Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Interesting how "exactly what the sensor took in the first place" can look so different when interpreted with no user input by three different raw converters. One of them even found a little more sky.

The information that to display a raw image requires considerable processing is worth knowing if only to dispel the myth that raw files look dull and flat when first viewed unprocessed. They might depending on the software processing them and they might not depending on the software processing them.

(Download)

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It's a JPEG. Even if the photographer is shooting only raw it's a JPEG. Raw files have copies of the camera JPEG embedded for that specific purpose.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

This is not entirely correct. If you chose to process a JPEG you'll be dealing the the processing already applied. For example go back to this post: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-698929-4.html#12283857 and look at the 5th photo in the sequence. It shows the SOOC JPEG from the camera. The camera was set to auto-WB and that yellow wall threw it off. The JPEG is processed then with an incorrect WB. Setting the WB in a raw file is typically a simple one step operation. That won't work if you have a JPEG with a WB already set and you want to change it. It's much more difficult to do. Again the same if the JPEG has been processed with a tone curve you'd prefer wasn't used. Setting a tone curve from scratch with a raw file is again trivial, but trying to alter an existing tone curve to different values can be maddening.

One of the reasons I shoot only raw is to reduce all the time spent at the computer processing and all the extra work involved if I had shot JPEG. It takes more time, and more skill to try and fix a JPEG than it does to just process the raw right in the first place.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes, but why do all that extra work? I shoot only raw because I don't want to spend all that time sitting at the computer processing photos. It takes much more time and more skill to process JPEGs than it does to process raw files.

Sure you can PP JPEGs but I'd rather process raw files and use the extra time to get out and do more shooting.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

(Or do other things. )

I must be one of the few people who only "process" what I'm going to use for something.
I don't process every image I take. No need for me to do so.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

That's another choice made by the operator. And it's one that I never choose. If you are stingy with memory and choose to save a lower resolution, more highly compressed file, then I feel like you pretty much deserve what you get. I don't choose that. I save full resolution files with minimum compression. They are about 40% of the size of a raw file of the same image, and very little fidelity is lost over numerous resaves. The choices we make do make a difference.

Clearly we are at the point in this discussion where stubbornness rules and no one is learning. My process based on facts continues to work fine. At this point, I'll just leave the group to their own "wisdom."

srt101fan

Loosen up, Larry!😉

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If it works for you, don't fix it.

I process every image I take because they go into Lightroom for organization. The processing happens as a side effect, even if I don't make any adjustments (beyond presets).
But having said that, I frequently crop photos, which some consider part of processing. I do not feel bound by the standard camera aspect ratio. Sometimes the composition demands something else.

JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell

Quite agree kind Sir - we are of like mind. However, as far as I can see, no one ever mentions what happens to the image they produce. I see two distinct groups of photographers - Professionals and Non Professionals. Within the Professional group there are a number of sub groups for example Weddings, Media, Real Estate and more. You would expect, I think, that Wedding photographers need good skin tones and overall colour accuracy so would shoot RAW as a matter of necessity. Media photographers however I doubt would need that accuracy -- they want to get the shot and get it accepted then out to get the next - no time for editing!?!? Jpeg best for them. Real Estate - dynamic range would be their requirement with colour not so important. Time probably not an issue so they would shoot RAW. I don't know for certain but I suspect output for most sub groups would still be to jpeg.
Now as to our Non Professionals - well what do you do with your photographs???? I'm sure many are like me and the photos reside on our computers and are displayed in screensavers. I often sit and watch the world go by on my iMac screen. Many (most) of my photos are of my travels. RAW for me is quite unnecessary - I set my camera to give the best jpeg SOOC. Strangely back in the days of film I spent hours dodging and shading and even cutting and pasting then re-shooting - this the original post processing. I still have hundreds of slightly different prints of the same negative of my babies. Can't bring myself to throw them away - keep thinking I'll scan the best then edit them - maybe ....... Now, if I have a shot that's not quite right, then I usually delete it rather than spend time editing it.
If you sell some of your photos or maybe enter competitions then probably RAW is for you. Yes I think neither RAW nor jpeg are better - it depends more on your output requirements. If you like editing then that's your output - be happy with it but don't suggest its for everyone and look upon those that don't agree as some kind of Neanderthal. "Listen" to Messrs Chg-Canon and LarryPage - they know what they're talking about.

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

yet you took the time to comment. You can scroll past a topic that you have no interest in.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

My organization is in subject directories on the hard drive. I don't use a cataloger.
So once I copy them to the disk, no further action is needed until I use an image.
Yes, cropping is "processing", but not in the sense of adjusting parameters. And one shouldn't feel bound by the native aspect ratio. I've seen images where there are multiple good crops in them. For me, cropping is done when I use the image. Until I use the images for something, my images only have the presets in the camera applied.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Definitely a non-professional here!
Many of my photos are simply mementos of a place or gathering.
I can take a couple of hundred images on a trip to Acadia, but I would never sit and edit each one.
Some people love making each and every image they take look great. Used anywhere or not.
That's their prerogative.

Yea, I've deleted a bunch also.

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

That's an awesome app❗❗❗

DeanS Loc: Capital City area of North Carolina

I defy anyone to identify a jpeg and a raw image, shot with same equip of same subj, both pp’ed by an experienced user of the s/w (eg., photoshop) and discern which is which. Just my thoughts.