Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
JPEG Vs. RAW
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
Jan 10, 2019 16:43:12   #
Sunrisepano
 
sbohne wrote:
Gee...I guess all of the HUNDREDS of annual report images I did for St. Gobain, Dow Chemical, Eaton Corporation, Pellrin-Milnor, and dozens of others must of been of poor quality, because I trusted that "non-color corrected camera monitor."

Poppycock.


And there you have it folks...for all those color calibration tools, and professionals that go to great lengths to calibrate their monitors, and their clients.....
"Poppycock" sbohne says so!!!! SO THERE!!!!

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 16:45:53   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
What part of this is "absolutely wrong"?
--Bob

sbohne wrote:
And herein is the very problem I am addressing. You are wrong. You are 100% wrong. Like in absolutely wrong. To wit:
https://www.lifewire.com/jpeg-myths-and-facts-1701548

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:08:40   #
sbohne
 
rmalarz wrote:
What part of this is "absolutely wrong"?
--Bob

Opening a jpg and the saving it without editing does NOT cause any loss.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:13:18   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
Yes it does. It's easily provable. However, space limitations here prevent that proof from being written here (to quote Pierre de Fermat). You can prove it for yourself just as easily.
--Bob
sbohne wrote:
Opening a jpg and the saving it without editing does NOT cause any loss.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:18:50   #
sbohne
 
Sunrisepano wrote:
And there you have it folks...for all those color calibration tools, and professionals that go to great lengths to calibrate their monitors, and their clients.....
"Poppycock" sbohne says so!!!! SO THERE!!!!

I calibrated my monitor. Color was never a problem. I have had images published in magazines, annual reports, and billboards. I have given presentations at dozens of professional organizations. I have an album of photographs on permanent display at the photography hall and fame and museum. I was the Art Leather/Brides Magazine National Wedding Photographer of the Year. I hold the Master of photography AND Photographic Craftsman Degrees from the PPA. I have been awarded more court of honor awards than we have space to list.

So if "I SAY SO" you can can pretty much take it the bank. So what makes us listen to you bloviate?

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:22:09   #
sbohne
 
rmalarz wrote:
Yes it does. It's easily provable. However, space limitations here prevent that proof from being written here. You can prove it for yourself just as easily.
--Bob

No, it doesn't and I posted the link that backs it up. You are free to think other wise. Your mind is made up, I'll stop trying to confuse you with the facts.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:41:46   #
tschuler
 
sbohne wrote:
Man, after nearly 20 years I still can't believe there is confusion on this. Here we go:

A RAW file is all the data from the sensor capture. Your RAW files will need post-processing. When you open them as is, they are flat and lifeless...


I use Photoshop CC 2015. When I double click on my NEF files (Nikon RAW files) they open in the Camera Raw part of Photoshop. My photo does not look flat and lifeless. It looks similar to the equivalent JPG photo. Am I doing something wrong and are my photos lacking any of the PP that should be available to RAW files? Am I really processing the RAW file?

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:45:51   #
sbohne
 
tschuler wrote:
I use Photoshop CC 2015. When I double click on my NEF files (Nikon RAW files) they open in the Camera Raw part of Photoshop. My photo does not look flat and lifeless. It looks similar to the equivalent JPG photo. Am I doing something wrong and are my photos lacking any of the PP that should be available to RAW files? Am I really processing the RAW file?


I have not used CC 2015 and I have never worked with NEF files. I can't help you here, but I'm sure there are plenty of Nikon users on here who can help you out!

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 17:54:52   #
rmalarz (a regular here)
 
My mind was made up by empirical testing. Additionally, I'm familiar, through my computer background, with Huffman encoding, which is used whenever a jpeg file is stored.

To quote wikipedia:
JPEG is a commonly used method of lossy compression for digital images, particularly for those images produced by digital photography. The degree of compression can be adjusted, allowing a selectable tradeoff between storage size and image quality. JPEG typically achieves 10:1 compression with little perceptible loss in image quality.

I call your attention to the use of the word lossy.

If you'd like a procedure to verify the loss of data with just a safe, let me know, I'll write it up for you and you can prove it to yourself.
--Bob

sbohne wrote:
No, it doesn't and I posted the link that backs it up. You are free to think other wise. Your mind is made up, I'll stop trying to confuse you with the facts.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 18:18:30   #
Sunrisepano
 
sbohne wrote:
I calibrated my monitor.
So if "I SAY SO" you can can pretty much take it the bank. So what makes us listen to you bloviate?


Thank you for backing me up. Your first words here "I calibrated my monitor."

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 18:18:33   #
Retina
 
JPG vs RAW? It's apples and oranges. When driving I prefer the apple because it requires so little time and attention. While riding I have time to dissect an orange.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 18:22:48   #
tdekany
 
tschuler wrote:
I use Photoshop CC 2015. When I double click on my NEF files (Nikon RAW files) they open in the Camera Raw part of Photoshop. My photo does not look flat and lifeless. It looks similar to the equivalent JPG photo. Am I doing something wrong and are my photos lacking any of the PP that should be available to RAW files? Am I really processing the RAW file?


Mine doesn’t look flat either. Yes you are processing the raw file. Look at the info in the right column. I use an Olympus camera. (ORF)

Btw, the photo has been edited in the picture


(Download)

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 18:50:16   #
paver
 
This is GREAT!
Asking a relevent question, has gotten so many different views and opinions on the subject, but, it is not great to to see the discord
that comes from it.
I, and most of you have thick skin, and don't really care what is said about them, and probably won't change ones view on the subject,
BUT, COME ON GUYS AND GALS!
Beleive me. I am not trying to mediate anything, but to me, this infighting only distracts from the discussion.
It is beneath the professionalism that most show on this forum, IMHO.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 19:32:37   #
John from gpwmi (a regular here)
 
Like everything else in photography, it's a compromise. JPEG or RAW: Where do you want to spend your time and what do you enjoy doing. Frankly, I'm doing JPEG now even though I'm sure many of my photos could be improve with processing from RAW. However, I enjoy the challenge of getting the most out of the camera and the new cameras, even the less-expensive ones, have a lot of capability. If you're concerned about loosing too much detail in the compression of the file in JPEG, some if not all camera offer compression options which should help some. Generally the default is ⅛ (Normal), however there is ¼ (Fine) and ½.7 (super fine), at least that's true for Olympus. I switched to Fine and the memory required went up 40 - 50%. I couldn't tell much difference, but what the heck, memory is cheap. I don't know if the added detail is in the color pallet or the spatial detail or both. Also, I found an interesting book titled IN CAMERA, by Gordon Laing, that shows, with 93 photo examples, how to get the most out of your camera in JPEG using Panasonic, Fuji, Sony and Olympus mirrorless cameras in all kinds of situations. I don't always agree with his artistic interpretation, but he certainly knows how to get what he wants out of a camera. Hope someone found this useful. For me as an amateur, it's simply about enjoying what I'm doing and feeling satisfaction with the result. At this time, JPEG is fine, but hold open the option for RAW in the future.

| Reply
Jan 10, 2019 20:44:27   #
rgrenaderphoto (a regular here)
 
catchlight.. wrote:
Raw is the recipe book with endless possibilities, or the entire DNA/ data available at any time.

Jpeg is the result of the ingredients and a finished product... from in camera or after post possessing.

JPEG only contains information from the ingredients that were selected from the original recipe ...


Absolutely, and the recipe choices were made by the camera, not the photographer. And furthermore in my very, very biased opinion, which is based on the dramatic improvement in my output from switching 100% to RAW, refusal to understand the possibilities is tantamount to refusing to learn how your camera system works.



I don't' care how perfect your in camera exposure is, don't care how great your compositions are.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 next>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.