Raw vs jpeg
Aug 2, 2018 16:05:08 #
Aug 2, 2018 16:19:27 #
selmslie wrote:
If you are going to go to that much trouble to arr... (show quote)
More examples of subject matter suited to JPEG capture:
eBay product photos
Industrial parts catalog photos (nuts, bolts, screws, cardboard boxes, tools...)
Nearly all school portraits ("underclass" K-11, anyway) are made with JPEG capture
Most "big box store studio" and "church directory" portraiture is JPEG capture
Some very, very low budget work, done with a tight deadline under controlled, consistent lighting and contrast range, is made with JPEG capture
Outdoor scenes on 100% overcast days
Indoor candids in schools and offices lit evenly and predominantly with 2x4 foot fluorescent troffers
Many people in this forum would be shocked to learn what sorts of professional work are done with minimal equipment (like APS-C and Micro 4/3) and JPEG captures. Any scene where the dynamic range is limited to five f/stops or less, exposure is reasonably consistent, and white balance is fixed, can be handled nicely with JPEG capture. Portraits with 2:1 to 3.5:1 main-to-fill lighting ratios work quite well. Hybrid photography creations like those done by commercial photographer Will Crockett MUST be JPEG, so the stills match the videos.
Examples of subject matter COMPLETELY UNSUITED to JPEG capture:
Weddings and other "one chance" events, especially those in venues where lighting is inconsistent or room changes are common
Sports action in poorly/inconsistently lit venues or outdoors on sunny days
Landscapes and real estate work
Most scenes photographed outdoors on sunny or partly cloudy days, especially in direct sun
High end product photography (cars, clothing, jewelry, antiques, luxury items...)
Any scene where the dynamic range exceeds five f/stops is a prime candidate for raw capture, where practical.
Any scene where precise color accuracy and deep color saturation is required is a prime candidate for raw capture and direct printing from a 16-bit conversion (i.e.; printing directly from Lightroom to a very high end inkjet printer with 16-bit driver).
Aug 2, 2018 17:30:05 #
xt2 wrote:
Send your JPEG please...
Lol. I’ve edited for years. No need to send. This was shot at around 5:15am and was way overexposed so I could get what I needed from PS processing. RAW is just part of processing to obtain the desired result.
The Jpeg is unusable. No way possible to use it.
The shoot was set up at 4:00am and started at 5:00am. It was designed the week before down the the f-stop, modifier and grids... if you’ve ever shot chrome in the dark, you understand how it’s a challenge to get to look white.
The needs of the shoot required RAW to obtain the final product. Jpeg....no way. I always use RAW to produce images. JPEG has so much lost data to edit for my needs. YMMV.
Just do the math. How many bits of data is in a jpeg to edit. Then RAW. Math doesn’t lie. There’s simply no comparison.
It all depends on the needs of the shoot and final image.
Aug 2, 2018 18:22:13 #
Aug 2, 2018 18:30:55 #
xt2 wrote:
Thx anyway Anglo...
I know... An overexposed Jpeg is full of unrecoverable whites 250-255. RAW will be recoverable. In the case of the shoot it was what I needed in the RAW for processing.
It’s just math.
Aug 2, 2018 19:34:30 #
Angmo wrote:
These were shot RAW + JPEG.
Impossible to obtain these final images with a JPEG. The editing of the RAW image was fairly substantial. Simple as that. JPEG was used as a reference. No way a JPEG has the data in the dynamic range to manipulate as much as it was in these pics.
Impossible to obtain these final images with a JPEG. The editing of the RAW image was fairly substantial. Simple as that. JPEG was used as a reference. No way a JPEG has the data in the dynamic range to manipulate as much as it was in these pics.
I like the bike too.
Aug 2, 2018 21:38:15 #
selmslie wrote:
Starting from the raw file may not cost you any ti... (show quote)
Thank you. You have accurately and succinctly stated the primary reasons that I use RAW at work.
Aug 8, 2018 21:36:47 #
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
How can you tell the difference between images.? The difference is in the processing. If you don't process them, it doesn't make a difference.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.