a raw question.
Jun 8, 2012 09:19:04 #
one last time so that i have it straight in my head.
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
Jun 8, 2012 09:20:30 #
Not necessarily.
If you shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp, you will have more control over the results than if you let the camera do the converting.
If you shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp, you will have more control over the results than if you let the camera do the converting.
Jun 8, 2012 09:28:47 #
bull drink water wrote:
one last time so that i have it straight in my head.
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
No unless you can not do as good as the camera
Yes but you now have a jepg to your likes.
In other words you control how the jepg will look when arrives in PP
Jun 8, 2012 09:28:58 #
bull drink water wrote:
one last time so that i have it straight in my head.
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
No unless you can not do as good as the camera
Yes but you now have a jepg to your likes.
In other words you control how the jepg will look when arrives in PP
Jun 8, 2012 09:36:51 #
It might not be better but it will be your doing and to your liking. Prbably better though since you control all settings.
Jun 8, 2012 09:46:32 #
I would say that if you have perfect contrast, perfect exposure, perfect white balance, perfect everything, every time (not to mention shooting at a low ISO so you also have low noise), then shooting in jpg will probably produce the same as if you had shot RAW and exported to jpg in pp.
However, if things aren't always perfect, then RAW will allow you to fix a few things in pp that the jpg from the camera would not.
However, if things aren't always perfect, then RAW will allow you to fix a few things in pp that the jpg from the camera would not.
Jun 8, 2012 09:47:48 #
Try it and see. It is a learning experience. You may not need raw at all depending on what you are doing and what you need.
There is no right answer.
Many folks spend more time in post processing than photo taking while others take their camera processed JPEGs directly to the print shop or post on UHH.
It runs the whole gambit. Only you can decide where you want to be on this broad spectrum as your skills improve.
There is no right answer.
Many folks spend more time in post processing than photo taking while others take their camera processed JPEGs directly to the print shop or post on UHH.
It runs the whole gambit. Only you can decide where you want to be on this broad spectrum as your skills improve.
bull drink water wrote:
one last time so that i have it straight in my head.
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
Jun 8, 2012 14:55:58 #
thanks guys, sometimes a "deffinetly maybe" is the best answer. i have programs that will let me edit in raw to some extent and print. alot of the things that you can do in pp are beyond my learning curve.the only places i really need jpg. is my email and forums like this one.
Jun 8, 2012 15:12:24 #
This is the comparison I like to use:
Would you rather cook your dinner or let Olive Garden do it by their "manual". You can both start with similar ingredients, theirs will always be "blah" but you can make it whatever way you like.
The camera's system was programmed by a bunch of programmers in Japan, in the 1990s. You were in the scene when you took the picture, who do you think can provide a better idea on how the scene should look?
That's RAW vs jpeg.
Would you rather cook your dinner or let Olive Garden do it by their "manual". You can both start with similar ingredients, theirs will always be "blah" but you can make it whatever way you like.
The camera's system was programmed by a bunch of programmers in Japan, in the 1990s. You were in the scene when you took the picture, who do you think can provide a better idea on how the scene should look?
That's RAW vs jpeg.
Jun 9, 2012 06:31:44 #
bull drink water wrote:
one last time so that i have it straight in my head.
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
if i shoot in raw and convert to jpg in pp,will thr results be better than if i let the camera do the converting?
You can almost always do better than the camera if you want to take the time.
Here is some good reading.
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-44050-1.html
Jim D
Jun 9, 2012 06:38:20 #
Jun 9, 2012 14:33:30 #
The results may or may not be as good, depending on your skill in using Photoshop. One advantage that isn't arguable, however, is that after you've done your editing in Photoshop, you can save the results in a "lossless" format, so that you can reopen the snap for re-editing as many times as you like without losing any of the data contained in the file. With jpeg, ever time you open and close it you lose a little bit of the data contained.
Think of it this way. In the bad old days of audio tape recording, if you made a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc., each copy would sound a little bit crappier than the one just before it. That's jpeg. Today, with audio saved digitally in whatever format, you're saving a string of numbers, and copies will always sound the same, no matter how many generations old it may be.
Think of it this way. In the bad old days of audio tape recording, if you made a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc., each copy would sound a little bit crappier than the one just before it. That's jpeg. Today, with audio saved digitally in whatever format, you're saving a string of numbers, and copies will always sound the same, no matter how many generations old it may be.
Jun 9, 2012 14:35:59 #
RAW is like an olde camera negative. It can be processed to improve its look over the actual shooting moment, which means, later saving AS (always make a new file and save the original) a JPEG file will mean the JPEG is far superior to the JPEG the camera could produce.
With modern camera chips getting so large, why not shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously? Chip space, like hard drive space, is getting cheap.
Richard Brown
With modern camera chips getting so large, why not shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously? Chip space, like hard drive space, is getting cheap.
Richard Brown
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.