Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Should I even worry about RAW if printing in TIFF!
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
Sep 17, 2018 16:45:41   #
srt101fan
 
julian.gang wrote:
The problem is, if it really is one my camera only shoots in JPEG. But if I convert my JPEGs to TIFF do you even need to worry about RAW?...Julian


Julian, people here have been trying to get you to understand the advantages of RAW. But for you the bottom line is that your camera does not give you a RAW option, so from a practical standpoint you can just forget about RAW.

I suggest you concentrate on getting the most out of your camera, and learn what you can and can't do in post-processing with the JPEGs you get out of your camera.

Now, if you just want to learn more about RAW because it interests you, there's lots of information available here on UHH and elsewhere (I noticed that you actually started a RAW vs JPEG thread back in July!).

Good luck and happy learning!

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 16:55:16   #
julian.gang
 
Haydon wrote:
 


Great T-shirt, where do I get it!...Julian

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 17:06:48   #
blackest Loc: Ireland
 
julian.gang wrote:
The thing is I use Lightroom in my post-processing which allows me to have that leeway...Julian


Have a look at the white balance setting in lightroom does it give a temperature in kelvin or a range of plus or minus values?
For a jpeg it should be the later, since the original light temperature measurement no longer exists and there is no relation to the color temperature in the jpeg.

If you want to talk about lies and truth the raw file has the recorded measurements made by the camera and the jpeg is so far away from the truth that it has no way to say what the color temperature was.

The raw file was at the scene at least, the jpeg is just the witness statement, and any adjustments you make to the jpeg are interpretations of what the witness said.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2018 17:35:49   #
Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, CA
 
julian.gang wrote:
I know this has been said before, but isn't any post-processing, processing a lie?...Julian


I do find this viewpoint so tedious. It seems to get repeated endlessly, despite it’s absurdity. I suppose my annoyance comes from the insistence on using the word “lie”, which implies an intentional deceit (often for less than stellar motives).

Artists don’t attempt to deceive; they attempt to create images of their personal take of the world, with the hope that others find that interpretation interesting, pleasing, visually or emotionally stimulating. Nobody is trying to lie.

For those who prefer to avoid much in the way of processing images, fine. Whatever floats your boat. But for God’s sake, stop with the judgmental use of the word “lie” to describe the work of others who view this creative art form differently. [/rant]

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 19:12:54   #
chaman
 
julian.gang wrote:
Okay, I think now I have knowledge of what RAW and TIFF are and aren't! I have access to Lightroom and what it does to a photograph! If I can make myself happy with what Lightroom and Photoshop does, stick with that!!!!!!!!!!!!...Julian


Incorrect. Judging by all your other useless topics posted here you are FAR, very far from having any knowledge about RAW, JPEG or TIFF. In fact you are very far of having ANY knowledge about photography in general.

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 21:26:13   #
RichardTaylor Loc: Sydney, Australia
 
julian.gang wrote:
I know this has been said before, but isn't any post-processing, processing a lie?...Julian


IMHO nothing could be further from the truth.

Reply
Sep 17, 2018 21:27:13   #
BebuLamar
 
julian.gang wrote:
My Sony camera has all those options, it's a DSC-HX400v!...Julian


Yup! the exact same options but instead you have to set it before taking the pictures. If you don't like the results then it's too bad. With RAW you can apply those same options after the pictures were taken. If you don't like it you can change it.

Reply
 
 
Sep 17, 2018 23:39:54   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
Photographer Jim wrote:
I do find this viewpoint so tedious. It seems to get repeated endlessly, despite it’s absurdity. I suppose my annoyance comes from the insistence on using the word “lie”, which implies an intentional deceit (often for less than stellar motives).

Artists don’t attempt to deceive; they attempt to create images of their personal take of the world, with the hope that others find that interpretation interesting, pleasing, visually or emotionally stimulating. Nobody is trying to lie.

For those who prefer to avoid much in the way of processing images, fine. Whatever floats your boat. But for God’s sake, stop with the judgmental use of the word “lie” to describe the work of others who view this creative art form differently. [/rant]
I do find this viewpoint so tedious. It seems to g... (show quote)




Reply
Sep 18, 2018 05:55:28   #
Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.
 
julian.gang wrote:
The problem is, if it really is one my camera only shoots in JPEG. But if I convert my JPEGs to TIFF do you even need to worry about RAW?...Julian


If you are starting with a JPEG there is no advantage to converting to a TIFF, your image will be no better than the JPEG you started with even though it will be a larger file.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:10:26   #
AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio
 
julian.gang wrote:
This question still has me wondering why people seem to be crazy about RAW?...Julian


The best way to get the answer to Your question is to try both ways and see which way pleases You!




Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:13:40   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
Blurryeyed wrote:
If you are starting with a JPEG there is no advantage to converting to a TIFF, your image will be no better than the JPEG you started with even though it will be a larger file.


Actually there is an advantage. Back in the days before many cameras provided a raw image it was highly recommended that out of the camera JPGs be converted to/saved as a TIFF. That way you always had your original JPG and could edit the TIFF in multiple sessions without degrading the image every time you save it. With the huge JPG files today that degradation from saving edited images is less noticeable, but it still exists.

Of course, given the choice you should save a raw file.

--

Reply
 
 
Sep 18, 2018 07:23:35   #
Ron 717 Loc: Pennsylvania
 
julian.gang wrote:
The thing is I use Lightroom in my post-processing which allows me to have that leeway...Julian

Folks, I believe you are being trolled by this poster.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 07:45:04   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Julian, the camera actually does shoot RAW. The issue is that it doesn't provide a RAW file for output. It converts to another file format for output. Does your camera give you the option to save the files in .tif format? If so, that would be a slightly better way to go.
--Bob
julian.gang wrote:
The problem is, if it really is one my camera only shoots in JPEG. But if I convert my JPEGs to TIFF do you even need to worry about RAW?...Julian

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 08:38:31   #
Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida
 
Ron 717 wrote:
Folks, I believe you are being trolled by this poster.


Yes. Yes. yes. The post about wanting the T-Shirt was the final clue, and the end of it.

Reply
Sep 18, 2018 08:48:34   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
I hope you are not shooting TIFF. RAW I am sure you know is that, raw data from the sensor without the intervention of the camera firmware. To get the maximum benefit a RAW file can produce especial software is needed and the operator needs the necessary skills to bring back all of that goodness.
Try TIFF printing at a local lab and you could be surprised at the answer you will get, if you do not know that already.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 6 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.