Raw: I know I am going to get shouted at by RAW users but consider this. When a camera saves on JPG it extracts full colour information from the sensor and applies adjustments...

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

I know I am going to get shouted at by RAW users but consider this.
When a camera saves on JPG it extracts full colour information from the sensor and applies adjustments regarding contrast, colour,saturation,and sharpness designed by experts in colour science and sensor technology.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I am going to get shouted at by RAW users but consider this.
When a camera saves on JPG it extracts full colour information from the sensor and applies adjustments regarding contrast, colour,saturation,and sharpness designed by experts in colour science and sensor technology.

Yes. I have considered that.

Is there some point to it or did you just want to make sure that I considered that? :)

mauriceb

Yes, but the camera processes the jpg image automaticaly and sometimes automatic settings do not give the best results. With RAW images the photographer has total control, now this may not be necessary with every shot but when you need it it's good to have it.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Is your point that we should shoot in jpg?
And most of the time that would suffice, especially outdoors.
But indoors for example, if I shoot in fluorescent, or tungsten or sodium
Vapor light, my balance is off.
Jpeg, though good, is like shooting film, developing the negative, then throwing the negative away, and all subsequent adjustment is done by taking a photo of the photo and making adjustments to that.
On the other hand, those same engineers spend as much time and energy to make sure the sensors record the maximum amount of information in the most true configuration possible. To each his own.

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

mauriceb wrote:

Yes, but the camera processes the jpg image automaticaly and sometimes automatic settings do not give the best results. With RAW images the photographer has total control, now this may not be necessary with every shot but when you need it it's good to have it.

my question is as always,how many of us do you think are proficient enough to take full advantage of " total control"?

fthomas Loc: Philippines

bull drink water wrote:

my question is as always,how many of us do you think are proficient enough to take full advantage of " total control"?

There are exceptional training material available all over the web or you can pay at Lynda.com and take Deke's Fundamentals of CS6 (CS5 and others is also available). The material is exceptional and the knowledge gained ranges from "down sizing and up sizing" and the different choices Photoshop gives us to correcting color balance in Raw and how to pull the greatest of amount of detail out of the image. Processing for one part the scene and then for another rather than shooting HDR. Very effective.

The possibilities are almost limitless in Photoshop and I opt to always work with RAW. If you compare the RAW image side by side with the Jpeg it is interesting what the camera has already done. You can chose to replicate it or carry your artistic inclinations in a totally different direction.

If you are truly interested in becoming relatively proficient with Photoshop the opportunity exists. It is a personal choice.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

bull drink water wrote:

my question is as always,how many of us do you think are proficient enough to take full advantage of " total control"?

That is definitely one consideration...

The other is that the camera has no idea of what your intent is...it makes it's own decision about color, contrast, tone, white point, black point, sharpness, and all based on a set value, it has no idea what you were going for.

That's why I shoot in raw..."developing" is part of the photographic process..it's part of "making the cake" instead of passing off the ingredients to a friend and hoping that his baking vision is the same as yours.

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

Bull Drink water has probably hit the point.Experts will be better off with RAW but I would guess the majority of us are not that expert though, having said that I suppose we would never learn unless we try.

Nikonian72 Loc: Chico CA

If your camera exposure selection is on Auto, then I can understand selecting only JPG. You let the camera make all of the decisions, except composition & timing.

The other end of the control spectrum, is shooting Manual exposure, and raw format, or raw + JPG. Now the photographer makes all of the decisions, including tweaking in post processing.

WNC Ralf Loc: Candler NC, in the mountains!

The way I look at it is if you shoot just shoot jpegs you might as well use an instant camera, it is like using a Polaroid. I much prefer setting my own parameters and doing my own fine tuning, not letting the camera make all my decisions.

CurreyPhoto Loc: Reddick, Florida

Shooting in RAW and tweaking is part of the enjoyment of the photographic process for me. It reminds me a little of watching the print come up in the developer after doing all the testing, masking, dodging and burning, only you can control more elements of the picture and its easier to start over when you mess up.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I am going to get shouted at by RAW users but consider this.
When a camera saves on JPG it extracts full colour information from the sensor and applies adjustments regarding contrast, colour,saturation,and sharpness designed by experts in colour science and sensor technology.

The two key words in your statement are "applies adjustments." Do you want the camera to do this or do you want to make those decisions yourself? To each his own. But I do have a hard time understanding why so many buy a DSLR and then set the camera on auto and shot jpegs only.

viscountdriver Loc: East Kent UK

The adjustments on JPG in a good editing programme are considerable.Having said that I am going to shoot nothing but raw for the next month.

EstherP

viscountdriver wrote:

I know I am going to get shouted at by RAW users but consider this.
When a camera saves on JPG it extracts full colour information from the sensor and applies adjustments regarding contrast, colour,saturation,and sharpness designed by experts in colour science and sensor technology.

I'm afraid I'm a control-freak... What makes that black box think it can make better decisions than I?

"designed by experts" - maybe so, but really, they don't see what I see, do they?

So, I decided for the best of both worlds: I shoot raw+jpg.
EstherP

James Eslinger Loc: Kentucky

EstherP wrote:

I'm afraid I'm a control-freak... What makes that black box think it can make better decisions than I?

"designed by experts" - maybe so, but really, they don't see what I see, do they?

So, I decided for the best of both worlds: I shoot raw+jpg.
EstherP

I'm with Esther, some of the time anyway. If I'm taking snapshots I generally shoot JPEG, and usually basic and small. When I think there is even a chance I'll want to do more with an image, I'll shoot RAW+JPEG. I'm no Photoshop or Lightroom master, but I really like being able to tweak things out of an image that are buried in the full data captured by the sensor.