave. A 400 ISO film shows as much detail as a 50 ISO, but it is fuzzier.

I say can be rendered more clearly, but would add not necessarily so, depending, it would seem, on the subject matter. Some shots have better reproduction as a JPEG capture, being smoother and having less ragged edges. It is possible that smoother textures are reproduced better by JPEG.

Then I made A3 prints of these two types of subjects, one of some notices with rust and smooth surface texture and one of a very complex and detailed mass of twigs and leaves.

The pictures were viewed by several people and the opinions were unanimous. The notice boards were sharper and better with JPEG capture and the twigs were better with RAW. No doubts from anyone.

The difference was very slight. Universally observable, but slight. Viewed in isolation with no reference point, all the prints were fine.

Conclusion, RAW can give sharper fine detail, but may not be best for all subjects, and if you make prints no larger than A4 you can probably forget the issue altogether.

This is all with refernce to the end quality. I'll add a further post about workflow later on, because that is a different issue.

Over to you for any comments!

I'm just starting to investigate RAW capture, a bit late I know but there's a lot of demands on my time....

So far, we have two lines of investigation. I have tried Pentax Laboratory, making an 8 bit TIFF file and then manipulating in PS7 as usual. The reason - my PC won't take CS2 and there is nothing I really want to adjust in terms of exposure.

Sue has CS2 and imported her files directly into that, no problem, using CS2 to open the files.

Initially, it looks as though some pictures benefit a lot from an increased amount of sharpness. There isn't any more detail, but it can be rendered better. However, some shots, principally branches against sky, actually look much smoother in the JPEG capture - the RAW files are relatively ragged in appearance. Other shots make little difference one way or another.

Any thoughts on this?

The SMC Pentax-A 24mm f2.8 is the same optical layout as the SMC Pentax version. It is an excellent design and a very useful lens for architecture and landscape. Some even use these for street photography.

The original version can go for around £90, so the A version should be good value at the £100 mark.

I agree that the fisheye is of limited use. I prefer the rectilinear ultra-wides.