Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Fidelity Difference RAW vs JPEG
Page <<first <prev 6 of 10 next> last>>
Apr 12, 2019 17:26:25   #
bleirer
 
You don't really have to choose. One high capacity card can hold tons of pictures, and They are two for $69 at Costco. You can shoot raw plus jpeg and save the raw in case you get a once in a lifetime shot that you can give to a pro to get the max out of. You can process a few of the raw files in camera for your own pleasure and save them as jpeg without changing the raw file. Win-win.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 17:41:07   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
burkphoto wrote:
Great story! Yeah, if you worked with slides for as long times as we did, JPEG work is a breeze. We lived with the same constraints (or worse!) back then. From my roles in the lab, I watched a lot of portrait professionals lose it over how twitchy JPEG exposure seemed to be to them. They NEVER worked with slides. It was all Vericolor or all Portra, all the time. You can just about hold a wet finger in the wind to get a light reading and you'll get enough exposure for a lab to work with that stuff. But try that same "wet finger" approach with JPEGs? Um, well, uh, sorry...

Raw just records more range, like color negatives do. So there's more latitude to pull something good out of a slightly-off exposure, and you can recover highlights and shadows that were burned or plugged. Whether that's important or not depends on a lot of things...
Great story! Yeah, if you worked with slides for a... (show quote)


Yes, slides were my choice for decades, and if I still shot film, they would be today. Kodachrome 25 and 64, Paul Simon said it best (in song)....loved that stuff.

JPEG produces wonderful pics, no argument. Raw gives me lots to work with, either way works for me, but I do like a little PP now and again. You are right, you have to know what you're doing with any photo medium. "Shooters choice", settings and processing, it's really up to the person behind the camera.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 18:12:00   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Digital cameras are wonderful tools. But, when it comes to customization, there isn't that much the photographer can control "in camera" beyond what the camera does natively. Nor is there much precision to the controls where you can customize. The "in camera" customizations, below on left-side from Canon, are rather similar in Nikon and Sony. The wealth of options from Lightroom, right-side, cannot be expanded fully into a single screen capture. And these are the "simple" tools of Lightroom where other software have even more edit options or can further expand upon the options of just one area.

Remember too, this plethora of tools available in post processing act on JPEGs as well as the other image formats. And these are just "edit" tools. There's also tools for management of file size / pixel resolution to assist in posting size, printing size, email attachment of image files. And, then there's watermarks ....
Digital cameras are wonderful tools. But, when it ... (show quote)


Nikon also offers the ability (I haven't tried it) to create your own picture controls and upload them to the camera. The effects will be baked in on a JPG and completely customizable on a Raw file if using Nikon software.

--

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 19:07:27   #
jdedmonds
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Resolution is defined by pixels. JPEG quality is defined by the percentage removal of data when compressing the image data into a JPEG format, a removal that is non-reversible. The higher the JPEG quality, the lesser the amount of original data is removed.

Your camera is 42 megapixels, creating files measuring 7952 × 5304 pixels, irregardless of whether the stored format is RAW or JPEG. The file size is not determined by the pixel resolution of the image. If you don't have the software needed to edit RAW files, your better choice is the high-quality JPEG, where the quality can be excellent straight from the camera as well as being readily available for minor through highly advanced editing. Using the high quality JPEG setting, the least amount of JPEG compression occurs when creating the files that are physically smaller than the corresponding RAW files, but still are images with resolution = 7952 × 5304 pixels.
Resolution is defined by pixels. JPEG quality is d... (show quote)


regardless. No such word as irregardless.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 19:16:26   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Desert Gecko wrote:
Shoot both! Don't make the mistake I did when I got my first DSLR. I shot jpeg only because I wasn't into post processing, and now I have thousands of old pics I can't do much with.

I have the same gear, a7R3 and 24-105 -- a great combination. But I can't imagine not having RAW files to process how I want. The camera gets it right most of the time, but not always.

So shoot both, and keep your RAWs tucked away somewhere for the day you decide to learn Lightroom or something. BTW Lightroom is pretty easy to learn, unlike Photoshop. A few days and a few tutorials from YouTube and you'll be churning out photos better than your camera's photos.
Shoot both! Don't make the mistake I did when I go... (show quote)


Or, just get Elements and tweak your JPEGS .....

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 19:17:11   #
Bill_de Loc: US
 
jdedmonds wrote:
regardless. No such word as irregardless.


Merriam - Webster disagrees with you. So would my mother if she was still alive.

Is irregardless a word?: Usage Guide

Irregardless was popularized in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its increasingly widespread spoken use called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

---

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 19:19:58   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
I'd prefer to keep the discussion on photography, in the Main Photography section, irregardless of where the non photographers try to distract the discussion ...

Try Chit Chat or the Attic if language police is your best attempt at a useful contribution.

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 19:25:03   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
I'd prefer to keep the discussion on photography, in the Main Photography section, irregardless of where the non photographers try to distract the discussion ...

Try Chit Chat or the Attic if language police is your best attempt at a useful contribution.



Reply
Apr 12, 2019 20:35:53   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
I didn't have a jpg. Even if I did, your recommendations would hardly result in the final image.
--Bob
davyboy wrote:
Why didn’t take your jpeg and bring in some mid tone shadows and use your luminance slider perhaps bring down your exposure?

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 21:29:44   #
chuck A7R3
 
When using RAW editing s/w (haven’t yet), should I expect to see the dramatic decrease in file size that I find when editing a, say, 32 MB jpeg image when using Windows 10 “Photo” editing s/w? I find that minor tweaks like clarity and contrast to a sizable jpeg results in a saved file size at about half the original. Am I to assume that lots of this is sacrificed resolution.

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 22:05:46   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
As referenced earlier, "resolution" of a digital image is expressed by the length * width pixel dimensions, or the product of these two sides of the image. On a windows platform, simply right-click the file properties to see the dimensions. File size and resolution are different aspects of a digital image and are not synonymous terms.

The file size on disk is impacted by several factors, including the JPEG quality and amount of JPEG compression performed by the software used to save and create a new JPEG file. Although the purpose of this linked post, below, is to address methods to create lower-resolution image files, the concepts discussed should help your understanding why a digital image, viewed full-screen on digital monitors, appear identical even though the file sizes are significantly different.

Recommended resizing parameters for digital images >> https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-512745-1.html

Reply
 
 
Apr 12, 2019 22:24:46   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
imagemeister wrote:
Or, just get Elements and tweak your JPEGS .....


Are you normal or what! Thank God for people like you

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 22:32:27   #
davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.
 
rmalarz wrote:
I didn't have a jpg. Even if I did, your recommendations would hardly result in the final image.
--Bob


It would have been one heck of a lot better then the jpeg you are showing

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 22:36:37   #
olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
 
jdedmonds wrote:
regardless. No such word as irregardless.


Did we need to go here. Respective of point, how does this add to the conversation? Modern language is/has/will change a lot over time. Words come and words go, it is deeds that make the difference.........

Reply
Apr 12, 2019 22:42:30   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Really???
--Bob

davyboy wrote:
It would have been one heck of a lot better then the jpeg you are showing

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.