Moxie Loc: Pensacola, FL

:mrgreen: :thumbup: :mrgreen:

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

I don't think I said that. Course you probably know what I said better than I do.
I apologize to you all for even thinking the way I do. You guys and your knowledge and expertise far outweigh mine. Just ignore my ignorance.

Nightski

No I think what you said here is that you cannot improve the jpeg image that the camera produces if you get it right in camera. Isn't that the same as saying that you cannot do a better job rendering a photograph than your camera? I'm confused.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Don't be confused, you are right and I am wrong, I defer to you and your expertise.

Nightski

If you had said that many people cannot do a better job that the the camera does when it processes the image for you, I would say that you are absolutely correct. But, that does't mean that they will never be able to do a better job processing the RAW file than the camera. If they have the RAW file, a year to 5 years down the road they may have learned how to process that file better than the camera. If they shoot RAW, then all the data captured will always be available to them. If they shoot jpeg, the opportunity is lost to ever use that data. It's probably a good idea for beginners to shoot both for a while so they can see how the camera renders the file. Of course, if you are conserving room on your card you could just shoot RAW, because the playback on the camera shows you your file as it would look if the camera processed it. So you do get that chance to see what the camera would have done.

Do we agree on that?

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Thanks, you are awesome.

Nightski

No ... I just try to approach things with logic and common sense.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

I appreciate that, guess I lack those traits.

Nightski

I didn't say that you lack those traits. I am merely trying to understand the logic behind buying a camera that can capture a photograph that has 22mg and then throwing away half of that information before looking to see what you have. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

I sort of understand your reasoning with the sports photography if you have just one very small sd card. But with all the information that cards can hold these days and because storage is so inexpensive .. why not save all that data?

Does shooting RAW make you do a better job exposing for a photograph? No. But it does allow you to get much more out of an image after it is shot. So, doesn't that make shooting RAW a much better option? What if you have seconds to capture something and you blow it? We all do it .. none of us are perfect ... but there is a much better possibility of saving that photograph if you had your camera set to take RAW files. I'm sure if you are in such a hurry that you blow the exposure, you would not think to switch your camera over to RAW so that you can save your bad exposure.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

Of course you insinuated that I did not have common sense nor lacked logic, let it go. I am not an idiot and do know a little about this photography thing, (also, looked at your website, it is awesome, by the way.) Am done with you.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

Yep. RAW is a myth

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jenny, it would appear there is more documentation to refute your statement than documentation to support it. Perhaps, you'd like to enlighten us with some evidence to support your stance.
--Bob

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

* * *
Well if it would appear that would be a help. Sorry you didn't like that statement Bob. The documentation I see certainly would suggest your statement is true, but it's the same old "documentation". So maybe we should both back off a little. I will apologize for an inaccurate statement. It's not that RAW itself is a myth. It would be more accurate to say belief that the procedure is superior to JPEG is a myth.
How's that? Now I would like to see some real documentation that supports any belief in its superiority rather than the same old argument. And since there's no real chance of that happening I'll just have to agree with the peacekeepers who say to each their own, or as someone said, "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still". You could though, if you like, try to think out the situation without the same old opinion that convinced you :roll:

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Jenny, I'm not of the school that feels RAW is superior to jpg, or any other graphic file format. It's a tool. It may not be the first choice tool of all, but it is still a tool. In the hands of the right person, it can be a remarkable tool. In the hands of a skilled and knowledgeable photographer, jpg is a great tool.

I just read an article this afternoon that a feature film presented at The Sundance Film Festival was shot using an iPhone. Some would not consider an iPhone an appropriate tool for shooting a movie. Whatever works, works.
--Bob

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

Yes, Bob, an iPhone movie sort of brings to mind an analogy like that of building a coffee table with Lego blocks . As you said, whatever works.

Now getting back to this RAW vs.JPEG subject, I'm glad to see you seem willing to take an open-minded position on it. I'll agree that, as you said, "RAW is a tool".

The conclusion you draw about this tool is that it can be at times more useful than a well-done JPEG? Hey, isn't digital fun, we get to do things we could never do with film. There are just as many often heated controversies about some things as ever and they're new things to chew on.

What I'm truly looking for Bob, is true SOLID evidence when discussing this subject. There are any number of articles suggesting people "should" shoot RAW. but then then the explanation as to why seems to fall on its face by giving only an opinion.

You know, digital has to follow the basics of optics and sensors that replaced film. We have a little rectangle behind
a bigger round lens. There are just so many pixels in this rectangle. What's different from film though, is that we can straighten a horizon. We can even radically skew it a whole lot. It's a fact no different from a film camera except that we can see them... hey..look at all those pixels in there amazing! Still, we are going to be limited to what's in the rectangle we choose.
Now tell me Bob, how do any MORE pixels get in there if
we shoot in RAW? If you tell me there are flower fairies Bob, I would like to believe you maybe, but show me please some REAL evidence



:roll: