frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

NO.....

julian.gang

Then tell me, why do you shoot in RAW rather than JPEG!...Julian

brucewells Loc: Central Kentucky

Absolutely not. Pick up any magazine and gander at the images in there. Every single one of them was post processed. With digital imaging, the beginning of the process is the capture (taking the shot with the camera). Beyond that, the processing gives opportunity to bring the image to life using the tools that are available. I believe it to be a necessary part of digital photography.

There are those who believe that straight-out-of-the-camera (SOOC) is the only REAL picture. That just ain't so.

BebuLamar

I am not crazy about RAW as I always shoot RAW! As I understand your camera doesn't save the file in RAW so for you it's a moot point.
Imagine if your camera can save the file in RAW you can do the following settings after you take the pictures not only before like you have to now.
Image size (yes the RAW is full size and you can make it smaller.)
Aspect ratio
Quality
White balance
Picture Effect.

julian.gang

My Sony camera has all those options, it's a DSC-HX400v!...Julian

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

If you're creating .tif files from your jpegs you're already losing significant amounts of the original shooting data. If your camera is unable to give you a raw option then there isn't much you can do about it. Raw files give you much more leeway when making adjustments such as noise reduction and the ability to extract detail from deep shadow areas.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Raw allows me to extract how much more detail out of my images than I can via 8-bit jpegs. Raw is also a non-destructive format and offers a much much wider latitude for adjustments than is possible with jpegs. Spend enough time editing both formats and you'll see the very significant differences

Haydon

You're right on point with this deduction Jim. Perfect analogy.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

If you don't have raw capture capability, and you still expect to edit your images, a 16 bit tiff file will offer the least negative impact during editing.

And yes, raw will give you considerably more options, greater detail, more latitude, extra dynamic range, etc etc over a camera that captures raw and automatically converts to jpeg, discarding any an all information not used to create the jpeg.

My favorite analogy is a one string violin. Yes, of course you can make music with it, but when you have all 4 strings, and have made the investment to learn how to play it - I suspect you'll be happier with the results.

julian.gang

The thing is I use Lightroom in my post-processing which allows me to have that leeway...Julian

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

All photography is a lie if you want to be strict about it. And keep in mind that your camera, in order to create the jpegs you see, processes the image information it captures. All that post processing software does is take away the rudimentary processing done in camera and replaces with sophisticated software manilulation of the original shooting information outside your camera. The results for someone skilled in the use of post processing software are far superior. In the hands of someone who is not skilled, the results can be a mess. For those not interested or willing to take the time to learn how to post process properly, its best to use rudimentary post processing programs like Picasa, or just use jpegs straight out of the camera.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

That's incorrect. It doesn't give you that leeway unless you're shooting raw. If you start with 8 bit jpegs you've already eliminated most of the original shooting data and most of the flexibility that editing raw files gives you. Jpegs contain only a subset of the original shooting information. It may be time for you to do a little internet research on your own to understand what the difference is between jpegs and raw data. There are literally many thousands of references out there.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Great analogy!

Haydon

 

blackest Loc: Ireland

What does that actually mean? The photo is only a representation of a scene viewed in a particular way. You might choose a narrow depth of field or a deep depth of field both would be representations of the scene. I don't think you could even say the deep depth of field is true, what one person see's can be different for 2 viewers due to differences in eye sight.

Now lets say you take a jpeg and for the sake of clarity you shoot in a black & white mode. You have done no post processing you have just chosen different defaults, unless it was a Leica M which only shoots monochrome although i suspect there are still choices in how the camera processes the image.

Clearly the black & white photo is not the same as you saw at the scene and you have done no post processing therefore the photograph is a lie. It's been argued that what we see is a composite of what we sense coming through our eyes, we have a blindspot on each of our eyes but our brain fills in those missing details. So maybe seeing is a lie also.

If I have a photo of a cake , I do not have a cake (and knowing me the cake in the photo no longer exists) If I claimed the photo of the cake was the cake that would be a lie, but I don't say that, I present to you an image of a cake. Hopefully that image evokes in you memories of cake goodness from previous cakes you have experienced and are not triggered by a previous bad cake experience - that was probably your own fault for asking her to marry you in the first place.

No the photo is not a lie its a representation of something you 'saw' as much as when an ancestor drew a bison on a cave wall, the other ancestors didn't try to eat it, but just said things like 'cool bison bro lets go hunting tomorrow its making me hungry'.

No the photo is not a lie but you might recognize a cake when you see one.