Raw vs jpeg
Jul 31, 2018 07:47:11 #
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
Jul 31, 2018 07:59:12 #
As a Nikon guy I'm not familiar with "the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files".
If you have been happy with your photos as jpgs, there's no real need to deal with raw files.
Raw files have more information than jpgs, so if you need to postprocess an image, raw files have the advantage of larger latitude for adjustment. If you have a camera setting wrong, raw files have the capacity to correct that (although they can't change ISO, focus, shutter speed, or aperture).
I shoot raw because one time I set the white balance for an indoor shot and forgot to reset it for outdoors. All my photos were blue and as jpgs it was really tough to correct them (they were not repeatable shots). Raw files would have been no problem. Shooting raw forces me to put my photos into a program that will convert them to jpg so I can use them. I use Lightroom, which also allows me to add keywords to the metadata of the photos. LR also has image management that allows me to find things years later using those keywords. With my failing memory that's really important to me.
If my reasons for shooting raw do not apply to you, continue shooting jpgs.
If you have been happy with your photos as jpgs, there's no real need to deal with raw files.
Raw files have more information than jpgs, so if you need to postprocess an image, raw files have the advantage of larger latitude for adjustment. If you have a camera setting wrong, raw files have the capacity to correct that (although they can't change ISO, focus, shutter speed, or aperture).
I shoot raw because one time I set the white balance for an indoor shot and forgot to reset it for outdoors. All my photos were blue and as jpgs it was really tough to correct them (they were not repeatable shots). Raw files would have been no problem. Shooting raw forces me to put my photos into a program that will convert them to jpg so I can use them. I use Lightroom, which also allows me to add keywords to the metadata of the photos. LR also has image management that allows me to find things years later using those keywords. With my failing memory that's really important to me.
If my reasons for shooting raw do not apply to you, continue shooting jpgs.
Jul 31, 2018 07:59:32 #
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
Please don’t start this discussion again. We have flogged this dead horse into a liquid!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Jul 31, 2018 08:03:08 #
Your astute observation is correct ! - assuming that the JPEG is shot and processed correctly.......
..
..
Jul 31, 2018 08:04:05 #
burkphoto wrote:
Please don’t start this discussion again. We have flogged this dead horse into a liquid!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Jul 31, 2018 08:05:17 #
A lot of "serious" photographers shoot jpg, especially journalists and sports pros. They have deadlines to meet and can't be fooling around with editing all their shots before submission. Raw shots are definitely more drab and flat than a jpg, the difference is clear. Raw just includes all the info from the camera instead of a pre-edited, locked and smaller file. There is no conspiracy here, it just gives you a lot more material to edit from. Raw files are preferred by those that are serious about post-processing. If that is not your thing, shoot jpg. No stress necessary.
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
Jul 31, 2018 08:08:22 #
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
One advantage with RAW is that you can’t accidentally ruin a RAW file by overwriting it when you edit.
Jul 31, 2018 08:13:29 #
jcboy3 wrote:
One advantage with RAW is that you can’t accidentally ruin a RAW file by overwriting it when you edit.
If you use LR for editing, it will strongly resist overwriting an original jpg. There may be a way to do it but I have not done the experiment.
Photoshop, on the other hand, will overwrite an original jpg fairly easily.
The only other programs I've used for editing are IrfanView and FastStone. They will tell you that you are about to overwrite a jpg but they will let you do it.
Jul 31, 2018 08:25:37 #
It appears that your camera body (without lens) costs about $3,000. Is that correct? If so, you already "bought into the hype." Educate yourself to whether or not shooting in raw - which requires competent editing - is for you and your goals and interests.
(personally, I think this topic is just bait from a troll...but I'm sure it'll go on for many pages, so it's good bait!)
(personally, I think this topic is just bait from a troll...but I'm sure it'll go on for many pages, so it's good bait!)
Jul 31, 2018 08:29:30 #
RAW has saved my shots a couple of times when I goofed, worth the extra step in processing, BTW using PSP 2018, Bob.
Jul 31, 2018 08:45:56 #
FreddB
Loc: PA - Delaware County
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
1: No idea what "situation" you refer to.
2: If you were shooting fine in jpeg, you should still be shooting fine. The file type (raw/jpeg) doesn't affect the result of your capture.
3. Absolutely correct! Looking at a picture doesn't tell you if it's from a raw or jpeg, nor if it was made with a pinhole or a Hasselblad. Also doesn't reveal if the photographer is a genius with a camera or a computer. Only thing you can tell is if it's good, bad, or meh.
Jul 31, 2018 09:05:29 #
burkphoto wrote:
Please don’t start this discussion again. We have flogged this dead horse into a liquid!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Jul 31, 2018 09:07:48 #
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
A RAW editor affords a different method/amount/capabilities of editing. Do what you feel most comfortable with and meets your needs the most for creating your "final" image. Don't stress over it.
(Some people will say only use a <$5,000> camera if you are really serious.
Really??? Not happening for me, and I'm serious.)
Jul 31, 2018 09:07:48 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
It appears that your camera body (without lens) costs about $3,000. Is that correct? If so, you already "bought into the hype." Educate yourself to whether or not shooting in raw - which requires competent editing - is for you and your goals and interests.
(personally, I think this topic is just bait from a troll...but I'm sure it'll go on for many pages, so it's good bait!)
(personally, I think this topic is just bait from a troll...but I'm sure it'll go on for many pages, so it's good bait!)
Jul 31, 2018 09:09:12 #
Linda From Maine wrote:
It appears that your camera body (without lens) costs about $3,000. Is that correct? If so, you already "bought into the hype." Educate yourself to whether or not shooting in raw - which requires competent editing - is for you and your goals and interests.
(personally, I think this topic is just bait from a troll...but I'm sure it'll go on for many pages, so it's good bait!)
(personally, I think this topic is just bait from a troll...but I'm sure it'll go on for many pages, so it's good bait!)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.