jpeg
Jul 27, 2015 12:20:14 #
imagemeister wrote:
The need and justification for shooting RAW has been diminished in recent years by improved sensor and software technologies. The differences between RAW and JPEG are becoming smaller and smaller.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jul 27, 2015 12:21:12 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Bobgood1 wrote:
Unless it is a very difficult lighting situation, I quite frankly have the time to process " Raw." This is for people who have lots of time on their hands. I know that I will be attacked by the " Diehards," but cameras have become so efficient. I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. bb
I also like pictures that look natural, which is why I spend lots of time in Photoshop.
Jul 27, 2015 12:24:54 #
TheDman wrote:
As there is nothing good to shoot in my living room, I find the two activities do not interfere with each other. ;)
Exactly.
Some people enjoy the post processing part of manipulating images to create different effects. And there are even some that consider the post processing part to be where there real creative abilities get a workout. I wish I had more time to devote to learning how to do things more quickly though.
Jul 27, 2015 12:27:31 #
Bobgood1 wrote:
Unless it is a very difficult lighting situation, I quite frankly have the time to process " Raw." This is for people who have lots of time on their hands. I know that I will be attacked by the " Diehards," but cameras have become so efficient. I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. bb
I like this guy. :-D
Jul 27, 2015 12:31:57 #
TheDman wrote:
I also like pictures that look natural, which is why I spend lots of time in Photoshop.
Uhh... yeah... :lol:
http://cdn.styleblazer.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ART-worst-photoshop-errors.jpg
Jul 27, 2015 12:32:43 #
Bill Houghton wrote:
I believe this is not about RAW - The OP is asking if there is a difference between FF and DX in the JPEG format.
You are correct, and I should have completed my thoughts.
The FF cameras make better decisions than the DX cameras do in general. Which means less time post processing if you have all of your settings right on the camera. I had a Nikon D90 and I shot raw, I hated the jpg on that camera, I found myself doing post-processing on raw all the time. It made pathetic decisions with the jpg conversion. On my D700 and D810, the jpg is acceptable in many situations. In the candid photos that I shoot at events, the only time I mess with the raw is when there is fluorescent lighting.
So to answer the original poster, in my experience, the jpg on cropped sensor cameras is inadequate and they require more post processing work with the photos.
Jul 27, 2015 12:35:54 #
ecrocker wrote:
I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!
raw capture or pre-canned jpg is your choice.
When I moved to raw I never moved back to JPG and I am not considering it. Yes, it add quite a bit to a workflow. In the end a photograph created from raw capture is far superior to one created with a jpg capture.
So the answer to your question? Heck no, raw it is and it there to stay in my workflow*.
----
* During my recent trip I used raw+JPG as my laptop could not deal with the PP. Since I am back ALL my JPG captures and few edits are gone to the trash.
Jul 27, 2015 12:40:50 #
imagemeister wrote:
The need and justification for shooting RAW has been diminished in recent years by improved sensor and software technologies. The differences between RAW and JPEG are becoming smaller and smaller.
So let's forget the trillions of color shades available in the raw capture vs the 24 millions in a JPG. Since we are at it, let's forget the dynamic range in raw that is between 10 to 16 at the moment to the 2 in a JPG.
Yeah, technology has improved JPG limitations and corrected them.
You are the master of what exactly?
Jul 27, 2015 12:45:00 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
Jul 27, 2015 12:48:20 #
Jul 27, 2015 12:54:06 #
TheDman wrote:
Yep. Not reality.
But thanks for the graphic display of unnatural.
Jul 27, 2015 12:56:47 #
Jul 27, 2015 13:01:24 #
TheDman
Loc: USA
SonnyE wrote:
Yep. Not reality.
But thanks for the graphic display of unnatural.
But thanks for the graphic display of unnatural.
You're right, the raws don't look anything like what I saw when I was standing there. I could see brilliant detail and color in both the land and sky.
Jul 27, 2015 13:01:59 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Not to worry TheDman, SonnyE is the current UHH posterior.
What ever you say, taint.
Jul 27, 2015 13:02:05 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.