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!
Great T-shirt, where do I get it!...Julian
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
--
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.
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
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.
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.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.