James56 Loc: Nashville, Tennessee

I agree whole heartedly...RAW is the best way to go. But for those of us who can't shoot in RAW...it's not the end of the world. We just have to be more careful making exposures. Sometimes there's work arounds such a multi exposures then merged with Photoshop. I wish my camera had RAW but it doesn't. So I have to deal with it. It doesn't stop me from getting good results with Jpeg's, but I have to work hard at my shots with the knowledge of knowing I may not be able to capture a scene. I am pro RAW...just can't do it. Your welcome to click on any of my links to view my world without RAW...however, I wish I did have RAW capabilities in tough situations.

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

Well keep trying Larry.
If you listen and learn with an open mind, instead of with blinkers on, then you might just get there.

:wink: :lol:

On a more serious note Larry, you already have some very good work.
I like your portfolio.
Release the shackles mate.
Embrace that extra step that raw can take you.

lbrandt79 Loc: League City, Tx.

I will keep trying, am in awe of you. Just hope I can get there.

jenny Loc: in hiding:)

And so we see, those who continue to push for shooting RAW after solid documentation was provided by rmalarz, some do not agree that we have much to be thankful for in their great body of research to bring digital photography to the level it is today. THEY were the ones who developed this,but you take them for granted? You DON'T TRUST them?

Did you read either or both these Wikipedia articles? After they explained just about every other possibility you didn't think to ask about, you didn't trust that what they put INTO RAW was everything...e.g. the proverbial "kitchen sink"'. So you don't trust them to discard what is irrelevant?

Your JPEG image is compressed or diminished or salvaged from the junk....Yes, that was the definitive statement in the second article. They who invented this technology were also smart enough to discard the useless material. What is left is therefore clean JPEG OR JPEG+undumped garbage. You can immediately go to work on your nice clean smaller file if anything needs a touch up such as in contrast or color.
But some prefer to stir the garbage can and try to find something better than these experts could imagine because YOU are smarter than them ALL and you simply don't trust them? :roll: I find it amusing that you my have to go some where to buy storage space to preserve the junk...

1952

Hi Bob,

I'll see what I can do to send you a RAW image. Nice job on the helicopter shot. I like your black & white photo "X-ray" of a photographer holding a camera for a shot.

Randy

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Randy, thanks for the compliment. RAW holds a lot more data then one thinks. That photograph was one I found on the web. The only thing I did, which is not very noticeable, is add the glasses I wear.
--Bob

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

JPL - you're mistaken ref: with RAW (that is not possible in Professional Pictures mode). The selection of Image Quality (RAW, JPEG-Fine, JPEG-Small, etc) is independent of Shooting Mode. You can RAW in P every day of the week regardless of camera model.

Sirius_one Loc: S.F. Bay Area

You are so right!!!!!!!!!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Thanks, Sirius_one.
--Bob

Stephan G

Master says that it is taking steps that accomplishes much. Even getting there half way is more than not even taking the first step.

Stephan G

Reminded me of an old discussion about doing Art. The question was, "At what point does an artist have enough tools to come out with a piece of Art?" The concurred answer came out as, "It depends on what the artist can do with what is at hand."

When arguing points, it is better in terms of comparing "apples with apples". Which has more workable information of the same shot? From my readings and experience, I will have to say that Raw beats Jpeg. Yes, it does not really matter for the final result, until one finds a need for furthering information. Raw is a lot handier. (FWIW, I started photography in BW film. Back in the 1960s.)

Bottom line? It remains in the hands of the person as to what result is desired.