dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Actually, if you use Lightroom, one of the things you can do is while clicking on the titles in the first six sliders (Eposure, Contrast, Highlights, Whites, Blacks) while holding down the shift key will cause Lightroom to automatically determine what the setting should be. These are generally close but you can fine tune them. I often leave exposure alone as I like my images to be a little darker. But, I then adjust clarity, put in my lens if the program doesn't read it automatically, adjust Dehaze and then crop and fine tune. Often times, I will make a virtual copy of the image before doing anything so that I also have the original to make other virtual copies to try different settings. The virtual copies take very little additional storage space because it is just a listing of attributes for the original image. So it isn't unusual for me to have 3, 4, or more virtual copies that are either cropped differently and or adjusted differently. I can sometimes get 3 or more pictures out of cropping one image differently each time. My point is that that any dummy can hold the shift key and click on the title of each adjustment and get really close. Then you just experiment. You can always reset it back to normal. Heck, you can also shoot RAW (or JPG) and in LIGHTROOM, and there is another section in the newest version (I can't remember where it is in the panel) and the dropdown applies any of the original shooting settings you had in the camera (Hazy Day, Bright Sun, What ever) presets to the image automatically. So you can try those and see if you like them. With those, the more settings your camera has, the more that Lightroom will allow. For instance, My Nikon D70s only has 3 or for presets and My D7100 and D610 have 7 or more. Also, If the images are jpg, you may have 1/3 as many choices as you do with a RAW image.

Bill_de Loc: US

A printer will print a 10 inch wide image whether it is 720 pixels or 300 pixels. For a printer, a physical size must be part of your input.

As for screen image, re-read what I said. I think we agree.

--

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Please be aware that DNG is NOT a straight raw file format and can encapsulate any bitmap format, including JPG.

So, raw because it is DNG? THAT is a gimmick. Still the sensor that is used to create the capture starts from the data it recorded (raw) but the phone camera does not deliver that as it would be a ridiculous small sized piece of information the game (virtual resolution). It would simply given away.

JamesCurran Loc: Trenton ,NJ

True (that was the "for the most part" part of my comment). But, it's the DESIRED physical size, and usually works work to something nonstandard like 387.27DPI, and not related to any property of the file. The DPI setting might be taken as a suggestion to the printer (i.e., the default size it offers to print, but you'd be expected to confirm or overrule that)

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

I enjoy your expertise and comments.

Bill_de Loc: US

I think we are on the same page ... whatever size the page turns out to be.

--

TheDman Loc: USA

He's talking to you.

TheDman Loc: USA

None others. Many here have tried to tell you the same thing, but apparently the whole world is wrong and you're right.

You can do a rain dance over your images and say that makes them smaller, but that doesn't make you right.

mdurbanek

With RAW files you can always go back to square 1. Adobe Camera Raw (and Lightroom) don't change the file until it is changed to another format. They also have tools that work a little differently than in Photoshop, and I think most of them are superior. The original information is still there and can be reset to defaults. Also, every edit on a JPEG degrades the file (loses information).

Reinaldokool Loc: San Rafael, CA

What quality? My daughter's iphone pix looked decent but unremarkable. Even with jpeg, I was able to increase range and depth with PS. With a raw file I could have done so much more. I also could not overcome the difference in the low-quality sensor. Yes it is touted as high quality, but that is only compared to older iphones. Compared to a DX or FX sensor, the image falls apart very quickly.

Edia Loc: Central New Jersey

With camera memory being cheap, there is no reason not to shoot raw. Raw gives more flexibility in post processing and provides 16 bit or more color depth while jpeg on provides 8 bit color depth.

Bill_de Loc: US

---

I like that!


--

c49smith Loc: Ohio

A good friend of mine said to me once about shooting in RAW and then post processing in Lightroom..."It's like taking the picture a second time".

btbg

Those who are telling you that raw takes more time in processing are incorrect. That might used to be the case, but it isn't any longer. I shoot sports so sometimes the image needs to be sent immediately. In order to print properly on our press, which is ancient by printing standards the image has to be lightened until it looks overexposed and it has to be oversharpened as the ink on the press tends to bleed. The result is lines that clearly show as oversharpened on a computer monitor don't look that way on the finished newspaper. A normally sharp image doesn't look sharp in the finished product in that case.

I know that probably no one here cares about that. It is there just to explain that even if I choose to shoot jpeg I still have to change the exposure, contrast, often the vibrance and even the saturation in post processing so that it looks right in print. In addition we print entirely off of tiffs not jpegs. The jpegs are only for on-line. So I have the same amount of processing time no matter which format I shoot in.

With limited contrast and good light I will often shoot jpegs because the camera can take more shots before it fills the memory buffer. That means I can shoot more frames per second and potentially increases the probability that I clicked the shutter at exactly the right instance. However, in low light or high contrast situations I will shoot only raw because it handles the lighting conditions better.

When the light may change during the event I often shoot in both. My laptop doesn't show a preview for my current raw files because it is a new camera and my viewer does not recognize it yet, so by shooting both I can quickly see which shots were taken at the best moment. Then I can open only those files in raw to process them.

If it weren't for my job I would never shoot jpeg, but there are times that it makes sense as part of the workflow. For those who are proponents of only jpeg, if they venture out of their comfort zone they will find that there are also times when raw makes more sense than jpeg. Both have their place, but the myth that it takes longer to process a raw file is simply not true once you become proficient at postprocessing.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Not everyone works with bad press...

raw takes more time is a myth, yes, if you want run of the mill images. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT HERE.

raw processing takes more time for those who cares about real quality.

From the photographer who waits for hours/days to get the 'exact' capture they were looking for to the average 'Joe' who snaps hundred of captures in the hope of having one semi-decent image to brag about there is a world of difference.

That difference is discipline, care, 'love of the art' and in the end self-esteem.

This could be debated for hours, months and years. Some folks will die of exhaustion at their keyboard arguing one way or another. It is a simple reality that when everything is said and told this attention to detail, time, experience and care are the stark differences between a professional artist and a pretender.