Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Raw
Page 1 of 9 next> last>>
Apr 1, 2017 12:54:25   #
viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK
 
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.I have Corel Paint Brush Pro and this gives me tremendous opportunity to manipulate my shots and the average photographer would not be skill full enough to do the same in RAW. I don't need telling all the advantages of RAW and if I were a professional or a semi-professional I would use it.
I know a lot of people do not rate Ken Rockwell but he has the same conclusion.
Moden programmes made by Adobe,Serif and Corel are so good that is all the average shooter needs.
Finally,of course I can get more on my memory card as Raw does use a lot of space.

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 13:13:40   #
Bobspez Loc: Southern NJ, USA
 
Some cameras do a better job of creating jpgs than others do. Personally I have not found anything I can do with a raw file that I can't do with a jpg. It should be pretty easy for anyone to judge for themselves though. Post process a raw and a jpg file of the same image and see if there is any advantage to either. Personally I have not found any, but I still shoot both raw and jpg just in case.

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 13:13:56   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.I have Corel Paint Brush Pro and this gives me tremendous opportunity to manipulate my shots and the average photographer would not be skill full enough to do the same in RAW. I don't need telling all the advantages of RAW and if I were a professional or a semi-professional I would use it.
I know a lot of people do not rate Ken Rockwell but he has the same conclusion.
Moden programmes made by Adobe,Serif and Corel are so good that is all the average shooter needs.
Finally,of course I can get more on my memory card as Raw does use a lot of space.
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)


So long as you are happy with your results, that is really all that matters.

Reply
 
 
Apr 1, 2017 13:40:34   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Peterff wrote:
So long as you are happy with your results, that is really all that matters.



Reply
Apr 1, 2017 14:47:06   #
joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois
 
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.I have Corel Paint Brush Pro and this gives me tremendous opportunity to manipulate my shots and the average photographer would not be skill full enough to do the same in RAW. I don't need telling all the advantages of RAW and if I were a professional or a semi-professional I would use it.
I know a lot of people do not rate Ken Rockwell but he has the same conclusion.
Moden programmes made by Adobe,Serif and Corel are so good that is all the average shooter needs.
Finally,of course I can get more on my memory card as Raw does use a lot of space.
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)


My cell phone takes great images in certain situations. More people use smart phones than all other cameras combined. That's OK with me.

Nothing wrong with jpg if it works for you.

I shoot RAW almost all the time because I'm a narcissist and think I can do a better job.

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 15:18:03   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
joer wrote:
.../... I shoot RAW almost all the time because I'm a narcissist and think I can do a better job.

Careful there the insane guy may haunt you for years after this!!!

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 15:27:06   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
joer wrote:
My cell phone takes great images in certain situations. More people use smart phones than all other cameras combined. That's OK with me.

Nothing wrong with jpg if it works for you.

I shoot RAW almost all the time because I'm a narcissist and think I can do a better job.
My cell phone takes great images in certain situat... (show quote)


I shoot raw because I can think of nothing better to do than post process photographs. Jpeg is far more suited to a hectic lifestyle.

Reply
 
 
Apr 1, 2017 15:59:12   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
If jpg fine works for you, then by all means use it. I would say that if you take test shots (one raw, one jpg) you have to be careful how you compare them. When you shoot jpg, the image you get is determined by your camera settings. When you shoot raw, the image you get is determined by your postprocessing settings. It's really hard to synchronize the two so you can do a proper comparison. It may not even be possible because the software that determines the camera jpg was written by the camera manufacturer and the software that determines the postprocessed jpg was written by someone else. (While camera manufacturers do provide software to work with their images, software is not their primary endeavor and I believe that other people do software better).

Even if you did manage to get a very similar jpg out of the postprocessing software, I believe you would not see much difference in maybe 90% of your shots. It's that extra 10% where the difference lies, and that 10% might just be the important shots.

Personally, raw works better for me for several reasons.
I started shooting jpg because that's what I knew. Didn't know anything about raw. I continued, fat and happy, for maybe a year. Then one day I changed the white balance setting on my camera and forgot to change it back. I took some important shots. They all came out with a blue cast. It took me a very long time fiddling with my editing program to recover something useful from the jpgs, and they never really looked as good as I thought they should have. After that day I started shooting raw+jpg. I had the familiar jpg and a raw file to use if I screwed up again. Eventually I learned how to use the raw file and that became my primary choice.

At first I tried 3 or 4 different editing programs. I settled on Lightroom, not least because of the digital asset management aspect of the program. The basic editor was (to me, anyway) pretty intuitive and I found it easy to use. And once I got into the habit of adding keywords to every image I was able to find photos from several years ago that I had forgotten that I took. Once I started using Lightroom in that way I found that having the keywords available for searching was really important to me. So I wanted to put all my images into Lightroom. Once I made that decision I dropped the jpg from the raw+jpg shooting because if I'm going to use lightroom anyway I might as well use the raw file because there's more information there to use in the edit.

I think I could probably get reasonably good jpgs from my camera. But there's no point in doing so since raw avoids the bad camera setting problem and I have to put the images into Lightroom anyway to add keywords. Lightroom makes it easy to add keywords at import time.

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 16:34:01   #
G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK
 
[quote=viscountdriver]In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.

If, over a few weeks you have taken hundreds of shots then you are probably right in your assessment of what is best for you...Personally, I would also want a speedy resolution to clear that backlog.
I would be cautious of suggesting that amateurs cannot handle Raw processing though. I would guess that a large number of people on this forum could take umbrage at that statement. You only have to read the posts concerning PP to realise the many skills and deep knowledge of a variety of software that amateurs here command.
There are also people who advocate that full auto is sufficient also, perhaps reading 'many' supporting articles on this would also broaden your horizons and make your photography even simpler.

Photography is a very open society. Once you have purchased your camera you are free to do with it, or not, as you will. There is no exam in competence that one is obliged to take...so anything goes.

I am pleased that you have resolved, for yourself, the Raw-V-Jpg conflict that bothers so many people.

Have fun (or are you a serious photographer?)

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 17:16:32   #
bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.
 
though I've spent some big bucks on photo equipment, I've never considered myself "that" good at our hobby. being good is the most important thing for many, but for me it's how much I enjoy participating. i'm one of the guys that will spend thousands on equipment but not houndreds on photo processors. for what I do jpeg I enough.

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 17:43:08   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.I have Corel Paint Brush Pro and this gives me tremendous opportunity to manipulate my shots and the average photographer would not be skill full enough to do the same in RAW. I don't need telling all the advantages of RAW and if I were a professional or a semi-professional I would use it.
I know a lot of people do not rate Ken Rockwell but he has the same conclusion.
Moden programmes made by Adobe,Serif and Corel are so good that is all the average shooter needs.
Finally,of course I can get more on my memory card as Raw does use a lot of space.
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)


Five years from now you may find yourself coming to the following conclusions:

Raw is easier and faster to edit, requiring only modest skills.

JPEG is convenient, but results can vary widely, and they are harder to edit.

You can shoot Jpeg and get most of the tonal range you saw, if you are lucky, but you can be much more precise with raw, and you'll be able to take better advantage of your camera's full dynamic range.

Raw records more fine detail.

When you have to make broad adjustments, raw files are more "pliable."

An edited raw file is essentially incomplete - you still need a pixel editor to finish the majority of images.

In high contrast situations, settings that can produce an ok Jpeg will produce a similarly mediocre raw file. But properly exposing for the highlights, often resulting in darker looking images out of the camera, can produce stunningly beautiful images, that will always look better than the out of camera jpegs.

There is no real difference between an amateur and a pro with respect to image quality. Each is capable of both. The better distinction to make is between someone who takes his/her art seriously and a hack. Those who care and seek to make the best images they can will take the time to fully exploit the capabilites of their camera, and their images reflect the effort. This totally applies to both amateurs and pros alike.

Reply
 
 
Apr 1, 2017 17:49:32   #
via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP
 
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.I have Corel Paint Brush Pro and this gives me tremendous opportunity to manipulate my shots and the average photographer would not be skill full enough to do the same in RAW. I don't need telling all the advantages of RAW and if I were a professional or a semi-professional I would use it.
I know a lot of people do not rate Ken Rockwell but he has the same conclusion.
Moden programmes made by Adobe,Serif and Corel are so good that is all the average shooter needs.
Finally,of course I can get more on my memory card as Raw does use a lot of space.
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)


My but you have a lot of conclusions here. Actually, I don't care how people shoot; that's their business unless they ask for advice. And I would never listen to Ken Rockwell; I went on a shoot with him once and that was too much! He's an idiot. You get to shoot the way you want and so do I and I would not presume to tell others what to do. Can you also define the "average shooter" for me, who is that?

Reply
Apr 1, 2017 17:58:30   #
LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field
 
Certainly you can lead a horse to water but you cannot force him to drink. Best you can do is make him thirsty.

I had an epiphany with an older image that I needed to rework. Since reshooting was not an option, I worked on the jpeg with wholly unsatisfying results. For lack of an archived raw file, the project had to be scrapped. That's why I now save my raw files.

So there's the trough, drink if you will.

Reply
Apr 2, 2017 05:38:08   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article on Raw versus JPG. Then I took hundreds of pictures in both formats.I knew enthusiasts swear by RAW but I reached a conclusion. For the average amateur JPG Fine is what they should shoot.I have Corel Paint Brush Pro and this gives me tremendous opportunity to manipulate my shots and the average photographer would not be skill full enough to do the same in RAW. I don't need telling all the advantages of RAW and if I were a professional or a semi-professional I would use it.
I know a lot of people do not rate Ken Rockwell but he has the same conclusion.
Moden programmes made by Adobe,Serif and Corel are so good that is all the average shooter needs.
Finally,of course I can get more on my memory card as Raw does use a lot of space.
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)


Great Logic.

Reply
Apr 2, 2017 05:38:51   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
Bobspez wrote:
Some cameras do a better job of creating jpgs than others do. Personally I have not found anything I can do with a raw file that I can't do with a jpg. It should be pretty easy for anyone to judge for themselves though. Post process a raw and a jpg file of the same image and see if there is any advantage to either. Personally I have not found any, but I still shoot both raw and jpg just in case.



Reply
Page 1 of 9 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.