Peterff wrote:
That could be JPEG except that it isn't a word!
It is a word. It was created to confuse spell checkers. RAW can't do that.
Since I use Photoshop Elements, I shoot JPEG 90% of the time. I ausually do a "quick-fix" in Picasa first, then use Elements for the final.
Peterff
Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
rehess wrote:
Some people here react with more hostility to it than to any real four-letter word!
Some people react with hostility regardless of the subject!
If we don't understand the roles of JPEG and raw by now we're probably not qualified to own a digital camera or a computer.
jimjjc wrote:
Ever stop to think that not every hobbyist reads UHH everyday let alone every pos/thread. Quit being so self 'impotent' and just skip past the thread if it bothers you regulars so much...
You are new here and don't know Winterrose. This thread was a sarcastic attempt by him to pull people's chains on this contentious subject. It was some sort of experiment on his part. He was probably bored. It wasn't a serious thread to begin with, thus the responses from the "regulars" who know him.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
l-fox wrote:
It is a word. It was created to confuse spell checkers. RAW can't do that.
Joint Photographic Experts Group is an acronym which refers to a particular file format standard, while "raw" is a word which refers to a whole collection of file format standards. If software claims to handle JPEG, you know what it will handle, but if it claims to handle "raw", you have to ask further to determine whether it handles your particular format; just recently, someone posted several images here which I couldn't see because they were NEF images, and I've never owned a Nikon camera.
winterrose wrote:
What is this RAW thing anyway?
I think its an acronym for
Recalcitrant
Aussie
Winterrose.
well, there is always someone who just likes to stir things up, isn't there.
chevman wrote:
Actually if this becomes the prevailing attitude this forum will become obsolete, with nothing to discuss and ------
Correct. About everything related to photography has been discussed ad infinitum, including this one, where some lamo thinks because they are no longer interested in something, no one should be. All they need do is ignore all topics that have been discussed enough to bore them, but ironically, they never do...
lamiaceae wrote:
You have not been reading the UHH the last few days then. Enough!
Not only has he been reading about it, he has been participating in one hand, bitching about it in the other... Imagine that.
You got that right Steve day after day wow ha ha Mike
Peterff wrote:
Some people react with hostility regardless of the subject!
If we don't understand the roles of JPEG and raw by now we're probably not qualified to own a digital camera or a computer.
True, but it is also true of other topics discussed here even more often than this one. Additionally, understanding the roles they play is simple, about no one, however, has a thorough understanding of jpeg which is standard everywhere, and even fewer understand raw, a non-standard, proprietary format.
It should be no mystery to the many that understand the roles, as to why there are endless debates, and endless misinformation on the subject.
winterrose wrote:
As I have not seen anything said on the subject for some considerable time, do you shoot RAW? If so please advise at length as to why.
After much reading & some participation, I've concluded that some folks still don't get your point (or lack thereof).
Peterff
Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
jenny wrote:
* * * * *
blue snow
Blue snow is much better than yellow snow!
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.