Mudshark Loc: Illinois

Here's a RAW image of 1% of a single red hair on my favorite Irish lass. She really looks good here…nude…enjoy…
1000011010100010110010101010010100101001010000100001111100001000011010100010110010101010010100101001010000100001111100001000101100101010100101001010010100001000011111000010000110101000101100101010100101001010010100001000011111000010000110101000101100101010100101001010010100001000011111000010000110101000101100101010100101001010010100001000011111000010001011001010101001010010100101000010000111110000100001101010001011001010101001010010100101000010000111

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

Um... those don't look like limited skills to me! If one doesn't immediately at least try RAW after seeing this, then they should maybe take up bowling. ;-)

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

If bob is still unwilling to acknowledge the inherent advantage a raw file has over a jpeg file in its potential for post-processing, this could be the reason he is even calling it into question.

So far, he has concurred that raw files are advantageous (i.e. for white balance adjustments) only once. While he has complimented some for their post processing skills, he has stopped short of conceding the point.

Couple that with the snide remarks to those who had the audacity to not follow his explicit instructions, and you have the classic passive aggressive... troll.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

DAMN! You beat me to it!!

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA

Oh please don't type these long uninterrupted strings of digits in the future! They don't respond to the normal text wrap and completely mess up the formatting on the page. Now ALL of the remainder of this page will be stretched out across the page to the lentgh of your digits, requiring everyone to scroll horizontally to read the posts. Not a problem on a 27 inch screen I suppose, but a really pain in the tush on an iPad! It also reduces the size of the print to the point that it is nearly, no is, impossible to read.

canon Lee

HI and welcome. It is really simple. Your camera creates digital data. the data is like instructions used to create a picture. The picture is created in pixels. Each pixel has lots of information applied to it, like color,black & white, brightness etc. When you take a picture in Camera Raw you are collecting all of the instructions needed to construct all of the individual pixels that make up the pix. Its like a puzzle, where each pixel is a puzzle piece., & each puzzle piece is different. The picture that is created is a JPEG. (Raw data is not a picture but instructions how to created each pixel). You have a choice to use the Raw data or let the camera create the pix as a JPEG. The advantage for shooting in Camera Raw is that you have a complete set of data so that you can edit or correct the pixels. If you choose to shoot in JPEG then you are letting the camera make a picture for you. The camera will decide (not you) what the picture will look like and it will take what data it wants and throw the rest of the data away. ( never ever able to use again. it will be gone). As a photographer you would want all of the original data so that you could make corrections to the picture not what the JPEG compressed version is. With Camera Raw you can use the Raw data to correct the picture to your liking. You will always want to post edit your shots before you print. In the post editing programs you can adjust the picture using the complete Camera Raw data, where JPEG from your camera will limit your ability to correct the pix, due to less data.
So start with RAW and edit with Raw before you convert to JPEG to print.

cwhonda Loc: SLC, UT.

Now 28 pages !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

etc etc.
* * * And of course on UH any thread where it is possible to state opinion over reason...it will go to the dogs PDQ

blackest Loc: Ireland

The Earth is 6000 years old.

No it isn't its much older than that , there are fossils of dinosaurs

No ,that is just your opinion ....

'#@~#???!!!

just gets that way some times Now about raw and jpeg ... um never mind ;)

backroader Loc: Wherever we park our motorhome

With this comment and his examples I think Dman pretty much answers the question.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

* * *
No, certainly not, I meant the link where the invention of all this stuff is taken into consideration and evaluated by people who have no axe to grind and no silly opinion to try to convince those who will not calmly learn listen and reason.
You don't happen to have any credibility on this forum, didn't you know that? No One else does either. This is why I did not state an opinion but referred you to a more reliable source.
You might respect that information unless you are smarter than the people who invented digital photography.
:) :)

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I've never seen a second gen. image of my own. I use Picasa to organize my photos. It's non-destructive. Like Lightroom I hear tell. Never a reason to start with anything other than the original RAW file.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I've read very few questions on the Hog that can't be answered by a simple Google search.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I like pithy replies like yours. :thumbup:

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Thanks, I wondered why I had to scroll horizontally to read that. Now I know.