text:
Lights out on Bosphorus Bridge marks Earth Hour transition into Europe.
Posted on 27 March 2011
Lights going out on Istanbul's Bosphorus Bridge was a fitting way to mark Earth Hour's transition from Asia to Europe.Lights going out on Istanbul's Bosphorus Bridge was a fitting way to mark Earth Hour's transition from Asia to Europe.
The symbolic action of turning lights out for an hour in an expression of concern for the environment is in the process of being officially observed in thousands of communities across 134 countries and territories on all continents.
In Turkey, one of only a few countries to straddle 2 continents, the lights had earlier been switched off in capital Ankara's Opera House. WWF-Turkey enlisted 250 businesses and corporations and 2,000 online supporters to support its Earth Hour efforts.
The CEO of WWF-Turkey Tolga Bastak, made his Earth Hour press speech while the lights of the Bosphorus Bridge were going dark.
"This year, the lights are going off for a different cause," Bastak said, "we put great pressure on the natural resources of our planet and our ecological footprint exceeds the biological capacity by 50 per cent.
"If we continue living and consuming as usual, we would need two planets by 2030 and 2.8 planets by 2050. It is getting harder and more difficult each day to survive in our 'global home'. We should try living in the resources that the planet supplies and respect the limits of one planet.
"Today, we ask everyone to take this opportunity to question how they can contribute to a living planet by making small changes in their lifetsyles and habits."
With Russia's main Earth Hour events in Moscow still 8 hours away, WWF-Russia's Polar Bear Patrol were commemorating Earth Hour by setting out from their base in the small village of Lavrentiy to the even smaller Uelento, the nation's easternmost settlement on the Dezhnev Cape.
"We know Earth Hour very well," said a spokesperson for the patrol unit. "As we get to Uelen, we will tell the villagers about this action and I'm sure, they will support us. We are glad that the ones who keep peace between the bears and humans and protect the Arctic animals will be the first ones in Russia to celebrate this global event."
As the event traversed 11 timezones, riders in 20 cities saddled up on bicycles adorned with LED lamps - with the northernmost ride in Murmansk going ahead despite the forecasts of a strong snowstorm. The westernmost ride was staged in Archangelsk near the Finnish border. Over the border, the lights went out at the distinctive Helsinki cathedral, Finland and a special Tampere market place Energiatehdas (Energy factory) was set up with the energy being provided by dancers and stationary cyclists.
"These cyclists are heroes," said WWF's Russia office. "In Moscow it is -8 degrees."
In Moscow, talk show host Nikolay Drozdov and popular actor Lubov Tolkalina arranged a dinner and auction for celebrities to commit to Beyond the Hour actions which included abandoning plastic bags and sharing cars. At the new Ecocentre was an environmental education event for children which attracted a range of city and government officials.
Mobile and social platforms spread the message in EgyptTimezones here start dropping deep into Africa where Earth Hour participation boomed. In Egypt, the Earth Hour message was going out on the social media networks that recently played such a crucial role in the country's transition towards democracy, thanks in part to spirited sponsorship by Egypt's largest telco provider Mobinil. Using their extensive networks and calling on the support of Nile City management and the Egyptian Ministry of Environment, Mobinil engaged the participation of Egyptians, switching off the lights of their 5 office buildings across the country in recognition of their own commitments to go beyond the hour, including the establishment of one of Egypt's first LEED buildings.
In Kenya, lights went out at the Kenyatta International Convention Centre and United Nations Buildings across the East African nation as more than 10,000 gathered for a three hour concert in Nairobi with some of the country's leading musicians, including acclaimed afro-fusion artist Achien'g Abura, who implored her fans to make a commitment to go beyond the hour for Earth Hour 2011.
"If there is anything you take away from this year's Earth Hour it is that there is something you can do in the way you live your life that makes a difference. Your lamp may be pretty but it does not have to be on," she said.
Ugandan Earth Hour activists, officially participating in the event for the first time, have spread out into their communities with a range of beyond the hour activities. Enock Nimpamya committed to the training of 10 journalists in environmental reporting and to restore a hectare of degraded land in Kampala while Job Mutyaba will be assisting in the installation of efficient cook stoves in an Entebbe orphanage and its surrounding community. Around 20 individuals and organisations in Uganda have committed to planting 16,000 trees.
15 year old motivates town in SwazilandNathi Mzileni, a 15-year-old boy from Swaziland, was inspired to take action in 2010 when he realised his town near Shewula Nature Reserve in the east of the country did not participate in Earth Hour. He started a group at his High School called Green Enviro to educate people about climate change, and this year single-handedly made Earth Hour a reality with major buildings in Simunye turning off including the Church of the Nazarene, the Simunye National Library, Simunye Country Club and major schools such as the Ngomane and Lusoti Primary Schools and Lusoti High.
Earlier this week, in Botswana, Former President Festus Mogae was among members of the public who came in large numbers to plant trees, in Gakuto, to demonstrate one of the ways Botswana can go beyond the hour of switching electricity off on March 26. Earth Hour was observed with a candle-lit ceremony in Gaborone. The lights also went off at the Victoria Falls in Zimbabwe.
Soweto again demonstrates power of grassroots actionAlmost 35 years after making global headlines as the scene of one of history's greatest displays of grassroots action, Soweto, South Africa embraced the world's largest environmental action by turning off the lights at Orlando Stadium to the soaring strains of a spirited candlelit concert headlined by the Grammy award-winning Soweto Gospel Choir.
Other soccer stadiums turning off included Moses Mabhida (Durban), Nelson Mandela Bay (Port Elizabeth), and Soccer City (Johannesburg). International soccer regulator FIFA had earlier come out in support of Earth Hour.
Citizens of Durban which will in December host the next global climate change conference chose to follow a beach clean-up with a soccer in the dark event at popular tourist site, uShaka Marine World. Four well-known soccer teams battled it out in the dark of the Marine World.
Shutting off all lights in all municipal buildings were Durban and Bloemfontein, while Cape Town turned off its backdrop, the spectacular Table Mountain as well. Johannesburg flicked the switch on some of its best known landmarks including the Ponte Tower, the Hillbrow Tower, the SABC (national broadcaster) and the Sentech Tower (broadcast signal distribution centre) and hotels and businesses all over the city.
Moving on to Africa's northwestern-most nation, Morocco received the Earth Hour baton, the national capital, Rabat, switching off the lights of the Chellah ruins and ancient Medina walls surrounding the old city. The official ceremony in Rabat was attended by local government members, the President of local NGO Ribat Al fath, and hundreds of people who celebrated the event with Kanun and Gnawa music.
While in Casablanca an Earth Hour show accompanied by candles and acoustics was held at the 'Casa del Arte' (school of art) as diners at the iconic 'A ma Bretagne' restaurant celebrated a candlelit Earth Hour dinner by the famous Casablanca foreshore.
Ancient Acropolis switches offGreece, which recently passed admirable biodiversity protection legislation despite economic adversity, turned off its best known landmark, the Acropolis, crowned by the Parthenon dominating the ancient city of Athens. On current information, this was the oldest buildings complex to observe Earth Hour.
Cyprus celebrated Earth Hour in the Presidential Palace with a message from the President and members of the Green Party.
Bulgaria celebrated Earth Hour for the third year, in part with free acoustic concerts staged simultaneously in top Sofia music clubs. Many of the musicians had previously recorded a video asking fans to turn off computers as well as lights. Lights went out at the National Theatre, the National Library and the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral in Sofia and on administrative buildings, historic monuments and public spaces in 46 towns and cities outside the capital. Patron for the event was EU Commissioner, Kristalina Georgieva, and top Bulgarian tennis players Wimbledon semi-finalist, Tsvetana Pironkova, and Junior Wimbledon and US Open winner, Grigor Dimitrov, were Earth Hour ambassadors.
"I believe that Earth Hour shouldn't be just turning off your lights for an hour once a year," Tsvetana Pironkova said. "We should all think how we can contribute to saving our planet every day. The Earth is not our home only, it will need to be the home of our children too. To begin with, I always unplug the charger once my mobile phone has charged. I try not to have the TV on if I am not watching it, to switch off the lights when I leave a room and to recycle as much as possible!"
"I try to choose the products I use depending on how they were made. When possible, I chose the most environmentally friendly products. I try to use recycled materials and use as little energy as possible in my daily life", Grigor Dimitrov said.
"Really, it's not difficult and I believe that everyone can work on their environmental footprint and be more responsible towards the environment".
Locals in Pristina, Kosovo marked their commitment to go beyond the hour at Mother Teresa Square where, from 3.00pm local time, organising partners "AKEA" and "Eko Viciana" provided boards for Kosovars to sign up in support of the Earth Hour movement.
Some 42 Serbian cities and municipalities led by Belgrade and Nis took part in Earth Hour, with Eco Musketeers again persuading Belgradians in Republic Square to register pledges and mark out the Earth Hour logo with candles.
A concert held in Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina was at full capacity with 300 people attending the event. Man of the year and renowned musician, Damir Imamovic, showed his support by performing at the event.
Croatia was also a third time participant, this time with the support of President Ivo Josipovic. Fifteen cities and towns signed up for the event and the lights went out for the first time on UNESCO heritage sites at old Dubrovnik and the sprawling palace of Roman Emperor Diocetian which dominates Split.
Actor and Earth Hour ambassador, Zrinka Cvitesic, hosted the drum concert and singing in Petar Preradovic Square in the capital Zagreb.
Romania again turned out the lights on its Parliament Palace, one of the world's largest buildings which consumes in one hour what a household consumes in a year. Other notable buildings to darken included the Romanian Athenaeum, the National Theatre in Bucharest, the Central Library, the National Opera and the National Art Museum.
Outside Bucharest, 51 other cities and towns commemorated Earth Hour including 9 out of the 10 largest cities. As buildings plunged into darkness, people could choose among 20 events - candle-lit shows, stargazing, unplugged concerts hosted by folk artists and children choirs. A Bucharest bike march across the city drew 500 while an unplugged concert hosted by popular musician and Earth Hour ambassador Zoli Toth`s band SISTEM and by Romanian choir SOUND, provided the music in front of the Romanian Athaeneum.
"Every day we consume a lot of energy that we don't actually need," said Toth. "If we are a bit more careful and care about future generations, we can decrease our carbon footprint significantly in the future. Everything depends on us."
The historic city of Brasov in the heart of the Carpathian mountains organized a special event, showing a silent movie, powered by the energy produced by several people biking.
The so-called Endless Column by famous Romanian sculptor Constantin Brâncusi at Târgu Jiu in the heart of Romania, also went dark for Earth Hour. The monument was commissioned to honour the soldiers who defended Târgu Jiu during the First World War and saved from the destruction by the former Communist regime in the 1950s. An 18th, but incomplete rhomboidal module at the top is thought to be the element that expresses the concept of the infinite.
Ukrainian capital Kiev flicked off lights on busy Kreschatik Boulevard and the historic orthodox Christian Kievo-Pecherskaya monastery to lead 32 further cities in observing Earth Hour for the country's third time. Supporters enjoyed an hour of acoustic music with popular Ukrainian singer Dmitriy Shurov and music band "Bahroma" at the Contemporary Art Centre M17.
In Odessa, the historic centre of the city, including the Opera and seaside boulevard, were also shrouded in darkness. At 8:30pm people could join a street concert near the city hall, followed by fire shows and a flash mob with candles. At the end of the concert people could write their pledges to the planet on lanterns and let them fly into the night sky.
"If each one of us begins to monitor the quantity of gas, water and electricity used, the numbers for a huge country like Ukraine will be enormous. In reality it is so simple to change our behaviour", said Earth Hour veteran and popular clothes designer Lilia Poustovit, who has been an ambassador to the Ukrainian campaign since 2009.
In other Ukrainian cities people could visit street concerts and candlelit dinners at different restaurants, as well as join roller skaters in Energodar and attend an evening of street astronomy in Poltava.
Belarus turned out lights on its most prominent and perhaps most startling building - its national library, a glass 23-story rhombicuboctahedron (a solid with 8 triangles and 18 squares) while Lithuania turned off the lights on the castle most featured on its national currency, the 14th century Vilnius Gediminas Castle, backed up by the National Museum building. Polish celebrations in 30 cities and towns were led by TV presenter Kinga Rusin.
"I have supported the 'Earth Hour' for several years now, because it offers a practical opportunity for every resident of this planet to switch off the lights for one hour, thus taking part in the pursuit of a common goal in terms of promoting green thinking and the sustainability of our planet," said Latvian President Valdis Zatlers.
"By taking an active part in this, as opposed to standing around the sidelines, we confirm that we are concerned about the climate changes that are occurring in our environment."
Prime Minister Valdis Dombrovskis and the State Parliament Saeima also supported Earth Hour's fourth commemoration in Latvia.
Across the Baltic, 30 Swedish cities competed for the honour of being named 'Earth Hour Capital 2011' and it was Malmo that received the award from the King in the inaugural Earth Hour City Challenge for the most holistic, inspiring and credible plan for reaching zero carbon emissions.
Malmo wins Earth Hour greenest city award
But the city isn't about to rest on its laurels with Mayor Ilmar Reepalu telling the international panel of experts that "our work isn't finished, and our goal is for Malmö to be powered by 100% renewable energy by the year 2030."
Elsewhere, famous musician Anders Paulsson was leading the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra through its paces in the Stockholm Concert House in Sweden, while at the other end of the musical scale Love Generation, Vanessa Falk, J-Son and Vanessa Liftig were starring in a carbon-neutral pedal-powered Hip Hop concert in the dark at the Sockholm Cultural Centre
Folk music and pop concert fans weren't neglected either with a concert in Katarina Kyrka (one of the largest and most central churches in Stockholm) Stars included Me and My Army, Carl Norén, Little Majorette, Esbjörn Hazelius Kleerup and Stiko Per Larsson, with Stiko's next engagement being a post Earth Hour walk from Stockholm to Copenhagen.
Earth Hour actions in the Albanian capital Tirana took place across the city with the theme of "turn off the lights - turn on solidarity with the planet". Locals gathered in front of prominent Tiranian landmark, The Faculty of History and Philology, where the lights were turned off as part of a ceremony followed by a "candle party" that lasted the full 60 minutes of Earth Hour. Those attending were kept entertained by an acoustic guitar concert without the use of electricity and the event was broadcast across Albania by local TV network, Planet TV.
In Norway, Earth Hour celebrations broke records for the third year in a row with 181 cities and communities participating (up from 162 in 2010). One of the highlights included a ski resort that celebrated the event with a torch slalom event where participants were invited to ski down the slopes with torches in hand. Norwegian Polar Explorer Borge Ousland communicated the urgency of action that goes beyond the hour, "during my expeditions to the Arctic, I have sailed right through the consequences of climate change: where there should have been ice, there is now open sea. The changes are dramatic and the job of cutting greenhouse gas emissions has never been more important than now".
The Norwegian national energy company, Statnett, reported a national drop in energy consumption during the hour that surpassed last year's saving. Figures showed that Norwegians who switched off their lights were able to save the equivalent of slightly over 6 million 40W light bulbs.
Candlelit demand for "Energiewende jetzt!"A 3000 candle demand for " Energiewende jetzt! ("Switch to Green energy now!") was the main feature of the "Switch Off Event" at Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. Lanterns were used to spell out "Klimaschutz jetzt" (climate protection now).
Some 65 cities and towns in Germany participated in Earth Hour 2011.
There was a fourfold increase in Czech Republic cities and towns participating in Earth Hour, including four regional capitals. Among the 131 was Brno, the country's second biggest city, which invited citizens to "enjoy the darkness" with movies about darkness, lectures on climate and light pollution, concerts in the dark and a guided city walk to some of the "dark" corners of the city, stopping at art shops, cafés and restaurants operating only by candle light. The observatory in Valašské Mezirící had an evening dedicated to climate and light pollution.
Runway switches off at Budapest Airport, no alarm necessaryMore than 5000 people congregated in the darkened Castle precincts of Budapest, Hungary to hear celebrities talk about climate change, environment protection and why they support Earth Hour.
In what was initially slightly alarming news, Budapest Airport announced a commitment to turning off runway lights. The temporary black-out, carried out, the airport explained, under strict national and international control to ensure passenger and aviation safety celebrated a light system refit which has significantly reduced the amount of energy the airstrip uses to provide lighting that can be seen from a distance of 20 kilometres.
Lively university town Szeged in southern Hungary hosted an event featuring drummers and fire dancers. Mulled wine and refreshments were served and Earth Hour supporters received candles with the Earth Hour logo.
Austrian capital Vienna participated in Earth Hour for the first time, as President Heinz Fischer affirmed support with a statement saying that "The Federal President of Austria welcomes all activities such as Earth Hour to make known the drastic impacts of climate change to all Austrians and people who live in Austria".
Lights go off on the famous Vienna City Hall building and the huge and historic Schönbrunn Palace on the outskirts of Vienna. Some 11 further cities supported the event. Among these were the historic towns of Innsbruck, Linz, Klagenfurt and Salzburg. In Salzburg, lights went out on 20 landmarks, among which Castle Hohensalzburg and the Statue of Mozart. In Switzerland, the International Olympic Committee based in Lausanne also offered its support.
Eternal city Rome Italy went temporarily dark around a main event in Piazza Navona which kicked off with animations and children leading up to the lights of the Fontana dei Quattro Fiumi being turned off by actor Christian de Sica and WWF Italy founder Fulco Pratesi. Down towards the forum, the Colosseum dimmed.
Swim champion Massimiliano Rosolino was the first of a procession of celebrities to light flying lanterns on the green carpet, while Pocoyo Mascotte was on board to animate the square along with a concert of street artists.
Milan's main event for Earth Hour was held in the gothic scenery of Piazza Duomo. From the afternoon animations, games and laboratories, including ecological house, solar energy and water clock demonstrations, were held for the kids. The city's famous cathedral played mute witness to one minute of silence for Japan.
Spain also saw a record turnout with 214 cities and towns, 172 schools and universities, 76 companies and 153 other organisations supporting the event. Some 15,026 individuals have signed online. In Portugal the lights were switched off by Internationally renowned Portuguese composer, António Vitorino d'Almeida.
City of light turns them offA 25m2 Earth Hour logo of 1,600 LED lit Pandas was a new touch to Earth Hour celebrations in Paris, France, but the main spectacle remained an Eiffel Tower suddenly switching off. Pressing the red button to accomplish this is one of the most sought after jobs in the entire global progress of Earth Hour. Other switches are, however, required to turn off historic bridges over the Seine. Some 126 other French towns and cities also went dark.
Celebrations in The Netherlands were centred on Rembrandt Square in Amsterdam with a special set played by top ten Netherland Dj and Earth Hour ambassador, Ferry Corsten. In the country's second largest city Rotterdam, lights on the City Hall and Erasmus Bridge were extinguished for the hour.
60 static cyclists broadcast the Earth Hour newsAt the Royal Albert Hall, Kensington, a special event was created for Earth Hour: human energy cast through the darkness to shine a message of hope onto the walls of the iconic Royal Albert Hall. For the duration of the hour, 60 static cyclists powered a projection of natural world animation and Earth Hour news.
"Earth Hour is about millions of people all over the world coming together to switch off their lights, tackle climate change and protect our natural world," said UK Prime Minister David Cameron. " It is a huge symbol of global solidarity, an inspiring display of international commitment. I urge everyone to take part, and I really do believe this is another small step to the big prize we all want to see – our planet protected from Climate Change."
Landmarks that darkened for Earth Hour across the UK include the EDF Energy London Eye, Manchester United Old Trafford, Albert Hall, Buckingham Palace, and No 10 Downing Street. The Tower Bridge is among 6 bridges across the UK that switched off during Earth Hour.
Mayor of London Boris Johnson said, "I am pleased to give my full backing to WWF's Earth Hour to highlight London's commitment to energy conservation. At City Hall we'll be turning off our lights to mark this global event, and ensuring that London's iconic Nelson's Column in Trafalgar Square will be in darkness."
Scotland's official countdown event for Earth Hour was held at Edinburgh Castle. Alex Salmond MSP, Scotland's First Minister, said, "The Scottish Government is delighted to back WWF's Earth Hour.
Our world-leading Climate Change Act with its target to cut emissions by 42% by 2020 is challenging but achievable, and in doing so we will create a cleaner, greener Scotland with a thriving low-carbon economy. We are committed to leading by example and to encouraging others to do the same.
"Every person in Scotland typically contributes twice the global average in terms of greenhouse gas emissions produced as a result of our everyday behaviour. Small changes in our daily lives will not only help reduce emissions but can also contribute towards a healthier lifestyle, improve our environment and offer real financial savings.
"WWF's Earth Hour provides an opportunity to demonstrate Scotland's commitment to tackling climate change in a simple yet effective way."
Lord Mayor of Dublin, Ireland, Gerry Brown, celebrated his city's participation in the global initiative, highlighting its pioneering role in the European roll out of Earth Hour, "Dublin was the first city in Europe to support Earth Hour and I am proud to continue this tradition that shows the power of small nations, individuals and communities to come together and send a powerful message." Ireland switched off some of its best known landmarks such as the Rock of Cashel, Donegal Castle and Leinster House.


text:
Chicago, IL (PRWEB) November 27, 2012
Special Learning, Inc., the leading global provider of mobile technology applications and educational resources for the autism community, announced today the launch of the latest version of its popular Communicating Basic Needs app (ComApp3) for Android and Kindle Fire devices. The newest features of this highly innovative app continue to provide advanced ways for individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), or other language deficits, to easily and effectively communicate their basic wants and needs using the highest quality images and real voices that are now customizable directly from the user's device.
ComApp3 offers a fully customizable adaptation of its highly effective ComApp, released earlier this year. Using a highly attractive, simple-to-use icon-based system that adheres to the principles of Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA), the app gives voice to individuals affected by developmental disabilities by allowing them to express simple requests quickly and successfully. The app focuses on five main categories essential to communication: food, drink, clothing, toys and emotions.
This latest version now allows users to personalize their app, not only through the app's online Mobile Dashboard, but also directly from the user's device with the use of the camera, personal photo gallery and a built-in voice recorder. This means that no third-party applications are needed to upload images and voice files. Parents and providers can fully customize the app to their own liking and have the customization, whether from the device or Mobile Dashboard, appear in both locations through the use of the synchronization function.
The third version of Special Learning's mobile communication app also includes the reporting functions offered on the previous versions that track frequency data by category and by individual item. Through the Mobile Dashboard, parents and providers can also run reports to track the frequency data from the device, and, most importantly, save the settings for future use through the synchronization function.
This app was developed under the guidance of Board Certified Behavior Analysts (BCBAs) and organized in a manner found to be successful in practice. The convenience of having this app in either a portable Android or Kindle Fire device is that it is readily accessible anytime and anywhere without the hassle of carrying around picture cards to communicate.
The app is also user friendly and intuitive so that all children with ASD, regardless of their level of ability, can learn to use it quickly.
Key features of the app include:
- Provides fully customizable items per category
- Use of device camera or photo gallery to customize or create a new item directly from the device
- Use of the built-in voice recorder to update or create new voice files
- High-definition graphics designed to accommodate and fully utilize large screen devices, making it more engaging and simpler for children to use
- Intuitive and kid-friendly interface designed specifically for use of children with ASD that offers very simple navigation, making it easy for children to learn and use without a lot of instructions
- Versatility to choose between three different photographs of every item in each of the five main categories to allow therapists to teach generalization skills to children that are ready to learn these skills
- Customizable options categories to enable or disable photos in the "Icon Library" to select only those items that are appropriate for their child
- Administrative functions that offer an abundance of other customization features including:
o Four "Voice" options;
o Five "Themes" or backgrounds: default, aquatic, butterfly, creatures, and trucks;
o Two "Picture Size" options: small, and large;
o Ability to choose "Word" or "Phrase" for emotions icons;
o Ability to enable or disable "Item Titles" which appear on top of each icon
Special Learning's ComApp3 was released for iPhone and iTouch last month, as well as for iPad earlier this month. To learn more about the app, visit Google Play for Android.
For more information about Special Learning, visit http://www.special-learning.com/home.
About Special Learning
Special Learning is the leading global provider of autism and Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA) solutions. Special Learning designs mobile applications and educational resources based on clinical evidence-based research to ensure that every person diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is capable of attaining an abundant and fulfilling life. Through its comprehensive web portal, Special Learning provides the global autism community with a range of ABA training and educational products, web-based and downloadable tools and professional services to empower parents, teachers and providers so that they can help individuals with autism move up the skills spectrum intuitively, successfully and affordably. Follow Special Learning on Facebook, http://www.facebook.com/speciallearning, and Twitter, https://twitter.com/speciallearning.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Managing Director, Office of the / Recycling Office[Record group 61-12]
Agency Function
- The Recycling Office was created to develop and implement alternative collection systems for recyclables as an interim method to curbside collections; to plan for the continued expansion of the recycling program; and to collect and analyze data to make future recycling policy.
- Agency History
- Unavailable
- Archival Records
- No holdings
- Current Records
- Unavailable
Click on a folder or file to return to that level...
PhILS Home
City Agencies
Current Agency Information Sheet. (Text-only version of this page)
Send your comments to email@example.com
Last updated on November 8, 2000


text:
Last week,
The Frog Princess and her class had
a fantastic time visiting the farm.
Mini-Saurus and I tagged along,
it was a beautiful day!
The farmer's market was up and running.
We couldn't leave without some
yummy local grown goodies!
They learned about
how cows and goats produce milk,
petted a 6 week old baby goat,
and milked a big wooden cow.
The Frog Princess is a natural
when it came to milking,
it must be those Iowa dairy farmer genes
from her Great Grandpa!


text:
DEMOCRATIC candidate Barak Obama last night claimed he was quoted out of context after describing Governor Sarah Palin as a 'creationist psycho bitch'.
He added: "I did then go on to say that if Jesus came down from heaven and told me I would have to fuck either Sarah Palin or a pig, you'd have to drag me off the pig.
"Now that doesn't mean I'm comparing Governor Palin to a pig. What I am saying is that if it's a straight choice between Governor Palin and a pig, I'm fucking the pig.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/inte ... 809111247/


text:
Women everywhere want products that deliver results. At Mary Kay Inc., our expert team of scientists uses the most advanced skin care technology available to ensure that consumers get what they want: innovative products they can believe in at a price they can afford.
Learn more
At Mary Kay, success lies in our dedication to irresistible products, a rewarding opportunity and positive community impact. For more than 53 years, Mary Kay has inspired women to achieve their entrepreneurial goals in nearly 40 countries. As a multibillion-dollar company, we offer the latest in cutting-edge skin care, bold color cosmetics and fragrances. Discover more reasons to love Mary Kay at marykay.com
Learn more
This Site is owned by Mary Kay. Unless otherwise indicated, all of the content featured or displayed on this Site, including but not limited to, text, graphics, data, photographic images, moving images, sound, illustrations, computer code, trade marks and logos and the selection and arrangement thereof (referred to in this section as the "Content") is owned by MaryKay, its licensors or its third-party image partners and all rights in relation to the Content are reserved. All Content is protected by copyright, trade dress, moral rights, trade mark rights and other laws relating to the protection of intellectual property. You may use the Content for your personal, or news-related, non-commercial use, but you may not otherwise reproduce, modify or in any way commercially exploit the Content.Agree Cancel


text:
Follow RFF News on your cell phone. Text follow rff to 40404 you will receive txt messages with RFF News
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Paldog on October 18, 2011, 05:36:04 PMI am pretty sure elephant washing was in TAR 2, leg 6.Sorry, Paldog. AR2, ep. 6 was the DETOUR "Beast" involving a ride on an elephant, which no team elected. There was no washing stated in the explanation of what "Beast" entailed.
I am pretty sure elephant washing was in TAR 2, leg 6.
can be the temple which is in Wat Pho??... this is the only temple that might be similar....
At first I thought they were building dioramas, but it appears to be spirit houses.
I keep looking at this one...but it is the wrong angle to be SURE...and of course, it is unnamed in the photo.
Yep, on the side we see. My eyes are crossing from pillars, pillars, everywhere! Keep looking, one of y'all will find it!
ohh what i mean, Wat Anongkharam Woraviharn
Page created in 0.073 seconds with 33 queries.


text:
Apple iPhone 5s 64GB Gold EXCELLENT CONDITION
All phones are 100% unlocked and can be used on any GSM network worldwide
Key Features
8 megapixel
4-inch Retina Display
A7 Chip dualÌ_åÇ_core
64GB in-built storage
Explore high-quality efficiency and a wide range of applications with the sleek and stylish iPhone 5s. This Apple mobile phone features 4-inch multi-touch widescreen IPS Retina display, which supports 1136x640-pixel native resolution at 326 ppi. Powered by a 64-bit Apple A7 processor and an M7 motion coprocessor, this Apple smartphone makes multitasking a breeze and lets you spare your battery power.
The iPhone 5s is fully supported by the iOS 7, which makes your day more enjoyable, with its great features. Moreover, the 8 MP rear iSight camera on this Apple mobile phone lets you capture beautiful photos and supports Full HD (1080p) video recording.
The iPhone 5s comes in three metallic colors and three capacity options. What‰Û¡ÌÝåÁÌÎÌ�Ì´Ì�ÌÎÌ_ÌΕÀ_ÌÎå«Ì´Ìös more? This smartphone supports 802.11n Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.0, and 4G/LTE, which ease your sharing and surfing experience.
Weight & Dimensions
- Height: 4.87 inches (123.8 mm)
- Width: 2.31 inches (58.6 mm)
- Depth: 0.30 inch (7.6 mm)
- Weight: 3.95 ounces (112 grams)
- A7 chip with 64-bit architecture
- M7 motion coprocessor
- Assisted GPS and GLONASS
- Digital compass
- Wi-Fi
- Cellular
- iBeacon microlocation
Touch ID
- Fingerprint identity sensor built into the Home button
- Retina display
- 4-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit widescreen Multi-Touch display with IPS technology
- 1136-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi
- 800:1 contrast ratio (typical)
- 500 cd/m2 max brightness (typical)
- Full sRGB standard
- Fingerprint-resistant oleophobic coating on front
- Support for display of multiple languages and characters simultaneously
iSight Camera
- 8 megapixels with 1.5ÌÎÌ_Ì´åÇÌÎå«Ì´åµ pixels
- ÌÎå«Ì´åÂÌÎÌ_Ì´å«/2.2 aperture
- Sapphire crystal lens cover
- True Tone flash
- Backside illumination sensor
- Five-element lens
- Hybrid IR filter
- Autofocus
- Tap to focus
- Exposure control
- Auto HDR for photos
- Face detection
- Panorama
- Auto image stabilization
- Burst mode
- Photo geotagging
Video Recording
- 1080p HD video recording (30 fps)
- True Tone flash
- Slo-mo video (120 fps)
- Time-lapse video
- Video stabilization
- Take still photos while recording video
- Face detection
- 3x zoom
- Video geotagging
FaceTime Camera
- 1.2MP photos (1280 by 960)
- ÌÎå«Ì´åÂÌÎÌ_Ì´å«/2.4 aperture
- 720p HD video recording
- Auto HDR for photos
- Backside illumination sensor
- Face detection
- Exposure control
Video Calling
- FaceTime
- iPhone 5s to any FaceTime-enabled device over Wi-Fi or cellular
- HVGA-resolution (480 by 368) calls over Wi-Fi
Audio Calling
- FaceTime
- iPhone 5s to any FaceTime-enabled device over Wi‰Û¡ÌÝåÁÌÎÌ�Ì´Ì�ÌÎÌ_ÌΕÀ_ÌÎÌ_ÌÎÌÕFi or cellular
- Wi-Fi calling
External Buttons and Connectors
- On/off - Sleep/wake
- Volume up/down
- Ring/silent
- Home/Touch ID sensor
- 3.5-mm stereo headphone minijack
- Microphone
- Built-in speaker
- Lightning connector
Power and Battery
- Built-in rechargeable lithium-ion battery
- Charging via USB to computer system or power adapter
- Talk time: Up to 10 hours on 3G
- Standby time: Up to 10 days
- Internet use: Up to 8 hours on 3G, up to 10 hours on LTE, up to 10 hours on Wi-Fi
- Video playback: Up to 10 hours
- Audio playback: Up to 40 hours
- Touch ID
- Three-axis gyro
- Accelerometer
- Proximity sensor
- Ambient light sensor
- Lightning
The item will be shipped, free of charge, within 24-48 hours from the time the order was placed. The item will be shipped from Melbourne via Australia Post or Star Track Express (express shipping fee applies). All items are packaged in a generic box, come with a free Vodafone SIM, a USB cable and a SIM pin. Full online tracking is provided.
For Express, Next Day Delivery: Orders must be received before 12:00pm EST to be eligible for Express Next Day delivery, subject to Star Track Express or Australia Post delivery terms and delivery location.
All phones come with 3-month warranty. Please read our Warranty & Returns Policies before purchasing this item.
All refurbished phones may show signs of use. There is a 15% restocking fee for change of mind purchases -- this covers shipping, handling, and re-stocking. Battery performance may vary based on usage and cannot be guaranteed to meet Brand New Manufacturers' specifications. By purchasing this item, you agree to our Warranty & Returns Policies.


text:
(Re)Discover Natixis AM on Twitter and LinkedIn!
Natixis AM has increased its presence on social networks to promote its experts and expertise with its clients, partners, employees and journalists. Twitter and LinkedIn complete Natixis AM's digital world. It now includes 10 websites in French and English, two applications for smartphones and tablets and expert blogs like Philippe Waechter's.
Social networks provide access to Natixis AM news highlights in real time, from market analysis to macroeconomic outlooks to investment strategies.
This concise, appealing content can be viewed anytime, anywhere at the office, on break…on a smartphone, tablet or computer.
We invite you to subscribe to our Twitter and LinkedIn accounts and to share, like and retweet the content of your choice.
Our Twitter account @NatixisAM: https://twitter.com/NatixisAM
Our company LinkedIn page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/natixis-asset-management


text:
RawMay 16, 2006
Let's say you have a digital camera that shoots in Raw format. However, you've been using JPG files ever since you got it, due to a sense of familiarity, simply not having the time to figure out Raw, or because you don't like the larger file sizes. Sound familiar?
That was me too, up until about a month ago. Then I started shooting Raw. And from now on, unless I need a lot of photos in a very short time, Raw it is. It's not for everyone, and it's not for every occasion, but it's certainly the best default choice for me. And if you're concerned with image quality, it could very well be for you too.
First of all, there are a few good reasons not to shoot Raw. The file sizes are typically double or more the size of an equivalent JPG. You can fit less on a card while shooting, and long term storage becomes more of a problem. More importantly, you need to work a little harder to process each photo, which you may not have time for or be interested in doing. And the format is actually a handful of proprietary formats, with each camera manufacturer pushing its own solution. Long term data storage in a proprietary format? Not such a good idea, though there are various ways to work around this. The workflow issue is probably the largest barrier to using Raw, and the one that I had trouble with… until I saw the image quality. And that brings us to the reasons you might wish to use it.
Raw is unprocessed photo data, right from the sensor of your camera. Instead of existing in the 24 bit colour space we're used to working with on-screen, a typical Raw file could support 36 or more bits of colour. You can't actually perceive this extra colour on your monitor, or even when you print out the photos, so why bother? Because the extra levels give you more freedom to modify the image without throwing out genuine image data. And that's really important when adjusting a photo, because some of the adjustments you might need to make in 8 bit colour will potentially damage highlights and shadow areas. Case in point (click for a larger version, of course):
On the left, we have an unprocessed JPG straight off the camera. It's a bit dark and dull overall, and there's not enough contrast.
If we take the JPG and process it as-is, we get something in the middle. Here, I've adjusted the levels to bring out the driftwood in the foreground, at the expense of blowing out the sky. Because I'm applying levels globally, I have no choice but to sacrifice the sky and the mountains for the sake of the foreground. Now I could certainly go into the image and apply a mask so that I could work on the foreground and background separately, but that's manual work that I'd rather not put in to every photo.
On the right, we have a processed Raw image. I've tweaked the exposure controls, the shadow levels, the overall brightness, and finally boosted the saturation. Not only do we get a better balance of lights and darks without a blown-out sky, but the overall tone is true to the original while ending up more vibrant thanks to the saturation.
While Raw is certainly powerful for tonal adjustment, where I'm having the most fun right now is with colour saturation. Typically, if you boost the saturation in a 24 bit JPG photo, your browns quickly turn orange while your greens go ugly and neon without much prodding. Raw allows far more refined saturation control, thanks to the extra levels of actual image detail. I can't really explain why it works so much better, but the difference between JPG and Raw is remarkable when it comes to saturation.
This next example is far more surprising if you don't see them all at once, so I'll simply link the images inline here and let you click through one by one. First up, the original JPG. Obviously too dark, so the enhanced JPG shows just about all I can do before the saturation starts looking ugly. Then finally, the Raw image adjusted with a nice healthy dose of saturation. A very different result. (In Photoshop it's even more intense, but I'm having some trouble saving out colour profiles for some reason, so you get the profile-free version unfortunately.)
I'm just getting started, but I figured there's enough to learn about this great new toy to justify getting a book on it, and sure enough, a few of those exist. I bought "Adobe Camera Raw", it looks good so far.
How about you? Got some tips for me about working with Raw?
(For the curious, the photos in this post are, respectively, driftwood at Jericho Beach in Vancouver, and a random house somewhere outside of Reykjanesbær, Iceland.)
My advices with RAW is pretty simple: be patient. :)
Of course, my main machine is a G4 PowerBook, so your milage may vary, but it does take a while to work with them.
Remember, too, that iPhoto 6 can work with RAW, so you can have a pretty easy catalog program that can do a lot of quick "fixes."
Also, keep an eye on space. Delete photos you know aren't right.
Additionally, one of the things I've discovered about photo storage management is that my Canon shoots in a RAW+JPG mode that saves two files, one of each.
If I shoot in that, I can easily throw out the Raw files that don't feel right, and have the JPGs on hand 'just in case'. I'm always selective about which photos I save, but even still, I always feel guilty about throwing away the C and D-grade photos that might potentially be useful some day for something.
Check out Apple's Aperture or Adobe's Light Room if you are concerned about/want to improve raw workflow. I personally prefer Aperture, Light Room doesn't fit me well, but I found that it is hate it or love it type of thing for both applications.
Playing with shadow/highlight settings can be also very impressive in RAW, there is nothing to counter that in JPG, other than brightness/contrast which wreck the whole image. It's especially nice if you like high contrast BW shots.
About the profile question: When exporting for the web, do you use "Convert to Profile" > sRGB IEC61966-2.1, then save a new file? Avoiding "Save for Web" preserves the EXIF data for Flickr, and my understanding was that if you do the conversion, it doesn't matter whether you embed the sRGB profile or not (most browsers ignore them) but that nevertheless it's the best bet for decent consistency across systems and monitors. Has that been your experience?
I'm glad to see more and more people switching to RAW. Saving the unprocessed data the ccd records makes for endless possibilitys in post production.
Unfortunatly until there is a standard we are going to see more and more archival issues. Great write up though.
I just got a Nikon D50, and started playing with RAW right away. As I understand it, Nikon's .NEF RAW format is not lossless, but I have been impressed (like you) with the post-processing control. I haven't used Aperture, but I did download Lightroom, and have used Photoshop and iPhoto's RAW processing. I love your examples and explaination. I'd be interested in seeing you compare the results from different photo-processing applications as well.
I made the switch to RAW about 9 months ago and have never gone back. I had to buy another Flash card (1GB) to make sure I wouldn't run out of space while out shooting. But that's a small price to pay for the improved image quality and post-processing options that RAW format provides.
Nowadays, most of the photos I put online are a combination of 2 or 3 different exposure levels all extracted from the single RAW file.
Here's a good HDR example:
(The advantage of RAW being that only 1 picture would need to be taken as opposed to 9 shots of JPG.)
Another Nikon D50 user, and I tend to shoot a mix of RAW and JPG depending on how quickly I want to post the images online. RAW is amazing, but it's like working with negatives and an enlarger in the darkroom: it takes effort, but you have *way* more control.
Shooting JPGs is like processing your film through one of those big-ass Kodak film printing machines you see at your local mall - fast, adequate quality, but limited control.
Aperture (specifically version 1.1) is quite good with RAW - I use it all the time - but the Adobe RAW workflow isn't bad, either. One bonus with the Photoshop workflow is you can fuss with the RAW conversion and do image editing all within the same application.
Oh wow, I didn't realise what a difference it would make - now I'm going to have to factor in Raw to my camera buying equation… Thanks for pointing this out!
RAW is most value for digital photographers who produce a lot of prints because it allows you to do critical edits without destroying the histogram. Prints from digital cameras still can't compete with a darkroom print, but the the ability to preserve all of the gradient information is crucial to competing.
The above example of JPG modification is deceiving because the levels tool was used incorrectly. This is NOT a bad thing, we all go through this. What at first seems like a tool designed to do one thing eventually reveals itself to be something totally different. I'm hoping this will save you some time. :)
You did have a choice not to blow out the sky to bring the driftwood into a better exposure range. The reason you didn't achieve was because you used the levels tool incorrectly. You set the white point by moving the right slider (blowing out data) instead of shifting the midpoint with the middle slider. This, however, would lower the contrast slightly and show the overall shortcomings of the levels tool. For greater control you should use curves and drag the midpoint of the curve up to retain contrast while shifting the mid tones. There you can adjust any point on the tonal curve with any level of precision you desire. Boost just the darkest shadows while retaining the rest of the detail, or shift the image globally. If you wanted the quick and easy way to accomplish the same thing, you would use the shadow and highlight tool introduced in CS. It pretty much does all the curves work for you but with an easier to understand and more efficient interface. It does not replace the curves dialog, it simply gives you a different way to achieve the same effect in terms of shadow and highlight adjustment.
There is absolutely no reason to think the JPG can not look like the finished RAW file. Yes, RAW gives you more control and higher quality, but JPG is not nearly as bad as you make it out to be. No need for masks, no need to blow out highlights or shadows.
Where RAW excels: White Balance adjustment (MUCH easier and higher quality in post), the ability to re-process images with different (potentially better) algortithms in the future, lossless storage, higher tonal range (16bit), choice of color space in post processing (Adobe, sRGB, etc)
Not trying to rain on your parade, but you simply used a tool incorrectly.
This is very informative and I'm interested in where it's going. But something isn't sitting right with me. The examples in your post and the comments of the advantages of RAW are pointing out the technical benefits of the format, but — to my eye at least — de-realising the "original" images. Dave, if your purpose is purely to show what the format can do, then my mistake. But otherwise the tweaked Iceland photo (RAW version) is kind of garish. Likewise, the Big Sur pic, while pretty, looks totally unreal — at least to my senses. More like it was airbrushed than photographed. So, if I'm understanding correctly, your post and the comments so far, demonstrate the greater technical possibilities for image manipulation, but not necessarily the greater likelihood that the punters like me will get a more "photorealistic" end result, even with brightness/contrast nudges. (Though the comments about RAW for b+w images were intriguing…)
In response to the comment by Mr. Cooke, with all due respect, nothing that's being talked about is manipulation. That is, unless you consider darkroom techniques to be manipulation. Ansel Adams himself learned the film format inside out and used his knowledge to develop ways to manipulate his prints into portraying his vision. Making the same techniques digital does not automagically turn them into manipulation somehow contrary to the desire for "photoreslistic" results.
Sorry Seb, I didn't mean to convey the impression that I was overly concerned with authenticity. My issue (at the risk of raising hackles further) was really with, um… cheesiness.
I'm a die-hard film shooter – I have nothing against digital cameras, like some other film "purists" – but I find this subject matter interesting as the RAW format is sometimes known as the "digital negative."
Anyway, speaking of Ansel Adams, if I recall correctly he also once said, you don't take a picture; you *make* a picture. The man was the master with pre- and post-processing photo imaging.
No need to explain, I just wanted to voice a counterpoint to what I read from your post. All good. :)
I went raw about two months after I got the Nikon D50, and just haven't looked back. I can still get ~160 photos on a 1GB SD card, plus another 80 or so on a 512MB I keep with for just in case times, which is plenty. I haven't really got enough disk space to shoot that much at the moment anyway.
My advice with RAW? Get Aperture. Seriously. I haven't regretted that purchase once, the time savings from not having to go through Camera Raw give it value alone.
Almost six years ago I bought a Canon G2 and was happily shooting JPGs until I saw Russell Browne promoting Photoshop 7 a few months later and realised how much data I was throwing out by not shooting RAW. Been shooting RAW ever since.
Biggest advantage with RAW is with the the less than perfect shot, you have got the data to work with and can make adjustments, with a JPG that data has already been thrown out with the compression. Might not be important when shooting for the web, but it is for print.
White point / temprature correction is my favourite, it is amazing what changes it makes to the feel of an image. Play and be surprised.
You should keep your C or D grade images as RAW, because you can extract a half decent image if necessary, something you would be hard pressed to do with a JPG.
Storage is cheap, you can save a lot of RAW images on a DVD. I used to convert all my RAW photos to 48bit TIFF, which meant 22Mb files, compared to 2.5Mb RAW. So I consider the 2.5Mb RAW a good deal when compared to a 1mb JPG.
I recently got back from a two month trip through SE Asia with a new Canon 350D, and decided to go for JPG over RAW mostly because I didn't fancy spending months processing the photos (500+ of the best made it to Flickr in the end). Memory was a serious issue here as well: backing up photos to CD-ROMs in internet cafes was a real hassle, and we're only talking JPGs too. I had a 2Gb card and the cost of an additional 2Gb card (or portable hard disk etc.) would equate to another 3-4 weeks on holiday.
I realise I lost some quality in the process, but I was willing to do this in order to more easily share the photos (via Flickr) with friends and family back home. I spent the best part of a year sorting out slides from a trip to Fiji, the last time I used my old film Pentax.
How long does it take to process RAW files? As memory prices continue to dive, I'd still be interested in shooting RAW, as long as I'm not spending most of my life processing the photos instead of sharing them – something I decided was a priority for me over such things as getting prints made.
7. Aaron smidth: Well actually you won't be able to make a PS HDR image out of just one expousure. Just because you drag the sliders you don't get more dynamic range and therefore a HDR image is useless. What you can do is to manually use several layers from different expousures and then "merge" them together taking the highlights from one layer and the shadows from another. So the point is you still need to shoot 3 images but nowadays many of the the better dSLRs (Nikon D200 for example) have bracketing so the camera can give you three expousurs in a row.
What we have to remember is that RAW is a format where a lot of progress is made. Better algorithms are used and the images keep getting better. JPG on the other hand is a lossy format where details are scrapped in the camera and can never be retrieved. Sure in the future the cameras are going to use smarter JPG compression algorithms but that won't make your old pictures better. What's already lost can't be restored later.
As several people have pointed out storgare is cheap nowadays and so are CF cards. A couple of 2 gig cards allows me to shoot ~ 600 frames. Buy a couple of 750 gig discs and put them in a RAID array and you have good enough redundancy.
19. James: With Lightroom or Aperture exports to JPGs are made easily. I just select the images I want and then export them with spcified width, quality and so on. Exporting them doesn't take that long on my computer. The workflow is nice to work with!
Thanks Dave for this interesting article.
Aperture as been mentionned and I'd really like to try it out to see how my workflow can be improved.
I'm usually taking Hi-Res JPEG and spending hours in photoshop adjusting each part of the picture (I do use curves by the way)
I'm not too concerned with ong-term storage, but i'm worried about Memory Card size. I don't have a laptop that I can bring with me when i'm travelling so I need to fit all my pictures on two 1GB SD card… it doesn't matter that much with JPEG since it lets me shoot a lot, but according to what Nick mentionned above, a RAW file is 2.5x bigger than a JPEG… grrr.
Dealing with RAW formats is no longer sufferance as it used to be few years ago. The ultimate high processing speeds we all have by now, in combining with capabilities of current photo-editing software takes off most of the pain. Without this, low quality cameras with low memories wouldn't still be in use. In a matter of fact, RAW formats and how to deal with it, separates pros from amateurs.
Do you think that iPhoto's RAW capabilities are worth taking actual RAW shots? I hate the workflow and found that importing RAW files directly to iPhoto works somehow, at least its convenient.
Importing into iPhoto preserves the original RAW files, so at the least it's a quick and dirty way to get jpegs from your RAW shots. You can always go into Photoshop or something else and do further processing if there is a shot you would like to tweak. Of the images I've toyed with so far, iPhoto did a competent job of creating decent-looking jpegs. Not as good as processing with Lightroom or Photoshop, but at least quicker than PS.
I am also a new Nikon D50 user and have been shooting RAW since I got the camera. Before when I was working with JPG I had a simple workflow: Import into iPhoto, open the best in Photoshop, run Auto Curves (unless it looks worse), save as highest quality JPG, upload to Flickr.
I've basically kept the same workflow and have been happy with the results. Ultimately the photos are just ending up on Flickr, so at the moment I'm not terribly concerned with making the photo picture perfect.
It's great to see these examples and know that RAW can provide the level of control necessary for quality output.
RAW can be a LIFESAVER. Especially if you mess up an exposure or your strobe doesn't pop off in a sequence of shots. The latitude is also much higher, resembles film a lot more so there is more complensation for exposure in post production. There is also a lot less noise. Lets you use higher ISO's without much worry.
I got myself a 350D a couple of weeks ago, and I've been loving it. I always shoot RAW, for all the reasons mentioned in your post. If you are looking for good books I highly recommend Ben Willmore's book 'Adobe Photoshop CS2 Studio Techniques'. It covers Camera RAW, and a lot of other advanced techniques and tools. It's my favourite techy book.
Some notes to consider. (For a bit of history, I was working on product research for what became Adobe Lightroom while in the heyday of doing Design by Fire.)
1. Glad to see everyone picking up RAW. However, there is a very critical issue everyone needs to concern themselves with, and that is the propietary nature of the file format itself of the various camera. Please see:
This is Adobe's solution to the problem. Jump in and get involved somehow. (DNG was developed by Thomas Knoll himself as a solution to the problem.) If photographers are not careful, they will soon discover hundreds of thousands of "digital negatives" that one day no software product can read due to the fact they were shot in formats the camera companies never publicly documented.
2. Think of RAW software processors like film stock. Many of the film companies purposefully "juiced" film to create various kind of looks. RAW software processors are effectively giving you the same control over the digital negative, a means to juice the color and contrast of a photo to create those various looks. In that sense, you can make things look real or make them look hyper-real. The choice is up to the photographer. But be aware… you are in control, aand therefore you are responsible for how good or bad an image looks when tweaking the image.
3. Learn to use bracketing on your camera. As Edvard mentions above, the real way to get true HDR images is to shoot bracketed images then composite those in something like Photoshop. In the next five years or so, it's clear we'll see technology that allows for this at the camera level automatically. Until then, we have to shoot bracketed and combine the results manually.
4. A good friend of mine, Jeff Schewe, has lots of news items on things related to Camera RAW and the issues surrounding it for photographers. I encourage you to start reading http://www.photoshopnews.com if you want to keep up on industry buzz in this area.
I'm curious, has anyone used iPhoto 6 to manage RAW photos? I need an excuse to upgrade to iLife '06.
The most important thing about your RAW workflow over time will likely become image management. The storage itself of course is one thing (diskspace), but actually keeping track of all these RAWs might be a problem.
What a lot of people seem to do is to use a RAW Converter, tweak the settings to their liking and then export a TIFF or JPEG out. This is then taken in to a photo management tool like iView, for tagging, rating and classification.
These tools may be able to give a preview of a RAW file (or do some basic manipulation) but they don't have the flexibility of the RAW converter. That means you need to store two copies of every image (RAW original and JPEG result). This quickly grows out of all proportion and is hard to manage.
Both Aperture and Lightroom take a different approach: they consider the RAW file to be the one and only representation of the image. They both have excellent RAW tool as well as excellent iamge management features. In other words, no need to export the result to another program. The only time you'll actually need to produce a JPEG or TIFF from RAW file in these programs is when sending to somebody else or when putting something out on the web.
On top of this, Aperture allows you multiple versions of a RAW file. All that is stored then is a set of instructions about how to manipulate the RAW file. A few K per version. Very nice.
I used to do the whole import into RAW converter, manipulate, convert, export, import into image manager, tag, etc. thing. It is amazing how much easier and faster this process becomes with Lightroom or Aperture.
These kinds of apps are the future of photography. Every RAW converter out there that doesn't take this on as a major new feature for their next release will quickly find themselves obsolete (Are you listening Phase One?).
The DAM Book (Peter Krogh) did a lot for me, adressing the workflow and archiving questions.
Working in RAW is superior (and letting the LAB color space work for you, too!).
Another The DAM Book enthusiast here. I have only read through the comments very quickly, but haven't found any reference to the DNG file format (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_Specification), which quite solves the proprietary-raw-format issue as I see it — besides, it handles metadata more conveniently for me, with no sidecar files.
I love RAW. I have a Nikon D70s and I have been taking RAW shots for a couple of months. I use the Adobe CS2 workflow and use Nikon Picture Project just to get the .NEF files off my card since it can thumbnail quickly, saving time selecting the wheat from the chaff and getting rid of photos that are just plain wrong quickly. I also forget to format my card sometimes, so having to wade through lots of old images (which something like Picassa makes you do) is annoying. Of course I could just copy the files directly off the card, but I don't.
My absolute, most favourite, trick since I mostly take urban shots, is to take a photo with a lot of reflections from various glass windows, such as among a couple of skyscrapers and walk-over passes, and boost the saturation to maximum, tweak the contrast, and balance the exposure and shadows. Some really amazing colours appear (and look natural too…)
I am also having difficulty with the 'what you see in Photoshop is not what you see in Flickr' problem. I hope to someday conquer that one.
Seb said
"There is absolutely no reason to think the JPG can not look like the finished RAW file. "
Well, yes, there is. With the jpeg file, the camera has already applied the corrections it thinks are called for. You can't back them out if they are not right for the particular picture. Depending on your taste and ability to detect differences, and on the camera, and on the kind of picture, maybe a lot of the shots look pretty good out of the camera as jpeg. The rest don't.
The camera tries to guess on the white balance, the exposure, the amount of sharpening, the tone adjustments, etc. After the camera's processing, there has been a permanent loss of information. You can't go back to try again, it's like developing a negative and then wishing you had done it differently.
In my experience, the most valuable thngs about raw processing are
1) The ability to adust the overall exposure .5, 1, sometimes even 2 stops.
2) The ability to adjust the white balance to suit the light and the scene.
3) The ability to create a custom curve to control the highlights or shadows better. Yes, you can do that with a jpeg, but you are more limited in what you can accomplish.
4) The ability to sharpen the picture as I want it (I do this after performing raw processing) rather than living with what the camera guesses I want.
5) Adjustment of the saturation has been less important for me personally, but sometimes it is handy.
In addition, the raw data contains more bits for each pixel, so round-off math errors are much less of a problem. You are less likely to get contours and color artifacts if you do a lot of manipulation or have to adjust very dark areas.
I care a lot about the quality of each picture, and using raw is the only I can get it. But if you are interested in taking snapshots to remember events by, jpeg will generally be just fine.
I do my raw processing using Capture One (Light Edition), and I'm very happy with it. It takes me usually no more than a few minutes per picture for raw processing, including choosing which ones to process further.
If you are thinking about trying raw processing, remember that some cameras produce unneccesarily large raw files. My two 6 Megapixel cameras produce raw files about 7 MB in size.
Also, the raw software supplied with many cameras is horrible to use, and in may cases, often doesn't even give you good pictures. Use Adobe Camera Raw (works in Elements), Capture One (I reccommend it hightly), or one of the other widely reviewed and praised raw processors.
I get the feeling you are misunderstanding me. I am not attacking RAW. The example given in the original article simply made JPEG look much worse than it should.
"The camera tries to guess on the white balance, the exposure, the amount of sharpening, the tone adjustments, etc." -Tom
Cameras can be set to guess, mine don't get that benefit of the doubt. I shoot thousands of images per month for publication and for pleasure, all on manual settings. I understand the tools of my trade inside and out. And frankly, the difference between JPG and RAW in the hands of someone with enough experience is very slim. Much slimmer than is made apparent here. RAW will always win out in the end for the very reasons you mention, but my original point was that it's not nearly as bad as is shown.
"But if you are interested in taking snapshots to remember events by, jpeg will generally be just fine." -Tom
JPG's also fine for 20x30 inch fine-art prints. :) Most images end up being printed by pro labs at 8-bit in sRGB color. Wether it's color processing from RAW or by getting a really good JPG in the camera to begin with, in the end all that extra data is lost. RAW is great for having better control during the processing, once again for all the reasons you mention. But to say that all out RAW is in every way superior to JPG and that shooting in anything else is only for snapshots is a bit off the mark I believe.
Going slightly off topic here, it should never, ever, be RAW versus JPG. It's RAW and JPG. Both formats exist for a reason, they are both used daily by millions of shooters, and there are very, very good reasons for the use of either. Coming from shooting slides I don't use RAW as a crutch, and I am not willing to put down JPG as inferior, even though technically it is. In the real world, they are used equally and interchangeably. To get the most out of a high-end camera, and out of photography, all formats and methods need to be learned and explored. I'd rather have a technically inferior JPG file of an important moment than have no shot because my camera was writing the RAW files to the card. Everything is a trade off.
And in the end, if you made a print from a well-made JPG and from a RAW, there is simply no way you could tell the original source. And ultimately, that is the one and only thing that matters. :)
Something interesting came to me from my dad: Nikon's and Canon's RAW formats are quite different, though for most people the differences aren't too important. But he's an astrophotographer, and the problem is that Nikon tries to "de-noise" their NEF (RAW) format inside their cameras during long exposures.
Astrophotography requires very long exposures (sometimes hours) of very faint subjects that can be difficult to distinguish from noise. His colleagues often take a cap-on "black" exposure and then digitally subtract that from an actual image in order to tease out the sky objects from the noise.
The problem, of course, is that Nikon's non-deactivatable NEF de-noising ruins that process. As a consequence, he bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT even though I have a bunch of nice 35 mm Nikon lenses. So consider what you need to do with your RAW images when deciding which one to get.
More here:
2 words: white balance.
One of the BIGGEST reasons for using raw, apart from the much better dynamic range.
(1) Switch to JPEG.
(2) In the evening, set your white balance to "tungsten" because you need to take a few shots indoors.
(3) Spend the next day shooting a once-in-a-lifetime outdoors event.
(4) Transfer your photos to your computer.
(5) Scream with horror when you realize that all your shots have a strong blue cast, because you forgot to reset your white balance settings.
(6) Sob bitterly and switch back to RAW.
Thanks for the tip, I'll be sure to try out RAW.
My Nikon D50 has a "Long Exposure NR" menu item that can be set to ON or OFF. See this page on Digital Photography Review: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond50/page9.asp
I've been shooting raw since I got my Nikon D70, and have never looked back. As long as you have a good 2GB+ in cards, you'll be set for most outings (well, day-long at least). As for processing, I've found that there are a lot of good programs out there, but as I'm a PC person (for now), I'm not sure how much help this will be.
Raw Shooter (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_premium.asp) does a good job but I'm not a huge fan of the interface; however, my wife loves it. I prefer Adobe PhotoShop CS2 + Adobe Camera RAW, although I understand the limitations (imperfect processing). DXO Labs (http://www.dxo.com/en/photo/home/default.php) also makes some great software. I would also consider getting Noiseware or Noise Ninja noise reduction software - it's been a life-saver on a few occasions where the D70's higher ISO (400+) noise gets out of hand.
Hope that helps.
Tony, apparently it's not just the long exposure NR that's the issue. There is some processing in generating the NEF file that can only be deactivated if you SHUT OFF THE CAMERA before it's finished processing the shot.
Really. There's a big discussion here:
Near the bottom:
"…the RAW format is not really raw (with noise reduction mode either ON or OFF). Images are filtered, which is very detrimental in the case of astronomy images then stellar images are point like."
(Translated from French, so the phrasing is a little odd.)
Wow, thanks for the write-up. I never really thought about what "RAW" was, but that was interesting!
Thanks for the article, ive never checked out RAW in any real depth before but I'll certainly give it a go.
Thanks for the suggestion - will certainly look into it.
I have to say, though, that the illustrative images posted don't look necessarily fair - the brightness on the middle JPEG is far higher than on the raw image.
What would be more interesting is a corresponding balance between the JPG and raw so the JPG didn't look like it was set up for a fall.
You mentioned saturation boosting in your article (I'll leave the raw/jpeg discussion with comment at the bottom).
Boosting saturation in rgb mode affects colours (I don't quite know why but it does). If you want to boost saturation without affecting colours, convert to lab colour mode (intensity and two colour channels) and then 'compress' the curves or levels settings for the a and b colour channels. ( or use http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRDigitalVelvia.htm).
Or alternatively get alien skin exposure plug in which does a fantastic job of emulating lots of different films types (velvia being the one that boost saturation so wel).
p.s. If you can get 'everything' right in camera then you don't need to use RAW. Just think about the fact that even Ansel Adams didn't get everything right in camera!
Very informative article! I tried to shoot some photos in RAW format a few months ago when famous buildings all over my city were illuminated by blue light at night. So I figured I'd test how this format can be useful but I never really cared about what you can do with it. Other then a larger filesize I didn't notice anything else but I definatly will compare how the effects are when you actually work with both formats.
Great article - and lots of interesting comments.
For sure I'm shooting in RAW now, especially after realising how easy it is to apply a RAW setting to other images taken under the same conditions.
Tony Lindkold - Lindkold Webdesign
There's a neat review of Aperture 1.1 linked below, which shows how it compares to version 1.0, Capture One Pro 3.7.4 and Lightroom Beta 2. It's surprising how each gives different results when converting from RAW.
I also found this critical point made in the review, which is something we should all bear in mind:
"All RAW image converters do prefiltering and their own interpretation since that is how RAW works; it is raw camera sensor data that has to be interpreted to produce an RGB image."
So RAW isn't quite as raw as you might think.
For those working with the limitations of storage space in the field/on the road, have you considered an iPod or equivalent? I use relatively small cards and when they are full, transfer the photos to my iPod, wipe the card, and continue. My iPod isn't that new anymore, but 40GB of storage on it makes for more than enough storage. When I finally get back home, I can transfer all the photos to my computer from the iPod. Easy.
I started using RAW formats after reading a few articles such as this one on its benefits. Being photoshop challenged, I haven't made the best use of editing the RAW files yet.
But I'm looking forward to doing much more with my photos than the other alternative that my camera offered - lossy jpegs.
very interesting article, i am using raw on Nikon D70s and the now Nikon D50, it gives me lot more options for doing "darkroom" work, it gives me the full control over details, before going for raw get a lot of memory and fast computer…you will need both..:)
It's a good idea to convert your RAW files to Adobe's digital negative format as part of your workflow: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/dng.shtml
The article and comments are both tops here, but despite being an intermediate PS user, I'm still looking to improve my skills with RAW-images.
Using Adobe's raw converter to edit my pics, I miss a really good tutorial/link to make me understand how I get the most out of a RAW-image.
Tony Lindkold - Lindkold Webdesign
This theory just doesn't make any sense. The only difference between a RAW file and a JPEG is that the JPEG has compression. JPEGs do not alter the colors in the image in any fundamental way, certainly not as radically as the examples above suggest. All JPEG compression does is mess around with tiny clusters of pixels to make them easier to compress.
What may be happening here is something different. It may be that, in some cameras, the JPEG setting does something in addition to compressing the image, some sort of generalized color correction. Or maybe, as some posters above have suggested, and as I suspect is likely the case, switching between JPEG and RAW in some cameras causes some of these settings, in particular the white balance, to change in the camera itself. When you then pull the images off the camera, they are already fundamentally different – not because of the JPEG compression applied to the image, but because of the other settings that you may not know occurred in the camera at the time you snapped the photo.
The overall histogram of a RAW versus a JPEG image should be no different at all, effectively. To illustrate this, instead of comparing two images taken by different settings in an idiosyncratic camera, compare two identical images strictly in photoshop. Do this:
1) Open a RAW image into photoshop and save a copy as a JPEG. Save at crappy 50% quality if you like, it won't affect the experiment.
2) Re-open both images in Photoshop.
3) Do all the level and image adjustments you want on both images, applying the same changes to each.
You should see both images will change identically. The only difference will be visible at the extremely-close pixel level. It will be nothing like the images posted above.
Christopher Fahey – wrong, wrong, wrong. The difference between RAW and JPG is 4 bits per colour channel, give or take. 8 bits = 256 levels of red. 12 bits = 4096 levels of red. That's *16 TIMES* as much colour information.
Your example experiment WILL end up with almost the result you expect, but for reasons different from what you describe, and reasons you clearly don't understand. I'd strongly suggest you RTFM. (I even linked a book in the original article.)
Good point about the color. 12 bits is indeed a lot more color information. But those additional colors are nestled in between the other colors and wouldn't cause any noticable image-wide differences, nor would it affect the histogram radically. This difference would only manifest itself as posterization artifacts.
I just read the Wikipedia article you linked to, and it appears to my novice eyes that I am correct: the JPEG setting in a typical digital camera doesn't just compress the image, but it also adjusts the "white balance, color saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture". These adjustments are not part of the specification for JPEG compression (which is why these adjustments would not happen when you convert RAW to JPEG in Photoshop), they are merely user-friendly features in the digital camera's software. There's more on this additional in-camera processing here:
I'll admit that I don't know a lot about digital cameras, but I do know a lot about digital images on the desktop. I was merely trying to make a distinction between JPEG files in general and JPEG files as produced by digital cameras, a distinction you didn't make and which was pretty confusing to me (until I read the links above). It's important, I think, to understand that JPEGs themselves aren't at fault, but rather it's the camera's "helpful" software doing some image manipulation in addition to the JPEG compression.
I just wanted to add that, thanks to you, I intend to do some RAW experiments right away. I spend a lot of time adjusting my images in Photoshop anyway. If the camera's "JPEG" image adjustments happen to destroy some critical color information, it would clearly be better to have a RAW image than a JPEG when I'm messing around in Photoshop.
Mr. Shea, what camera are you currently sporting? Could it possibly be the current favorite Canon Digital Rebel XT?
Just to clarify a bit. What usually happens in camera when shooting a jpeg is, one end or both ends of your histogram can be clipped (low-key images should be fine) by the onboard processor. In this case, in postproduction the extremes of your data are lost and hinder your ability to make corrections when compared with shooting Raw. I think it can be viewed as gaining half a stop when shooting Raw. For best Raw processing shot to the right!
To fix the color profile problem, when opening your raw file in photoshop be sure to convert to sRGB before saving for web. Be sure to check off ICC profile, it embeds the color space. Otherwise, the colors will be off.
Christopher Fahey - You have a few correct guesses (ie. extra colour levels not being perceived in the image) but you're coming to the wrong conclusions. It's all about the post-processing adjustment possibilities. I don't really have the inclination to get into a protracted debate about this though. There are books that can help you make more sense of it, so I'll leave the technical description to the pros.
Alberto - Canon 20D.
What am I wrong about? My "wrong conclusions" are simply that when you set your digital camera to JPEG mode it does other things to your images besides simply compressing them (essentially, as you say, "limiting your post processing adjustment possibilities", which I do not dispute).
I, too, don't want to get into a protracted debate, but it's a little annoying to be condescended to about having "wrong conclusions" (even telling me to go read a book!) without you even giving a little hint about what you think I'm wrong about.
I'm sorry for setting a negative tone when I wrote "This theory just doesn't make any sense." I really simply meant "It doesn't make sense *to me*", and I'm sorry if I thus inadvertantly set myself up as someone worthy of condescension. If you read my post again, I feel confident you'll say to yourself "Oh, wait a minute, Chris isn't even disagreeing with me." Because I wasn't.
I've mainly been replying so other people don't run across your uncontested comments, but not to fill in your knowledge gaps. When you add two comments in a row that posit (fully testable/verifiable) theories that are so far off base, it appears to me you'll contest any further points I put out there. That makes it less worthwhile for me to respond.
Since you're specifically asking why you're wrong, here are two things.
1) A JPG produced by any digital camera is just the same as any other JPG. The processing you're speculating on is done by an in-camera logic chip. All digital cameras do this, to enhance the quality of the image. The processing *isn't being performed on the JPG itself*; the processing is applied to the raw camera image data, and *then* saved out as a JPG. The final result is a plain vanilla JPG. But real, usable image data has been thrown out to get to that point. This is the reason for raw - very little processing occurs on raw files, almost to the point of being negligible. Plus you get 4 extra bits of colour per channel.
2) Your theories revolve around the histogram, but that's too late in the workflow to make the comparison. Raw images have to be stepped down to 8 bit colour to load in Photoshop. (Though you could work with 16 bit colour if you wanted) It's the work you do when converting the image that makes raw shine. When I said it's "all about the post-processing adjustment possibilities," that's what I meant. You really need to learn more about this to understand raw. Load a raw image in Photoshop CS2. The dialogue that pops up is Photoshop's Camera Raw tool. There are books about this tool. That's your starting point.
I'm not sure why it's such an offense to recommend you read a book, given that all of this is well-documented within? I even gave you the title.
1) I didn't say anything inconsistent with that.
2) I didn't say anything inconsistent with that, either.
You say I'm wrong, but I look at what I wrote and what you've said in response and I just don't see where I said anything that you disagree with: When a camera creates a JPEG, it effectively mucks around with the image's histogram to the point where color information is lost permanently, "When you then pull the images off the camera, they are already fundamentally different" (as I said), and "limiting your post-processing adjustment possibilities" (as you said). Where's the wrongness? What words did I write that were wrong (besides "This theory doesn't make any sense", which I have apologized for)?
For example, whether the additional processing is done before or after JPEG compression isn't a point of contention (and in any event I never theorized either way). You're arguing against things I didn't say or mean, and you're arguing against things I said that are the same as what you said.
The only part I added, which I thought would be helpful to this whole discussion, is that JPEG compression as performed by Photoshop does *not* damage the photo's histogram (as opposed to as performed by a camera, which throws in the extra image adjustments before the compression). Again, I thought it seemed that someone might come away from your original post with the impression that the JPEG format in general was radically damaging to photo histograms, when in fact it's only the JPEG photos produced by digital cameras that do this. Although you didn't make this distinction, I know that that's what you meant, and I know that you know this stuff, and I never meant to suggest that you were "wrong" about anything (except for about me being wrong).
Clearly we're not communicating our resepective points to each other, so I apologize for calling you wrong when perhaps it was simply my understanding of what you were trying to say that was wrong. In any event, that's where I'll leave it.
This forum is an impressive one - and I'm hoping to get some advice from anyone kind enough to share.
I'm a fashion photographer new to the digital world who recently purchased and have begun working with a Canon eos1 ds Mark 11. Since purchasing the camera, I have shot only in jpegs because i have always feared that im not going to be able to shoot as fast or as much as i need or want (i currently have a 4gb memory card - which allows me to shoot roughly 480 highest quality jpegs).
Do you guys think that shooting RAW would prohibit me from producing the amount of shots necessary at the speed that a fashion shoot demands? or – is raw the way i should go?
And if so - what is the overall feelings of the new aperture 1.1 in terms the system to download (over, say - one of canon's teathering devices)?
sorry if i sound somewhat green with all of this – truth is, i am (long time pentax 6x7 guy…) so – any advice, thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
bboy - if you were really a pro fashion photographer, you would know by now that shooting JPG is a big mistake. No moron whose income depends on the quality of their images would shoot in JPG. I should know. I worked on the original version of Photoshop, still work for Adobe, and talk to pro photographers all day long. If you want to keep shooting in JPG, maybe you should really give up photography and go back to milking goats in Croatia.
andrei -
thanks for being so supportive. i really appreciate your helpful, not to mention thoughtful response. I never claimed to be a big pro - was just looking for some friendly advice…looks like that was asking for too much though.
There's an interesting article on the Adobe Camera Raw webpage http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/cameraraw.html title 'Understanding digital raw capture' - (100kb PDF http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf)
I am sure it would be great to shot in raw format… but… for me… it's tough… I sometimes took over 300 pictures in a single day.
Thank you for this article, it's clear and knowledable. PS: Your site is designed very neat as well…nice job. :)
It's not great design but worth a read; it opened up my mind…
I've shooted RAW for 5 years now, since Canon D30 (not 30D) and think Ken got some good issues.
Enjoyed the article Dave - very clearly stated and illustrated. I've been shooting RAW for about three years now and haven't had a single regret - although I agree strongly that there needs to be a standard.
One point I'll add, especially to those who are mostly concerned with the storage space required by RAW files, is to condition yourself (in your digital workflow) to throw out images that don't meet your expectations. This sounds like a very simple concept, but it's a little tougher than one might expect. Who out there doesn't have a drawer full of really badly composed or blurry prints they kept over the years, simply because you had them printed?
I've been shooting professionally for several years and it's honestly been one of the harder things I've had to condition myself to do. I come back after a shoot with several hundred images to process. It's imperative that I weed out the shots that aren't keepers - for time savings alone. And I'll typically shoot ten shots of the same bird / scene, especially if I'm bracketing - but generally only one of the ten (if I'm lucky) is worth keeping.
With the ease of shooting digital, it's all too simple to find yourself with a hard drive full of marginal photos - with a sprinkling of true keepers. Before long, the sheer numbers of files can get out of hand quickly. Trust me, you'll thank yourself later. My 2 cents.
bboy - ignore Andrei his bark is worse then his bite, he apparently is still stuck in the 90's mode of if I put you down I feel better about myself - just read any of the DesignByFire stuff and you get the same crap.
To help answer your question - yes you will have a slowdown in image capture shooting raw, and you will have added "darkoom" time for post processing. Your camera specs should tell you what to expect for JPEG and RAW burst and continuous shooting modes - which you can then make a comparison on for whether it will be fast enough.
One way to help the speed is to use CF cards (I think is what your camera uses) with the fastest write capability - something like Lexars 12MB/sec card which they call Pro or Platinum.
No matter what "some people" like to believe, there is no hard and fast rule that says you must use RAW to get good results. If the JPEGs are working for you and you get the results you need then you are good to go. If however you find that you need more flexability and want more control over the final image then RAW is definately worth the time to learn.
Hope that helps.
Excellent write-up and lots of great comments from people :)
I recently just purchased a Canon PowerShot S60. I'm not a power user and never will be and just don't have the inclination to cart a digital SLR around with me.
Seeing the stuff that came out of my dad's S60 and what it looks like when printed with a proper printer is simply awesome.
The time has come to retire my aging PowerShot A70 and get into photography more. I'll be shooting in RAW all the time.
It's interesting that Canon have removed RAW fro their latest PowerShot, the S80!
Sorry just a quick message for those that use Windows…..MS have a RAW camera image format PowerToy available for Windows XP that's a free download from their website.
Interesting article about removing noise and other effects from RAW files:
BTW, I see there are at least two compacts that now take RAW images! (The Fuji E900 is one of them I think.) So you don't necessarily need to buy an SLR.
This is interesting forum, and I would like add my experience.
I have Canon 300D and couple of lenses (18-55mm, 28-135mm IS, 50mm 1.8) and flash 550EX. So I have very modest equipment.
In the beginning I used JPEG in max resolution and I was delighted with quality I got. I didn't even know what RAW is except that it is similar to TIFF format and it holds every byte from the sensor. I tried it, in the early beginning, and when I converted with Canon converter to JPEG and compared magnified part of image I couldn't justify taking shoots in RAW.
After some time I started using manual settings for white balance, using predefined factory settings. This was fine but I realized that there must be something more so I tried full manual white balance using cheap gray card. This was my first step into proper digital photography. Difference was amazing!!!!!!!!
Surfing the Internet I started to read more and more about RAW format and comparison with film negative. So I took a series of shoots, still using gray card, and I downloaded some demo RAW software.
After only couple of hours of playing I realized what difference it makes when I use RAW format:
1. Adjustable white balance
3. Sharpening
4. etc.
From that moment until now I don't use Photoshop at all to adjust my photos, as everything can be done in RAW conversion including cropping. As I shoot mostly concerts and events in low light conditions, taking a lot of photos, fixing each JPEG photo in Photoshop takes so much time and not so good result (levels, contrast etc), but from RAW it is so fast and accurate that I am delighted.
Not going into some discussion about RAW converters I found Capture Pro very convenient, especially feature which allows applying settings from one photo to all selected in click of the button. I played with Bibble Pro as well, and it does have some interesting features, so I use it for "one off" photos.
I will never go back to JPEG in my dreams, and I treat RAW like negative in the same manner I done in past in dark room.
There is one more point which makes me feel good about it:
Thank you for reading this,
I didn't try it for real (my cameras doen't save RAW files –yet), but I liked the easy to understand chapter about camera RAW from Scott Kelby's book: The Photoshop CS2 Book for Digital Photographers (Voices That Matter).
As I have gotten to know Photoshop, it's been a fantastic tool for image post-processing, and I haven't seen a RAW-converter that has made me change from Adobe's ACR converter.
That wasn't untill I saw and tried out Aperture. For me it's worth a try.
But I'm not going to switch from PC to Mac - so has anyone heard if/when we will see Aperture for PC?
Something interesting came to me from my dad: Nikon's and Canon's RAW formats are quite different, though for most people the differences aren't too important. But he's an astrophotographer, and the problem is that Nikon tries to "de-noise" their NEF (RAW) format inside their cameras during long exposures.
Astrophotography requires very long exposures (sometimes hours) of very faint subjects that can be difficult to distinguish from noise. His colleagues often take a cap-on "black" exposure and then digitally subtract that from an actual image in order to tease out the sky objects from the noise.
The problem, of course, is that Nikon's non-deactivatable NEF de-noising ruins that process. As a consequence, he bought a Canon Digital Rebel XT even though I have a bunch of nice 35 mm Nikon lenses. So consider what you need to do with your RAW images when deciding which one to get.
The great thing is one can shot several images and bracket exposure, and then combine them into HDR image (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDR) to later post process. Even panos can be done this way.


text:
Mike Trout's big payday might be just around the corner. Wednesday was a relatively small payday but a significant one, as the Angels' center fielder agreed to a one-year, $1 million contract for the 2014 season.
Trout's 2014 salary is the largest the Angels — or any team — have given a player not yet eligible for salary arbitration.
The $1 million salary breaks the previous record of $900,000 shared by Philadelphia Phillies first baseman Ryan Howard and then-St. Louis Cardinals first baseman Albert Pujols. Howard was 27 years old at the time and Pujols was 23.
Trout is 22 and about to hit paydirt. The Angels are still negotiating a long-term contract extension with Trout's camp that would kick in beginning next season. Yahoo! Sports reported Sunday that the two sides had agreed on a six-year deal that would keep Trout in Anaheim through 2019 and were still negotiating the dollar value of the contract.
Angels general manager Jerry Dipoto called the contract a "landmark," telling reporters in Tempe, Ariz., that Trout had earned the largest pre-arbitration contract in franchise history.
The Angels renewed Trout's contract last season for $510,000 — $20,000 above the major-league minimum. That was commensurate with what the team had previously awarded players entering their second full season, but on the tiny side for the reigning American League Rookie of the Year and runner-up in MVP voting.
His agent, Craig Landis, issued a statement saying the deal "falls well short of a 'fair' contract."
Trout proceeded to bat .323 with a .432 on-base percentage and .557 slugging percentage. He hit 27 home runs, scored 109 runs and drove in 97.
The Angels could have renewed Trout's contract for whatever salary they pleased this year too. Instead, they broke the bank, albeit on a small scale.
Trout has repeatedly declined to comment about contract talks.