jpeg (Page 3): Your comment speaks for itself ....

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Rongnongno wrote:

So let's forget the trillions of color shades available in the raw capture vs the 24 millions in a JPG. Since we are at it, let's forget the dynamic range in raw that is between 10 to 16 at the moment to the 2 in a JPG.

Yeah, technology has improved JPG limitations and corrected them.

You are the master of what exactly?

Your comment speaks for itself ....

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

imagemeister wrote:

Your comment speaks for itself ....

His handle speaks for itself.
His comments just reinforce it.

mdsiamese Loc: Maryland

SonnyE wrote:

Yep. Not reality.

But thanks for the graphic display of unnatural.

Technically, no photograph is reality. Every camera manipulates light to create a chunk of data. Not even film was reality. But the combined photo above does look natural while the individual photos look unnatural, like camera mistakes. The combined photo (which is beautiful and pleasing and looks totally natural to me) is probably as close to reality as we can get with the technology that we have today.

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

Bobgood1 wrote:

Unless it is a very difficult lighting situation, I quite frankly have the time to process " Raw." This is for people who have lots of time on their hands. I know that I will be attacked by the " Diehards," but cameras have become so efficient. I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. bb

mdsiamese wrote:

Technically, no photograph is reality. Every camera manipulates light to create a chunk of data. Not even film was reality. But the combined photo above does look natural while the individual photos look unnatural, like camera mistakes. The combined photo (which is beautiful and pleasing and looks totally natural to me) is probably as close to reality as we can get with the technology that we have today.

Technically, I agree with Bobgood1.
"I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. "

Manipulated (Photoshopped, PP'd) pictures are not what it is, but what the person makes it.
And often it is unnatural.

TheDman Loc: USA

SonnyE wrote:

Manipulated (Photoshopped, PP'd) pictures are not what it is.

Says who? Who determines what is "actual reality"? And which of the three images I posted looks closest to this "reality"?

TheDman Loc: USA

mdsiamese wrote:

Technically, no photograph is reality. Every camera manipulates light to create a chunk of data. Not even film was reality. But the combined photo above does look natural while the individual photos look unnatural, like camera mistakes. The combined photo (which is beautiful and pleasing and looks totally natural to me) is probably as close to reality as we can get with the technology that we have today.

Thanks, and you're dead on.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

Guess the RAW folks are having there say. I can pretty well guess the OP has unwatched this subject. Have your fun and pats on the back. Good luck.

I guess the B and W folks are just plain out of luck. LOL

mdsiamese Loc: Maryland

SonnyE wrote:

And often it is unnatural.

And in the case of the three pictures posted, the combined photo is not unnatural. It looks the most natural of the three to me.

Every digital camera manipulates data, every piece of viewing software manipulates data. The computer takes the raw data off the sensors, and a program manipulates that data to figure out what to display on the screen, and the data can look totally different depending on the program, the screen, the camera, etc. The data will sometimes look different on a Mac display vs. an Intel display, the software app used to view the photo, including the browser can affect the image. All of this is post processing manipulation. There is nothing wrong with a human also manipulating the data rather than relying totally on the computer to do it, and the human can and often does (as is the case in the combined photo) produce a more natural and realistic photo than the computer can alone.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

ecrocker wrote:

I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!

It has all been said before: Full frame camera produce better IQ than cropped sensor cameras, shooting raw with processing results in better images than JPEG; but, for a great many amateurs shooting snapshots of family and friends, JPEG with a cropped sensor camera is completely suitable. JPEG images from a crop sensor camera can be very beautiful.

canon Lee

ecrocker wrote:

I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!

To answer your question I would have to separate photographers into 2 categories; one being the hobbyist the other being for business. Hobbyist are primarily trying to perfect their camera technique as well as shooting what they are interested in, where the pro ( a photographer that owns his or her own business and makes a living as a photographer), a pro would never shoot in JPEG a lone. When getting paid it is imperative that raw be used to be able to make corrections that the client would want. This is very limited with JPEG files. I would suggest that you shoot in JPEG + RAW as a compromise.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

ecrocker wrote:

I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!

I don't see were raw's are time consuming.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Bobgood1 wrote:

Unless it is a very difficult lighting situation, I quite frankly have the time to process " Raw." This is for people who have lots of time on their hands. I know that I will be attacked by the " Diehards," but cameras have become so efficient. I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. bb

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

SonnyE wrote:

Yep. Not reality.

But thanks for the graphic display of unnatural.

:XD: :thumbup: :thumbup:

SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA

canon Lee wrote:

To answer your question I would have to separate p... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

ecrocker

thanks for your reply.
I guess I am a little tried of so much pp. I know that there are times when raw is necessary.....yesterday studio portraits, but I am interested in a T6s it would be a first crop camera for me and if the in camera processing has improved then shooting jpeg is much easier.