What would your SO use most?

I'm an old geezer who shot lots of slides in my youth, using a polarizer to darken skies and foliage for dramatic effects. So I'd want the circular polarizer.

My iPhone has plenty of GPS apps on it, so I could care less about stamping files in the Canon with GPS data. I can always snap the same scene with the phone if I need location. But if your SO needs to USE GPS coordinates *in* photo files, that's a different situation!

If you want to edit a JPEG with minimal deterioration:

Open the original in Photoshop.
Convert the file to a 16-bit, RGB TIFF file.
Save the TIFF file and keep the virgin JPEG.
Edit the TIFF to your heart's content. Save as often as needed, and when you're finished with changes.
When you are ready to create a finished JPEG, convert the TIFF back to 8-bits, RGB, and export it as JPEG, using minimal compression.

This process may seem tedious, but it will allow you to do much finer edits, with better and smoother results than editing the 8-bit JPEG file and saving it over and over, compressing and losing information.

Editing RAW files gives you much more range of control, but may not be an option. I often shoot RAW in tricky lighting/changing lighting conditions, but usually shoot JPEG when I'm controlling the lighting, or it won't change, or the scene's contrast range is low. So I have used this process when necessary, and it works great!

Oh, and one more note: You can and should bet that Adobe Lightroom will be around a long time. It's become a defacto standard workflow tool for most working pros. Photoshop is its partner and complement.

PHOTO will be a simpler program than Aperture. It will replace both iPhoto and Aperture, and answer many of the annoyances of each.

Aperture WILL die a certain death by OS X upgrade at some point in the future, just as countless other apps have died. As long as you have a Mac with a compatible OS on it, you can keep using the software. Just don't expect upgrades, patches, etc.

For instance, I still run Adobe PageMaker 6.5 every now and then on a Mac OS 9.2.2 drive, because it runs inconsistently in Classic on OS X 10.4.11 on my tricked-out, maxed-out, 1998 PowerMac G4! My beloved Final Cut Express won't run on any version of OS X beyond 10.6.8. So I keep one drive attached to my Mini with 10.6.8 on it... where I also run Photoshop CS 3.

Murphy's Law of software development says that any application that is PERFECTED is soon ABANDONED... because developers need jobs.

If your brainless editors want CMYK TIFF, their workflow is terrible, and so 1998. Modern printers use software that converts from RGB to CMYK and applies the correct printer/paper profile at the RIP (raster image processor). This makes best use of what's in the file, AND allows everyone with an sRGB monitor to see it properly. That's important when you post PDFs to the web and print on newsprint.

And you are most welcome to do so!

Thanks all!

I'm just an old fart who has seen more than my share of photography for the past 54 years. 33 of those involved professional use cases. I helped lead one of the largest labs in the country through the film to digital transition, so I've seen a lot of questions asked and answered.

[quote=BboH]

Yes, obviously compression and data loss are involved when a JPEG is saved. However, the color *gamut* is dependent on how the file is saved to a format other than RAW. A RAW file has all the color the sensor saw. To actually use (view or print) an image from the RAW file, that data must be converted to some sort of defined gamut. That can be ProPhoto RGB, Adobe RGB, sRGB, the ICC profile for a particular printer... We can *never* view the RAW file directly, even on the very best monitors, or print all of what is there on the very best printers.

MY point is that there are times when the potential in a RAW file matters a great deal, and other times when it's a moot point. If the important content of a scene can be rendered successfully in an 8-bit JPEG, viewed well from that JPEG, or printed from it successfully, then maybe one's time spent working from RAW isn't necessary?

Huge segments of the photo industry make tens of millions of portraits every year, starting with straight out of the camera JPEGs. At the other end of the spectrum are those who make art prints, and need to eke every bit of saturation possible out of the imaging chain.

I get really tired of reading all the impassioned diatribes from one camp and then the other. Neither is a wrong approach. They're just different. If you need the range of RAW, use it. If JPEG is enough, use it. Workflow should be adjusted to the end objective. Don't be a slave to it --- for any reason.

I'll use what's available. It needn't be expensive. The principles of physics don't care what I paid.

$$$ gets you durability and convenience and known consistency. But the results depend on you, more than the devices you use.

That said, I do use quality sources (ALZO or Westcott) for CFL lamps. At a CRI of 93, they're still quirky with certain colors.

I've encountered several ignoramuses masquerading as photography instructors. They've insisted on (variously) starting with film, starting with dSLRs, never using auxiliary lighting, always using this mode or that gizmo...

So having a dSLR as course pre-requisite may be an issue. But as a HUGE fan of mirrorless cameras, I say, ask! The latest are quite capable and much easier to travel with.

Fair enough... Hopefully, folks come here to learn from one another.

There are times when one or the other workflow (RAW, or JPEG) is completely out of the question, or reserved for very special circumstances.

Someone above asked, "Why would you save a JPEG original to a TIFF?" Hopefully, my previous post answered some of that. It is to be able to edit a JPEG image as non-destructively as possible.

If I have a decent JPEG out of the camera, I can still do quite a bit with it in Photoshop to enhance it. But I want to preserve everything that was in the original file, and work only on a copy. Using 16-bit TIFF as the editing format allows much finer manipulations than 8-bit TIFF, and also allows multiple, non-destructive saves.

It's important to realize that this is not as flexible as working in RAW, but that it is still a viable workflow.

There is no single best way to work. Choose what works best for your budget, time, and circumstances.

No, of course not. The JPEG will, however, contain almost all of the colors that can be reproduced by silver halide photo paper, and all of the colors that can be reproduced on an average sRGB monitor (smart phone, tablet, laptop, notebook, desktop computer).

A RAW file can contain much more information than a JPEG file, but USING that information in a way that you can ACTUALLY SEE it is difficult.

Processing RAW sensor information, whether in the camera, or in software post processing, is really a matter of choosing what information to view. You can squeeze it, squash it, warp it, bend it... but in the end, it must fit into the gamut of the device used to display or print it.

It's a lot like audio processing. Raw sound isn't fit for broadcast, so broadcasters compress the dynamic range, enhance or "equalize" the frequencies that favor vocal articulation, and add digital delay to make things sound audibly more appealing.

You can do the same sorts of things with RAW images... Compressing the dynamic range of a digital image by using curves, "equalizing" the color balance of the image by changing white balance or curves or saturation, etc.

Whenever I am forced (or force myself) to work with RAW images, I usually go through a process of conversion from the RAW image to a 16-bit TIFF file, either in Lightroom or the camera manufacturer's software (I've frequently used Canon's DPP for problem images that LR doesn't do justice). Then, I can edit the 16-bit TIFF in Photoshop, and print from that to an inkjet, or convert to JPEG for external use (web, lab, whatever).

JPEG FINE is simply a manufacturer-defined file compression setting on a camera. It usually compresses data to somewhere between 1/5 and 1/10 the original 8-bit file size. It does destroy data, which sounds terrible, but in practice, isn't.

A JPEG FINE file isn't too bad, if you use it as-is, or edit it and save it as TIFF or a minimally-compressed JPEG. When you edit JPEGs, always avoid saving them more than once or twice. I usually open, convert to TIFF, edit to my taste, save as TIFF, and save again as a JPEG to use. If I need to re-edit, I edit the TIFF and save another JPEG.

Despite support for RAW files in the Mac OS, iOS is different. It will store and transport RAW files, but apps don't edit them natively on the iDevices.

I'm pretty sure this was a resource decision at first, although now, there is probably plenty of power in the latest devices. Someone just needs to make the marketing decision and write the software.

Apple may also restrict RAW editing to sell more MacBook Pros...

Meanwhile, if you haven't explored the pre-processing options available through your camera menus, it is probably time to give them another look. The latest cameras have vastly improved the options to convert RAW to JPEG at the camera. They'll never beat RAW editing software for exposure repair or precise tweaking, but they're so good that for many uses, they're all you need, especially if you have the discipline and targets to get your exposure and white balance right at the camera.

Great question! RAW files are 10, 12, 14, or 16 bits per color channel, so they slice and dice reality into far more shades. Conversion to an 8-bit JPEG assigns all "high bit" file values to the nearest possible 8-bit values. This is further complicated by JPEG compression, and by the display issues of RGB monitors vs. CMY silver halide photo paper or CMYK printing or one of the high def printing schemes.

In reality, all display methods process and discard data. The range reflected off plain old silver halide papers is actually less than in an 8-bit, sRGB JPEG, but few purists understand how important that is.

Net result? You've gotta toss data someplace. You just have to decide where it makes the most sense to do so.