TheDman Loc: USA

I answered it on page 2 of the original thread.

dibsdone

When you process then export the RAW image it is no longer a RAW image. You had to convert it to a Jpeg, TIFF, PNG, or other format to get it to this website. That's why Adobe converts the RAW files to there DNG raw files, which reflects what it really is, a Digital Negative. Its the data that you work with to post process an image. To say that you're going to compare a RAW image and a Jpeg image is like asking in the analog days, which is better the print or the negative. Obviously the RAW file or DNG will give better results when using higher powered post processing software like Photoshop or Lightroom.

picpiper Loc: California

Chuck - very glad to see a SOOC JPGer actually diving in and seeing the benefits first hand. You are well on your way down the slippery slope :) .

Your next step is to get your head around the fact that "correct exposure" for a RAW file may be quite different and at times counter-intuitive (based on film experience) from "correct exposure" for a .jpg.

To dive into this you can search UHH for "expose to the right" and find the usual mix of sound advice and ignorant bloviation. However, before you do that I suggest you read this https://luminous-landscape.com/optimizing-exposure and pay particular attention to the black and white cats.

If you can get your head around the information in that article it will make your transition to the RAW-side easier and lead to even better photos than you are getting a peek at now.

minniev Loc: MIssissippi

Actually several of us took the time to offer images and explanations of how we derived them to illustrate our own findings, but most of our offerings were not acknowledged and were drowned in the noise of rants on either side of the argument.

It is a breath of fresh air for Chuck to undertake a new thread with a fresh experiment like this. He is a very accomplished photographer, and we can certainly trust that his skills are more than sufficient to do it right. Others interested in learning would benefit from what he shares.

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Thanks for the link, Picpiper. I should clarify that I am not and never have been an "SOOC JPGer." I was gifted with a disc of PSE-2.0 many years ago and began learning it before I even got my first digital camera. I was having stuff I shot with film digitized by the labs and was already very impressed with what I could do that I had never been able to do before. I still have my smudged and dog-eared copy of Elements 2.0 for Dummies. So, while a long-time JPGer, the only time I ever show anything SOOC is just for an example. I am a firm believer that no picture is finished until it's been tweaked. :)

I've also been following with great interest the "expose to the right" process. As a 30+ year pro I was already very familiar with the black and white cats conundrum. I was teaching a class 40-odd years ago, just trying to get the "Sunny 16" concept across to some (frankly) pretty rank amateurs. One woman kept telling me that no matter what she did, her camera meter disagreed with what I said. Finally, I removed the meter battery from her Pentax and after that she was all smiles! :D I do find it interesting that the digital advice with the black cat in the coal bin is to (basically) overexpose it, but time will tell. Obviously I hafta get busy! :thumbup:

Chuck_893 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska, USA

Minnie, you are far too kind! But I thank you! :-)

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

There are some of us who are either just starting to work with RAW files, or are considering it. This is a valuable thread for us. Please don't drag that other nonsense here.

Understanding RAW files is half of the battle. The taunting challenge from that other thread is based on a prejudicial misunderstanding of what RAW files are. It is not helpful.

Mike

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

* * *
Oh yes indeed! Then the other 50% of people have a prejudicial misunderstanding not knowing what they're doing while they are muddling around with RAW in addition to their prejudicial misunderstanding of what JPEG really is. :-D

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Chuck, thank you very much for your very conclusive demonstration of the subject.

It is so disappointing that the rabble rousers cannot admit what is very clear in front of them, or insist on bickering about ancilliary side issues not pertinent to the topic.
I would have thought that such a graphic demonstration that proves the point would be accepted graciously, but apparently that is not the case.

I am glad that this exercise has provided you with the impetus to rethink your current workflow and investigate a new very productive learning stream.
You will be very surprised at how quickly you adapt and learn, and how the quality of your photography improves because of it.
It is the small subtle things that make the difference.

pith Loc: CA

What amazes me is how proudly they parade their ignorance. How does any digital photographer not understand the inherent advantages of shooting Raw. ;) pith

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

* * *
And what amazes me is the way some people toss around accusations of ignorance and other "put-downs". This thread isn't obviously going to go anywhere but the same
direction as all the previous ones. So let's all just do our own thing and forget it. :D

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

This thread doesn't need to go anywhere.
It has already gone as far as it needs to with Chucks very first post.
People will either view it and take on board what it plainly, clearly, obviously shows them .... or they will throw themselves on the ground,wailing and flailing about, throwing a hissy fit like some little 4 year old in the candy aisle at the supermarket.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

* * *
You are saying it has failed in its purpose then since no one has really spoken for RAW as to what it is about other than to repeat some mantra or another in some phrase or catch-word about KNOWING to be right in his/her view or
repeating what is supposedly "obvious". Has anyone REALLY, for example, explained what gets "lost" in "compression" or some of the other terms and assertions that are made?
:)

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Please give it a break :roll:

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Monella tavalla, ammunta valokuvat jpeg on kuin lähettäisi rulla elokuva pois valokuvalaboratoriota edistääksesi kuvia ottava loppuu, mitä lopulta. Kun kuvaat JPEG, kamera siirtyy pääsee valokuvalaboratorioon, käsittely kuvan useita toimia, joihin sisältyy asetus valkotasapainon, kontrastin ja värikylläisyyden soveltaen hiontakiven ja pakkaa kuvan vähentää sen tiedostokoko (prosessi tunnetaan "häviöllinen pakkaus", koska se johtaa kuvanlaadun heikkenemättä. Kyllä, voit editoida ja muokata dokumenttejasi valokuvan itsestäsi myöhemmin Photoshop, mutta et aloita kuvan, joka on jo käsitelty, pysyviä muutoksia, joita on jo toteutettu sen pikseleitä (ja paljon alkuperäistä kuvaa tietoja, jotka jo hylätty). Eikö olisi parempi, jos voisimme jotenkin nappaa kuvan tiedot suoraan kameran kennoa ennen kameran sisäisen vähän valokuvausstudio saa huipputeknologiasta uutuuspelin parissa ja tekee päätöksiä siitä, mitä se ajattelee valokuvan pitäisi näyttää?

Silloin raaka. Raaka-tiedosto on sama kuin jos alkuperäiseen elokuvaan negatiivinen, pimeässä huoneessa ja kehittää valokuvan itsestäsi ja luovaa vapautta yli lopullisen tuloksen. Itse asiassa raaka-tiedostoja käytetään usein nimitystä digitaalinen miinusta, ja käytämme tällaisen ohjelman Adoben Camera Raw-kuin digitaalisessa pimiössä käsitellä raaka-tiedostoja (monet ihmiset käyttävät ilmaisuja "raaka" ja "Camera Raw-", jos ne ovat samoja asioita, mutta "Raw" viitataan erityisesti tiedostotyyppi, vaikka Camera Raw-sovellus on luotu Adobe, joiden avulla voimme käsitellä raakatietoa tiedostot). Vuorenvarmasti kuvan kameran kennon tallentamaa tietoa on tallennettu raw-tiedosto, ilman käsittelyä millään tavalla. Itse asiassa, että tiedostot ovat niin "raaka" emme voi edes avata ne tavallisesti tietokoneella seurueellesi, JPEG ja muut tiedostotyypit. Ne voidaan avata vain tällaisen ohjelman Camera Raw-, jossa voimme käsitellä kuvia millään tavalla testiskenaarioon valittiin ennen niiden avaamista Photoshop, roe tai pelastaa, JPEG- tai jokin muu perinteinen tiedostotyyppiin.

Suurin hyöty lipunkaappauksen kuviamme raaka-tiedostot vastakohtana jpeg on se, että meillä on paljon enemmän kuvatietoa työskennellä, mukaan lukien paljon laajempi dynaaminen alue (kirkkaus kuvassa ja suuremman väriavaruuden ja se merkitsee sitä, että voimme viedä kuvat paljon pitemmälle kuin olisimme, JPEG-senttisiä yritysten pelastamiseen ja piilotettu yksityiskohtaisesti tummien varjojen ja minkä ansiosta valoisimmatkin yksityiskohdat ja yksityiskohtia, jotka ovat usein saa heitteli pois ja katoavat ikuisiksi ajoiksi, kameran JPEG muuntamista.