Who needs RAW
Sep 26, 2016 12:03:09 #
Apaflo wrote:
It means that what you like about it would be even nicer than it is now!
Sep 26, 2016 12:05:08 #
Sep 26, 2016 13:25:59 #
Every .jpg image has compression artifacts. These often make enlargements or severe crops problematic. RAW images have none of these. I always shoot in RAW as it assures me of getting the technically best possible image from the camera.
Sep 26, 2016 14:43:55 #
Violameister wrote:
Every .jpg image has compression artifacts. These often make enlargements or severe crops problematic. RAW images have none of these. I always shoot in RAW as it assures me of getting the technically best possible image from the camera.
Balogna.
Sep 26, 2016 15:31:45 #
WessoJPEG wrote:
Is this what you like , I don't? Still no need for RAW.
The first image is not significantly different than the first image in the previous post. The second image is significantly underexposed and the third is significantly over exposed.
The idea is to get more accurate brightness levels in the JPEG. When you've missed a little on the low side it is possible with RAW to increase brightness to compensate without adding significant artifacts. Even with perfect exposures using RAW would allow you better adjustment of gamma.
You are getting some pretty nice images, but they could be made even better with good editing.
Sep 27, 2016 00:23:14 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.