Sony a6000/Raw+jpeg
Dec 20, 2016 12:36:32 #
Would like to hear from Hedgehogs pro and Cons. Gary Fong recommends both.
Dec 20, 2016 12:46:35 #
I've been shooting jpegs with my a6000 for several years and am very happy with the results. I seldom do any post processing as I just don't enjoy it. I do my best to get it right in the camera and get satisfaction when I do. I don't have to please anyone else. If you feel the same, skip the RAW which takes up lots of space. Or shoot RAW and spend time at the computer. You will sure hear from a lot of folks who enjoy that aspect of the process.
Dec 20, 2016 13:03:49 #
warrior wrote:
Would like to hear from Hedgehogs pro and Cons. Gary Fong recommends both.
I regularly shoot RAW+jpeg. This lets me immediately post images to people who need/want to see their pictures and can't wait. But it also gives me the opportunity to work on the images and enhance them. I regularly deepen skies or put clouds in the sky or use postprocessing to get rid of tourist signs, etc. That is difficult to impossible with jpegs.
If you want to accept the esthetics of a bunch of engineers, then shooting jpeg lets you use "scene" modes also.
The a6000 and a6300 both do RAW+jpeg beautifully.
I'm generally a fan of Gary Fong but he is employed by Sony. Not that he is wrong, but one should always be a bit cynical or skeptical or both when an "expert" is paid by a vendor. Look at Big Pharma's payoffs to doctors and researchers in order to get false favorable results. (I'm not accusing Gary of anything. I do think these Sony cameras are amazingly good.)
Dec 20, 2016 13:05:53 #
Ok, so I can have gold and transform into lead... I can also have lead and transform into... Wait! I cannot!
raw+JPG is a joke. Shoot one or the other depending on your needs, just remember that you are deliberately throwing away gold in order to keep what is essentially pollution.
As to the pro and cons of each format... Just use the search on UHH to see countless 'debates' over the use of either.
raw+JPG is a joke. Shoot one or the other depending on your needs, just remember that you are deliberately throwing away gold in order to keep what is essentially pollution.
As to the pro and cons of each format... Just use the search on UHH to see countless 'debates' over the use of either.
Dec 20, 2016 13:21:16 #
warrior wrote:
Would like to hear from Hedgehogs pro and Cons. Gary Fong recommends both.
I use both but only because I use Windows Explorer for file management and I want to be able to see the shot in the icons. If I ever get around to using Lightroom for management I'll probably drop the jpeg's.
I used to think RAW was a bunch of baloney until I started doing some PP work. Now my biggest regret is that I didn't start using it years ago.
Dec 20, 2016 13:28:02 #
repleo wrote:
I use both but only because I use Windows Explorer for file management and I want to be able to see the shot in the icons. If I ever get around to using Lightroom for management I'll probably drop the jpeg's.
I used to think RAW was a bunch of baloney until I started doing some PP work. Now my biggest regret is that I didn't start using it years ago.
I used to think RAW was a bunch of baloney until I started doing some PP work. Now my biggest regret is that I didn't start using it years ago.
Upload windows codec and you will see the raw. Simple.
Dec 20, 2016 14:59:24 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Upload windows codec and you will see the raw. Simple.
Interesting Rongnongno !!!! I had never heard of this and was about to ask you how. I copied your response into Google and lo and behold I have a dozen sites to pick from.
Thats my 'learn something new everyday' for today.
Dec 20, 2016 15:44:37 #
My Sony SLT A65 allows Raw + Jpeg in most but not all modes. Certain functions can only be done Jpeg only. Its a bit of a frustration. check your manual and see what camera functions, if anything, you lose by adding Raw. (not talking about post processing)
The Raw v Jpeg argument is a bit like Canon v Nikon - no matter the information given, personal feelings seem to dominate any discussion. At the end of the day - its a tic box....try it, use it and see if it suits what you want to do with your images. The advantages of Raw are all in the post processing. It makes no difference to the 'in camera' Jpeg.
Have fun
The Raw v Jpeg argument is a bit like Canon v Nikon - no matter the information given, personal feelings seem to dominate any discussion. At the end of the day - its a tic box....try it, use it and see if it suits what you want to do with your images. The advantages of Raw are all in the post processing. It makes no difference to the 'in camera' Jpeg.
Have fun
Dec 20, 2016 17:41:30 #
warrior wrote:
Would like to hear from Hedgehogs pro and Cons. Gary Fong recommends both.
A thread on this topic that deals not only with Sonys ("my" brand) but other brands as well is under way in the For Your Consideration Section
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-430379-1.html
Dave
Dec 20, 2016 22:51:40 #
Uuglypher wrote:
A thread on this topic that deals not only with Sonys ("my" brand) but other brands as well is under way in the For Your Consideration Section
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-430379-1.html
Dave
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-430379-1.html
Dave
I don't want to cross threads, especially since Dave was at pains to not hijack this one, but that is a great thread. It will change my thinking on RAW+JPEG.
Dec 21, 2016 05:49:29 #
Reinaldokool wrote:
............But it also gives me the opportunity to work on the images and enhance them. I regularly deepen skies or put clouds in the sky or use postprocessing to get rid of tourist signs, etc. That is difficult to impossible with jpegs.
Sorry - but you are entirely wrong. The edits that you mention here are simple to carry out with JPGs in every photo editing prog that I know of, usually more easily than with RAW.
Dec 21, 2016 07:49:07 #
warrior wrote:
Would like to hear from Hedgehogs pro and Cons. Gary Fong recommends both.
I don't shoot JPEG anymore. I figure I want to give myself the best chance of getting a good image. SD cards hold more than enough shots for me, so space isn't an issue.
Dec 21, 2016 08:28:11 #
jmsail365
Loc: Stamford, Ct
It would seem if you are in a situation where you are going to be shooting a lot of photos e.g. sports event, weddings shooting jpeg+ raw you are adding to workload which seems very undesirable.
Dec 21, 2016 09:09:52 #
TB4 wrote:
That's fair enough, I'm sure we're all very happy for you.I've been shooting jpegs with my a6000 for several years and am very happy with the results. I seldom do any post processing as I just don't enjoy it.
TB4 wrote:
This is the sort of remark that really gets my goat. Why do you imagine that "get it right in camera" is the preserve of the JPEG shooter? Anyone who shoots Raw is looking to get the best possible final image which means that he/she will certainly strive to "get it right in camera" in the first place, anything less should be unacceptable; in fact I would practically guarantee that we (Raw Shooters) take more care to "get it right in camera" than does a JPEG shooter because we will try to maximise the DR.I do my best to get it right in the camera and get satisfaction when I do. I don't have to please anyone else. If you feel the same, skip the RAW which takes up lots of space.
TB4 wrote:
Yes, a Raw file takes up more space than a JPEG and there's a reason for that, JPEG is an 8-bit lossy format with limited DR and those of us who shoot Raw do it because we find the JPEG to be unacceptable. I don't have to please anyone else. If you feel the same, skip the RAW which takes up lots of space. Or shoot RAW and spend time at the computer. You will sure hear from a lot of folks who enjoy that aspect of the process.
If you are not prepared to invest the time to acquire the necessary skills to process from Raw, that's OK with me but don't try and make a virtue out of settling for second best.
Ok, rant over.
Dec 21, 2016 10:42:25 #
When I used my Nikon with two card slots I would always shoot both Raw and Jpeg, and save the Jpeg into the second slot. Seldom ever looked at those pictures. Now with my Sony a6000 I found out quickly shooting both Raw and J took time to muddle through the shots when I uploaded them. I just finished Gary F's class and yes recommended both. Disagree with him. Now maybe if I were a wedding/news journalist and need to get the photos out immediately to the client of a news service I would add Jpeg to the files. But since I am not, I only now shoot Raw.
And I love post processing.
And I love post processing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.