TheDman Loc: USA

The decision to use either or is largely dependent on the subject matter. If you're shooting portraits, BIF, wildlife, macro, etc you're much more likely to capture the entire dynamic range of those scenes in one shot and also less likely to do extensive processing, and so jpg will be fine for that. If you're a landscape shooter you're going to want all the flexibility, shadow detail, etc you can get and so raw is the way to go.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I read that. Crazy comparison is a good description. No doubt the "raw snobs" will jump with glee and point to the images, saying "see". My comment is "see what"? All I see is amplified noise?

He shot the image with the cap on the body, in the complete absence of light at a high ISO setting. What was captured was the noise from the sensor and sensor electronics. The 2 images, raw + JPEG from the camera, were then "amplified" by 5 stops, using software, and then cropped. After all that, the compressed sensor noise image shows greater differences across the image, than the uncompressed sensor noise image. So what?

It's already well known that when pushing exposure, in shadows or in dim lighting, the added dynamic range of raw yields a noise advantage in post.

I really don't see that the test proves anything new. Nor does it provide an argument about shooting raw vs JPEG, unless you routinely shoot in darkness and push your exposure by 5 stops in post. The test says nothing about what happens given a NORMAL lighting situation, and given correct exposure.

There are legitimate reasons for when to shoot raw, and also for when to shoot JPEG, but that test is not one of them.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yawn. Why would he do that? The world does not need another raw vs. JPEG thread.

BOTH file formats have their unique purposes for being options on your camera. They are aimed at COMPLETELY DIFFERENT sets of needs!

Yes, JPEG is lossy. But it is FAST. When you need to, you can PRE-PROCESS your work by setting ALL the menus properly and precisely, and by doing a custom exposure and white balance assessment in relation to a test target. This will allow you to make a straight, machine print, with NO manipulation. And that is JUST FINE for certain, high-volume, straight-ahead imaging applications.

I know of TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PROFESSIONALS who work this way — 100% JPEG, 100% of the time. They are in the "portrait and social" segment of the pro market, and most of them work for school photography or itinerant studio portrait photography companies. Some photograph small machine parts for catalogs and web sites.

Raw capture REQUIRES post processing most of the time. When you have the time, this is what allows you to get precisely the image you want or need. Raw is a hedge against bad exposure, but it's a lot more! It gives you maximum potential to tweak an image any way you want or need to, short of re-shooting it (if that's even possible!)

I usually save both, simultaneously, and strive to produce a perfect JPEG for my needs, right in camera, to minimize the need for post-processing, should I need it or want it at all. When I'm aiming for something great, I can get there faster by looking at *intentionally well-made JPEGs* in my editor, and THEN opening the raw file I like.

Showing me noise like that is just irrelevant. Life is FULL of little trade-offs. If I need a JPEG, I'll try to make one in the camera. If it sucks, or if the application is high-end, or if I just want something better, I'll convert my raw file!

JD750 Loc: SoCal

Exactly.

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: WELL SAID BILL !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

chazz4623 Loc: Prairieville, La

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

The operant question is, "Does it matter?"

If you control the scene brightness, white balance, exposure, and all exposure parameters affected by camera menu settings, you can often get an excellent JPEG image.

Can that JPEG be improved by post production? Of course. Could it be improved NOTICEABLY by converting raw images and then doing post? Maybe...

Does the additional time spent "in post" justify the "cost", whether that's measured in actual labor dollars or the alternative use of my own time?

The answer is as unique and specific as each of us, and our unique circumstances at the moment.

Hacksaw Loc: Pacific Northwest

Read the article earlier today. I've been convinced since I purchased my D7200 and the article only reinforces that. When I bought the P900, I knew it would only do JPEG but it was a trade-off for me since I didn't feel like spending $18k for an 800 mm telephoto.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Donald, I agree with you. It could be viewed as the difference between a black and white Polaroid picture and one in which the photographer developed the negative and made the print from said negative.

The first provides one with "you get what you get" with no additional control other than what the camera may have provided. When the film negative is processed and printed, much more control is available to create the image one wants.

This applies to any subject matter whether it be landscapes or portraits. The photographers ability to control is enhanced by the greater amount of data with which to work.
--Bob

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Yes it is... absolutely.

FWIW, for myself, give me all the data and let me decide what is worthwhile in the image during post processing :)

It is a hobby I truly enjoy and as such love the post processing work and developing my skills as well as raw images ;)

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

You betcha!

:)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Slides vs color negs is the analogy I use. Both are fine media in their own rights. They serve completely different purposes.

azbluedot Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

I have found that shooting in RAW is the way to go. The quality of finished photo is much better. The one thing that you have to guard against is over processing. At the moment the photo looks great but when you look at a couple of days later the image shows that you have done things to help it. The problem with that for me was I want the image to look like it is real.

azbluedot Loc: Gilbert, Arizona

I have found that shooting in RAW is the way to go. The quality of finished photo is much better. The one thing that you have to guard against is over processing. At the moment the photo looks great but when you look at a couple of days later the image shows that you have done things to help it. The problem with that for me was I want the image to look like it is real.