JPEG or RAW (Page 2): I shoot RAW and when I want a Jpeg for the net I use the Excellent free program "Instant Jpeg from RAW" from...

riscpc Loc: Lincoln UK.

I shoot RAW and when I want a Jpeg for the net I use the Excellent free program "Instant Jpeg from RAW"
from http://michaeltapesdesign.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw.html
PC and Mac available.

Bill_de Loc: US

rmalarz wrote:

A simpler explanation is jpg is like shooting Polaroid. RAW is similar to shooting film. With a Polaroid print, you get what you get. With RAW, you need to "develop" and then "print". Develop=ACR Print=PS or LR.
--Bob

I think your example would be more accurate if you said jpg is like shooting slide film. You get what you get, but still have some leeway when it comes time to print.

jackpinoh Loc: Kettering, OH 45419

imagemeister wrote:

Where do you think the colors come from ?

What if the information that was "lost" does not make any difference in the perception of the final image ?

I hope you are joking!

I'm sorry. I don't quite know how to explain this to you. But I'll try. Forgive me if you were really joking.

Your camera records luminance (amount of light). It uses filters to separate the light into red, green and blue channels and records that data in a RAW file. ALL colors you see in each pixel of your image are calculated from the luminance data in each of those channels for that pixel. When converting to B&W, your software is using the luminance data from each of those channels. Your B&W image is, in fact, black, white, and all of the shades of gray in between black and white. Lost information results in abrupt changes in tone (level of gray) and/or some tones being combined into a single tone.

Also note that each time you open, change (no matter how slightly), and save a JPEG file, it is compressed again and loses even more information.

Some people are more perceptive than others. If you process a JPEG and a RAW file to B&W and can't tell the difference, that doesn't mean there is no difference. It just means you aren't as perceptive as most of us.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Nice point, Jack. However, did you miss the mention of color blindness? In a case like the OP's it's best to rely on the camera's ability to compensate for the photographer's inability to see certain colors, which could provide a real issue in trying to process a RAW file.
--Bob

jackpinoh wrote:

The quality of your image is dependent on the availability of information, not the colors. You have more flexibility in processing RAW files to B&W. JPEG files are lossy compressed RAW files--information has been lost permanently--an inferior starting point for processing.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

jackpinoh wrote:

I hope you are joking! br br I'm sorry. I don't q... (show quote)

ooo, would you say the colors come from the availability of information and the the quality of you image depends on this ?? ( and I am NOT kidding)

In my world, if I cannot tell the difference and most others can't - then it does NOT exist !

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

imagemeister wrote:

Where do you think the colors come from ?

What if the information that was "lost" does not make any difference in the perception of the final image ?

But what if it does? What if the OP needs to get detail out of shadows? Color is only one of the things you have more control over in post when you use RAW. And it may no be the most important.

The idea that seems to be coming out here "Color blind ?!?! Oh, forget RAW, you are COLOR BLIND!!!!", just makes no sense. The same arguments for using or not using RAW apply to users who are color blind.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

You can use color presets to apply to the RAW file and still retain control of the rest of the detail RAW gives you.

Bill_de Loc: US

imagemeister wrote:

ooo, would you say the colors come from the availability of information and the the quality of you image depends on this ?? ( and I am NOT kidding)

In my world, if I cannot tell the difference and most others can't - then it does NOT exist !

That's because you think a photograph is something to look at.

---

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

rmalarz wrote:

A simpler explanation is jpg is like shooting Polaroid. RAW is similar to shooting film. With a Polaroid print, you get what you get. With RAW, you need to "develop" and then "print". Develop=ACR Print=PS or LR.
--Bob

That is true. If you actually do your own film developing then RAW is like film and JPEG is like... well dropping your film off at Photohut.

Kuzano

rmalarz wrote:

Steve, Ray has a good point. In addition, I might suggest that you try black and white photography. This will allow you to be attentive to composition and less worry about colors.
--Bob

I dunno about that. I see colors in black and white. That doesn't even relate to the fact that I have a substantial hearing loss in my left ear and 50% in my right.

Kuzano

I had a photo style hut. I called it Camelot Photo Processing for the Ladies.

The motto on the signage said, "Drop Your Film Here, Some Day Your Prints Will Come."

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Steve3265 wrote:

Hi everyone! I'm hoping that you can shed some lig... (show quote)

Sorry to hear about your problem and you are probably right, it would might help you to do some work in Photoshop instead of Elements, because you can rely more on graphs and histograms, but it does not eliminate your basic shortcomings in evaluating exacting colors, its just that Elements is so limited/crippled compared, but I really do not know what would be the best. If you like the way your camera produces jpegs and you're generally happy with them, just stick to jpeg!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

speters wrote:

Sorry to hear about your problem and you are probably right, it would might help you to do some work in Photoshop instead of Elements, because you can rely more on graphs and histograms, but it does not eliminate your basic shortcomings in evaluating exacting colors, its just that Elements is so limited/crippled compared, but I really do not know what would be the best. If you like the way your camera produces jpegs and you're generally happy with them, just stick to jpeg!

I believe He is tweaking his JPEGS in Elements - just like I do .....no need to take what the camera gives you - just because you shoot JPEGS - a BIG fallacy !

Hangingon Loc: NW North Dakota

[quote=rmalarI might suggest that you try black and white photography. This will allow you to be attentive to composition and less worry about colors.

I am also red/green color blind. I once copied some b/w and after printing them was told that we're all green. my printer had run out of one of the colors. I didn't know that it would affec. We black and white.

Steve3265 Loc: Fulton, IL

WOW I didn't realize that I would open such a raw wound on here. (sorry I couldn't resist the pun! LOL) Many of you have pointed out some very good points. I learned to shoot with B&W years ago and did my own development and printing. I loved it! From the posts here I can see where shooting RAW for B&W would be a real positive. I have not had a chance to read the articles that some of you put posts up for or review the videos but I'm looking forward to it! I hope more people will chime in on this and and those that have will continue to follow the posts and speak up with your ideas and thoughts. I really do appreciate it even if there are different schools of thought and I'm learning more as I read your posts. So thank you everyone, I really do appreciate it!!!

Steve