Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

That is a fair question and you're right in that what you can't see doesn't really matter. Just make sure that what you can't see will always remain unseen and unobtrusive. Don't complain if sometime in the future you decide you want to print an image and the artifacts that you don't see on your phone or your laptop/tablet screen become very visible in a higher-res and larger print.

A bazzilion photographers get away with editing JPEGs every day. For the most part those images don't need to be sharp and they're fine if they're noisy and all kinds of "bad stuff" and JPEG artifacts won't really show because the standard for viewing those images is a phone screen. Kind of begs the question why not just take them with your phone? I mean why throw a $$$$$ DSLR at them when the first four of those five $ signs I just typed isn't going to show on your phone anyway? Shoot them with your phone and Snapspeed the b'Jesus out of them.

Joe

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

I agree completely ..., that’s why I noted that with the RAW .., I would put it into my MacBook Pro and my big gun photo programs for PP .., I shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously and use both for different purposes .., the owner of said photo offered the readers if they wanted to have a go at the JEPEG version .., so I Did ..

That being said .., others have said the overall process on the JPEG version shouldn’t bother anyone When the non pixel peeping viewers like the overall look and can’t really notice the zoomed up details ..

While my editing of the JPEG was a bit over cooked.. , it was intended to show the extreme end of the originals work using his JPEG .., copying the original which most wo’uld consider over cooked a bit .

Thnx so much for your input and intelligent comments .., much appreciated ..

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Yup. As you can see, the original image captured everything you need to produce a good result, even though the original looks a little "blah".

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

This is more due to the fact that he is working on a tiny jpeg version of my image and not the 150mp version. The image I posted was only 4.5mp. Jpeg compression does have a major impact in situations like these. I suspect that if he were to do this on the full 150mp, you'd not likely find compression artifacts. The reason you see no artifacts on my originally posted conversion is that I did no adjustments on it at all. And my version of the edited version is because the majority of the tonal, contrast and color adjustments were done on the dng (raw version) with only minor refinements in Photoshop and On1.

But when printed at 200 ppi - the resulting image would be 69"x54". A more appropriate print resolution would likely be 64 ppi, then the image would be 215x170 - or 18 t x 14 ft. which would still look absolutely amazing at a viewing distance of 15 ft. Any closer and you'd fail to see the entire image without scanning it with you eyes. At 15 ft, you would not be able to see much of an advantage if you print an image at more than 24 ppi.

There is a physical rationale for print sizing that you can find here:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

It is unlikely that even Bob's edit, complete with artifacts would look much different than mine printed at full resolution when viewed at 15 ft. Unless, of course you have had an eagle's visual cortex transplanted into your skull.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Amen brother! That’s my point

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

When editing photos I don’t always need a miracle I kinda like the jpeg by bob.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Just how high is you’re throne? You heard it here first all you jpeg shooters throw away your cameras. It will be come law you only use phones! Good grief man

srt101fan

Thanks for your reply, Joe. As usual, thoughtful and instructive comments. Except at the end you got a little carried away. I don't think it's an all or nothing situation. Some photos are fine as JPEGs, others are better shot as RAW. But you know that better than I do....

Part of my reason in asking the question is my frustration that some UHH commenters don't want to recognize that there are many types of photography and photographs. I think that some of the generalizations we see are potentially confusing to novices.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I don't. And it was my file. But he was illustrating a point - which I am fine with. BTW, there were no miracles in that image. Not even close. PP was pretty standard.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

For a test I shot Raw & Jpeg of the same photo. I edited them both. I only shoot Raw now. The difference was undeniable.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I never see anyone here running around telling you (or anyone else) that you should not work with JPEGs. I do, however, see people running around trying to discourage people from working with raw files, as you are doing here, and claiming that somehow you are being persecuted or maligned, that those who are extremely knowledgeable are somehow harming you.

Working with raw files has some advantages, as explained by some talented, generous and knowledgeable members here. You are free to do whatever you like.

Mike

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I whole heartedly agree raw can produce better photos. My beef is with those that look down their noses for shooting Jpeg. I don’t discourage anyone from shooting raw. But in many cases it may not be noticeably better.

srt101fan

Can anybody really disagree with this assessment?

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I don't see that happening here.

Of course you are discouraging people from considering working with raw files with your comments, although maybe not intentionally. You post about it all of the time.

Mike

canon Lee

Hi Jpeg is good but RAW is better. JPEG is limited RAW conversions are high quality...