Fidelity Difference RAW vs JPEG
Apr 17, 2019 15:43:29 #
was_a_guru wrote:
I'm probably going to get a lot of flak for this, but if people are just replying to each other with their witticisms that have nothing to do with the original topic (photography) can you do it with a private reply? I get enough junk emails and don't need to open one from UHH and see its of no interest to me whatsoever.
Not sure what your setup is. You don't need to get emails from UHH. If you're interested in a particular topic, just put it on your Watch List. This list, when refreshed, will mark topics that have new posts.
Apr 17, 2019 15:56:43 #
Longshadow wrote:
I shoot RAW+JPEG only for convenience of viewing the JPEG in Windows Explorer. I always edit the RAW.
I shoot RAW+JPEG only for convenience of viewing the JPEG in Windows Explorer. I always edit the RAW.
I really like this idea, and I've done exactly this ever since someone (probably on UHH) first suggested it.
The only reason I can see for NOT, is if one is running out of room on the camera card, and does not carry a spare.
I'm not an artist, not a computer nerd; therefore, not very adept at post-processing (plus, I have very low interest) ~ but, on occasion, I'll hand a card to a smart friend, and (s)he can do so much more with the RAW data.
Apr 20, 2019 16:30:03 #
One more interesting thing on this topic. I have Picasa 3 on my computer. Only use it occasionally since I got LR. Picasa will open and print a RAW (NEF) file. The rendition of the shot is very muted colors. If I look at the same shot exported (by LR) as a JPEG the colors are much more vibrant (and true).
I have attached the comparison photos here. No conclusions from this. Just thought it was interesting.
I have attached the comparison photos here. No conclusions from this. Just thought it was interesting.
Apr 20, 2019 16:57:01 #
Remarkable difference. The intension of my original post starting this discussion was my notion that shooting jpeg with a 42MP procam like an A7R3 in its highest setting may, in many cases, negate the need for post processing simply based on the inherit capabilities of this and similar pro grade cameras. This simply proffers the notion that consumer grade cameras may demand PP for jpeg which may otherwise not be required with much more advanced cameras. From these helpful discussions, I’ve come to realize that despite the quality level of a camera, there can always be desired PP enhancements shooting RAW no matter what camera one uses.
Apr 20, 2019 17:10:07 #
chuck A7R3 wrote:
Remarkable difference. The intension of my origina... (show quote)
Raw is just data, it will be lifeless until something is done to it. Even a jpeg starts raw until the camera applies some settings to make the jpeg and then discard the raw data. Whatever program you use to process your raw files will or can have preset adjustments like sharpening, contrast, etc that can be further adjusted. I don't have Sony but your camera surely has presets for picture style built in, which would be applied if you used the software that came with the camera, like auto, standard, portrait, etc. Otherwise a program light Lightroom has presets you can choose from or you can make your own.
Apr 25, 2019 05:52:12 #
I'm glad that you feel that you got terrific shots on your trip! If I am shooting for a gig, I always use RAW, but for high school sports, and sometimes for family JPEG is fine. If I am shooting in a really dark area, or in a very bright situation, I will always choose RAW, as there is a much greater chance to recover all of the data of the photograph in RAW.
Apr 25, 2019 07:42:00 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
I am a RAW sicko. I shudder to think about shooting a JPG image as I would feel that I didn't give capturing the image the very best I had to offer.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.