Raw
Apr 2, 2017 09:12:09 #
Billyspad wrote:
If your happy with the results you get that is all that matters.
Ditto.
Apr 2, 2017 09:20:53 #
catchlight..
Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
Gene51 wrote:
Five years from now you may find yourself coming t... (show quote)
You said it perhaps "nicer than I"
Apr 2, 2017 09:21:46 #
The RAW vs JPEG arguments continue to flourish ever so often in this forum. Which file is better? From my point of view it all depends.
For low light and for night photography I prefer RAW because it can control noise and banding better. In good light JPEG is usually a very good file that requires little editing and as you said uses less room in the media card.
I also agree with you, casual shooters do not need RAW files since they can do very well with JPEG images. Modern JPEG files, by the way are of excellent quality and they can be edited if they need to. I recommend saving those files as TIFF to preserve the images against future changes and when working with the original always make a copy and work on that. TIFF useless to say is a lossless file.
Nothing wrong shooting everything RAW if that is preferred but the photographer will spend more time in the computer and not all softwares can read RAW files like not all monitors can see wide color spaces like Adobe RGB since they were design to see the sRGB colors. Labs do not print RAW files.
For low light and for night photography I prefer RAW because it can control noise and banding better. In good light JPEG is usually a very good file that requires little editing and as you said uses less room in the media card.
I also agree with you, casual shooters do not need RAW files since they can do very well with JPEG images. Modern JPEG files, by the way are of excellent quality and they can be edited if they need to. I recommend saving those files as TIFF to preserve the images against future changes and when working with the original always make a copy and work on that. TIFF useless to say is a lossless file.
Nothing wrong shooting everything RAW if that is preferred but the photographer will spend more time in the computer and not all softwares can read RAW files like not all monitors can see wide color spaces like Adobe RGB since they were design to see the sRGB colors. Labs do not print RAW files.
Apr 2, 2017 09:22:06 #
I shoot RAW in case I want to crop an image from my cameras full potential of 36 meg Raw rather then a shaved down JPEG. When you crop old uncle Bob out of that big family reunion shot, or that little critter way out yonder, the JPEGs are going to pixelize. Plus the JPEGs some times are off on white balance as others have mentioned: Larry
Apr 2, 2017 09:22:31 #
burkphoto wrote:
... I use both, for VERY different reasons...
If I were using both I would set the camera to shoot raw+jpg because otherwise there would come a time when I needed the raw file but I forgot to reset the camera after only needing jpg.
Of course if you only need jpg you can always use the jpg preview from the raw file. So it's only necessary to shoot raw.
Apr 2, 2017 09:27:32 #
jerryc41 wrote:
I think it's more psychological than actual.
IMO, I believe, this is predominately true.......
Apr 2, 2017 09:39:54 #
Well, at least you picked a Sunday to wander into the Church of RAW, and offend the Narcissistic Acolytes.
Apr 2, 2017 09:45:54 #
If you like what you are using, that is OK. Please do not tell everyone else what they should or have to do.
Apr 2, 2017 09:50:24 #
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)
Hello, I spent a lot of time with FF Nikons in the raw world and then I got onto Fuji. Now with the Fuji X-T2, SOOC jpegs are spec-tac-ular! Explore the following link for a professional view on the topic. Good luck. Marty
http://f16.click/tips/fuji-raw-v-jpeg.html
Apr 2, 2017 09:54:07 #
blackest wrote:
I shoot raw because I can think of nothing better to do than post process photographs. Jpeg is far more suited to a hectic lifestyle.
Yes, if you are a computer geek, you will want to shoot RAW ....
Apr 2, 2017 10:09:18 #
Ricinus
Loc: Leduc Alberta
Being new to DSLRs, I enjoy the comments and thoughts. I had decided to shoot in RAW, but now I'm not sure if it's worth the time processing for me. I just have a so-so computer and monitor, I'm not sure I can do a better job than letting the camera decide and shoot JPEGs. Decisions, decisions.
Mike
Mike
Apr 2, 2017 10:45:35 #
With storage as cheap as it is these days, I can't see a downside to shooting RAW + JPEG, even if you don't use the RAW files right now. One day you might get a great shot you want to print large where the RAW file would make a difference. Or you may get more serious about photography in the future where you would want to go back and process RAW versions of your favorite shots.
Apr 2, 2017 11:06:55 #
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)
You are free to have your own opinion and do things 'your' way. However, when printing a moderate sizes with subtle gradations of color and tone, a RAW image and 16-bit workflow are still supreme, IMHO.
The great thing about RAW, is that I can go back to old files and reprocess them from the original data, adding newly acquired knowledge and understanding of the process. So for me - only RAW.
Apr 2, 2017 11:35:54 #
Reading up some more to try and get the right answer I read an opinion which made me chuckle.It said ,Raw is an excuse for sloppy shutter work. Everyone has their own opinion and, why not?
Apr 2, 2017 11:49:06 #
jerryc41 wrote:
True. I shoot raw - just because. As you've no doubt read, raw always requires processing, especially to color and focus. JPEG can produce excellent results if you have correct lighting and exposure.
focus????
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.