JPG vs raw ... Yet again and... Well... Different.
Jan 17, 2016 11:53:00 #
Another trolling point of view...
JPG IS MY THING!!!
I don't care what anyone says JPG is and always will be my choice. Raw is for sissies. I am a MAN. Why should I use my camera and pretend to take better photographs in raw when we all know that raw is for rank amateurs who do not know how to use their cameras in the first place?
Raw for them is a crutch, a way to redo their own mistakes, you have to read what hey say:
I can change the WB without losing anything!
--- Well so can I but hey! I don't need to, I get it right! They don't.
I have more colors!
--- So what? You cannot see them!
I have better dynamic range to exploit my pictures.
--- Yeah right! Show it to me!
Honestly folks, do you really believe these guys? THEY HAVE NO CLUE!
Oh, I forgot:
raw cannot be edited and is a safe format. Yes well, I will not say 'up yours' but I am thinking it. I can use DNG to protect my JPG so there, no difference.
Something else, JPG is made by the camera using your idiotic raw. It comes out perfect EVERY TIME!
And what is this crap about ETTR and EBTR? Makes you feel smarter to use anagrams like this on internet? NOT, you are just ignorant!
Yup raw is for lazy people, same as having full frame high rez sensors, who needs that crap? Same idiots in the raw crowd. They cannot compose so for them having more pixels to play with allows them to recompose their digital monstrosities. I GET IT RIGHT!
These folks do not even comprehend that raw is not an internet standard! I am telling you, how thick are they really?
Notice that every simpleton that uses raw post-process everything and I mean EVERYTHING! Can you believe it? They should go out more often and hone their skills in taking pictures instead of being in front of their computers all the time. But then again we should be forgiving, everyone has to start one day.
SOOC guys, SOOC! No PP, No nothing. SOOC!
raw shooter are just like a sect. Not only they believe everything they read but they take it as the 'truth' and the 'only truth. You just have to see them in forums trolling to convert other folks to convert to their beliefs! I believe in god, not in raw folks, take that to the bank. JPG is my god given choice! Next thing you know raw shooter will prevent me to shoot people and try to take my cherished guns away. Just try it I say!
Remember this a trolling post... Just in case...
JPG IS MY THING!!!
I don't care what anyone says JPG is and always will be my choice. Raw is for sissies. I am a MAN. Why should I use my camera and pretend to take better photographs in raw when we all know that raw is for rank amateurs who do not know how to use their cameras in the first place?
Raw for them is a crutch, a way to redo their own mistakes, you have to read what hey say:
I can change the WB without losing anything!
--- Well so can I but hey! I don't need to, I get it right! They don't.
I have more colors!
--- So what? You cannot see them!
I have better dynamic range to exploit my pictures.
--- Yeah right! Show it to me!
Honestly folks, do you really believe these guys? THEY HAVE NO CLUE!
Oh, I forgot:
raw cannot be edited and is a safe format. Yes well, I will not say 'up yours' but I am thinking it. I can use DNG to protect my JPG so there, no difference.
Something else, JPG is made by the camera using your idiotic raw. It comes out perfect EVERY TIME!
And what is this crap about ETTR and EBTR? Makes you feel smarter to use anagrams like this on internet? NOT, you are just ignorant!
Yup raw is for lazy people, same as having full frame high rez sensors, who needs that crap? Same idiots in the raw crowd. They cannot compose so for them having more pixels to play with allows them to recompose their digital monstrosities. I GET IT RIGHT!
These folks do not even comprehend that raw is not an internet standard! I am telling you, how thick are they really?
Notice that every simpleton that uses raw post-process everything and I mean EVERYTHING! Can you believe it? They should go out more often and hone their skills in taking pictures instead of being in front of their computers all the time. But then again we should be forgiving, everyone has to start one day.
SOOC guys, SOOC! No PP, No nothing. SOOC!
raw shooter are just like a sect. Not only they believe everything they read but they take it as the 'truth' and the 'only truth. You just have to see them in forums trolling to convert other folks to convert to their beliefs! I believe in god, not in raw folks, take that to the bank. JPG is my god given choice! Next thing you know raw shooter will prevent me to shoot people and try to take my cherished guns away. Just try it I say!
Remember this a trolling post... Just in case...
Jan 17, 2016 12:49:52 #
Jan 17, 2016 14:20:36 #
I guess maybe some folks don't quite grasp the whole concept of 'digital' photography.
Digital photographs exist in two states, the image and the data file.
RAW is simply a data file with ALL the data in it. No compression, nothing removed, it's all the data the sensor gathered and the cpu sent to storage. Nothing more nothing less.
JPG is a compressed format produced by the processor in the camera based on manufacturer and or user settings.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting JPG'S and I personally save both files just in case I want or need to edit the data to improve the image.
What I don't keep, which is probably over 70 percent of the photos I take, are just deleted and the storage space is reused.
We're not talking film photography here, where you really have to get it right every time you press the shutter button. We're talking digital photography, and where does one process a digital file containing digital data, in a computer.
There are times I turn RAW off to speed things up. Sure, I can get 10 frames a second in RAW, but not for very long. In JPG I can get 10 frames per second for as long as I hold the shutter button down.
RAW format is great for extreme lighting conditions, especially low light.
I am not a professional photographer. Writing code to manipulate data is essentially how I earn a living so I have a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between data and what you do with it. RAW is just a format which data is stored and has nothing to do with the content or how it was gathered.
Digital photographs exist in two states, the image and the data file.
RAW is simply a data file with ALL the data in it. No compression, nothing removed, it's all the data the sensor gathered and the cpu sent to storage. Nothing more nothing less.
JPG is a compressed format produced by the processor in the camera based on manufacturer and or user settings.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with shooting JPG'S and I personally save both files just in case I want or need to edit the data to improve the image.
What I don't keep, which is probably over 70 percent of the photos I take, are just deleted and the storage space is reused.
We're not talking film photography here, where you really have to get it right every time you press the shutter button. We're talking digital photography, and where does one process a digital file containing digital data, in a computer.
There are times I turn RAW off to speed things up. Sure, I can get 10 frames a second in RAW, but not for very long. In JPG I can get 10 frames per second for as long as I hold the shutter button down.
RAW format is great for extreme lighting conditions, especially low light.
I am not a professional photographer. Writing code to manipulate data is essentially how I earn a living so I have a rudimentary understanding of the relationship between data and what you do with it. RAW is just a format which data is stored and has nothing to do with the content or how it was gathered.
Jan 17, 2016 15:13:15 #
@Rongnongno
I'm on board with this.
RAW is just that, uncooked. Who wants raw unless you like sashimi.
No sir, not me.
Why cook when you can get a perfectly good TV dinner.
Those fine folks who make TV dinners have spent a lot of money and research into what tastes good.
Why would I ever try and make my own dinner to suit my tastes when those fine TV dinner people have perfected it.
No sir, not me.
I'm on board with this.
RAW is just that, uncooked. Who wants raw unless you like sashimi.
No sir, not me.
Why cook when you can get a perfectly good TV dinner.
Those fine folks who make TV dinners have spent a lot of money and research into what tastes good.
Why would I ever try and make my own dinner to suit my tastes when those fine TV dinner people have perfected it.
No sir, not me.
Jan 17, 2016 16:17:22 #
TV dinners are OK if that's what you want. But even TV dinners had to come from raw ingredients. If you don't want to cook or don't have the time to cook then TV dinners are perfectly fine. But if you know how to cook and have the time and desire to cook then you will probably create a more appetizing meal if you cook what you want instead of just heating up what someone else says you should like.
Jan 17, 2016 16:25:09 #
I was being sarcastic. Using the analogy of people who like .jpg' as better than RAW.
For the record, I only shoot RAW.
You can't just open a RAW and save it as a .jpg, it needs to be cooked and seasoned.
I like to cook.
I don't let my camera cook.
For the record, I only shoot RAW.
You can't just open a RAW and save it as a .jpg, it needs to be cooked and seasoned.
I like to cook.
I don't let my camera cook.
Jan 17, 2016 17:32:05 #
As was I. I really did enjoy your TV dinner analogy.
In the data processing industry where I work we have programs called cookers that take raw data and turn it into a format other programs or even human beings can understand and use. But ultimately, the most important data, the data that gets backed up and is considered the data of record is the raw data. Kinda similar to RAW format in a camera.
In the data processing industry where I work we have programs called cookers that take raw data and turn it into a format other programs or even human beings can understand and use. But ultimately, the most important data, the data that gets backed up and is considered the data of record is the raw data. Kinda similar to RAW format in a camera.
Jan 17, 2016 20:52:48 #
lorenww wrote:
I was being sarcastic. Using the analogy of people who like .jpg' as better than RAW.
For the record, I only shoot RAW.
You can't just open a RAW and save it as a .jpg, it needs to be cooked and seasoned.
I like to cook.
I don't let my camera cook.
For the record, I only shoot RAW.
You can't just open a RAW and save it as a .jpg, it needs to be cooked and seasoned.
I like to cook.
I don't let my camera cook.
I take both raw and JPG.
I don't like to cook - I'd rather be taking pictures than working in a lab. In the daze of film, I shot Kodachrome almost exclusively and let Kodak do the lab work. Today, if automation can do the job correctly (and most of the time it does), then that is great.
Jan 20, 2016 22:44:18 #
rehess wrote:
I take both raw and JPG.
I don't like to cook - I'd rather be taking pictures than working in a lab. In the daze of film, I shot Kodachrome almost exclusively and let Kodak do the lab work. Today, if automation can do the job correctly (and most of the time it does), then that is great.
I don't like to cook - I'd rather be taking pictures than working in a lab. In the daze of film, I shot Kodachrome almost exclusively and let Kodak do the lab work. Today, if automation can do the job correctly (and most of the time it does), then that is great.
There are times when the exposure required for a proper image capture in raw will be different than for a jpeg - particularly when you have a really wide contrast range.
For some, the creative process begins with the shutter press, and ends once it is out of post processing. Not unlike the film photo artist that began the creative stuff in the darkroom.
https://whitherthebook.wordpress.com/2013/02/27/ansel-adams-and-photography-before-photoshop/
Post processing skills can be important, even critical to full image realization. For me, most images that have not been post processed seem unfinished - not having reached their potential - and in some circumstances, a damned shame. A good image can be made into an outstanding one if it is "finished" skillfully.
Jan 20, 2016 22:48:18 #
Jan 20, 2016 23:00:23 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Another trolling point of view... br br JPG IS MY... (show quote)
you may be correct if you do not wish to do any post processing and the photos you take satisfy your needs. that said, maybe you should just agree to disagree instead of ranting. each person should have the right to process their photography in the way that satisfies that individual and not push one way or another. there are many paths to take in any venture and none of them are incorrect if the end results satisfies the person doing the deed and the results do not do any harm. enjoy photography your way, and maybe let others enjoy photography their way.
Jan 20, 2016 23:16:51 #
orrie smith wrote:
.../...
What part of:
Another trolling point of view...
Are you missing?
Jan 20, 2016 23:32:54 #
Rongnongno wrote:
What part of:
Another trolling point of view...
Are you missing?
Another trolling point of view...
Are you missing?
Wrongy in your case, it doesn't matter - a shitty picture is a shitty picture no matter the format.
Jan 21, 2016 01:18:30 #
orrie smith wrote:
Wrongo is simply stirring things up as usual. He even included a disclaimer at the beginning and the end of his post.......sad :|you may be correct if you do not wish to do any po... (show quote)
Jan 21, 2016 01:21:46 #
Macronaut wrote:
Wrongo is simply stirring things up as usual. He even included a disclaimer at the beginning and the end of his post.......sad :|
Too bad his ego is too big and refuses to take hints - like maybe going out and actually try to take a decent picture.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.