Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Which allows me to take photos that are impossible for you to take at all. And there you have a fact now that makes the raw/JPEG difference clear.

Joe

Quixdraw Loc: x

Potato - Potahto. A matter of choice. Most people have their own true beliefs - I have ones that meet my needs, not yours. No interest in "conversion", as I achieve outcomes that please me.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

You're the one who threw out the challenge and asked for proof of why raw is "better." Being able to achieve something that is otherwise not possible -- to take photographs that can't be taken otherwise is an example of "better."

Your challenge is met with hard facts not beliefs. Shooting raw I can do better and take photos that you can't and I just proved that fact. I have no interest in converting you. You asked and you got a factual answer.

Joe

Quixdraw Loc: x

Factual only based on failure to bring the equipment to get the job done in a normal fashion. There are few photos that can't be taken with skill and preparation.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Complete BS and addressed in my post.



That's meaningless, off topic and more BS. Your BS is worthless. You asked for facts and I gave you facts. Can you counter the facts with something to show? The only facts here are facts I presented. You asked for facts and now you have them. Show me my facts are wrong or do you want to BS some more?

Joe

Quixdraw Loc: x

What a charming fellow.

bleirer

The main difference is in the choices you have later. The jpeg file that comes out of your camera started as a raw file in the camera and the camera applied settings like white balance, sharpening, saturation, contrast to make the jpeg and threw away the raw file. The jpeg can still be adjusted later, but not as much. You can't change the white balance as well, you can't change the exposure as much, if you sharpen you are resharpening something that has already been sharpened. It can be done, but not as good. A raw file can be exported into a jpeg or a tiff, but the advantage is that until you do that many of the settings the camera used are still changeable, you could take the same picture and scroll through many picture settings to see which one you like, or dial in your own settings, but after the picture is taken and you can change your mind at any time.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Indeed I am. And very helpful too. Challenging the concept that shooting raw is better you asked for facts to prove that. I provided facts that prove a case in point where shooting raw is better. And then you respond with "Potato - Potahto" trying to dismiss those facts because you don't like them. Do you have facts given that you were demanding them in the first place? I'm not seeing any. But when you get back the same you dished out you move on to a personal insult.

Well I am a charming fellow. I also happen to have the facts about this topic if you want to talk facts. One fact I've just demonstrated. Shooting raw allows all of us to expose more than is possible shooting JPEG. There's only so much you can do with the camera picture controls before the camera software will start clipping diffuse highlights. But shooting raw you can expose more and so record more data. That's more data that won't be available for the camera software when it creates a JPEG and as you can see in the example I posted above it can be meaningful data. Shooting raw allows us to record more DR -- and that's a period and that's a fact. It isn't always important but it's very meaningful in extreme high contrast light when you can't adjust the lighting.

There are other facts surrounding this topic that I can help with if you want to talk facts. I haven't insulted you yet and I'm pretty thick skinned so let me know.

Joe

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

The fact is, in your "sample" I can take a 3 exposure JPEG in camera HDR and have the same outcome - if not better....

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes you can but since the photo was taken only as an illustration of the lighting condition let's assume you're shooting a backlit cycle race where the racers are moving 30 mph.

Oh and, do you enjoy all that extra time at the computer doing all that HDR processing? I shoot raw to avoid all those long hours post processing JPEGs.

Joe

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

NO PP time at all - done IN CAMERA - with Sony .....

FWIW, I do like Ysarex lenses very much ! 8-)
.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

From Sony's website: "Auto HDR
Shoots 3 images with different exposures, and then overlays the bright area of the under exposed image and the dark area of the over exposed image to create an image with rich gradation. The highlight detail in auto HDR is often better than that in D-Range Optimise reducing the noise. However, as the shutter is released 3 times, using this function for moving subjects is not recommended."

My bold in above text -- you forgot the 30 mph moving past you bike racers.

Joe

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, it is one of the ONLY times to really even consider using raw - but I would just use a camera with a state of the art sensor ( hopefully a low MP full frame like the Sony A7III ) and shoot JPEG anyway.
.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Great and now what we've got here concerning the option for in camera HDR is "talk" that deserves in all fairness the same treatment everyone else in the thread got from quixdraw; let's see some facts.

Joe

P.S. Kind of sorry I sold my last Ysarex lenses some years ago.

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Personally I have never shot RAW so my opinions be biased. However I have always been pretty satisfied with SOOC JPEG (with occasional help using Apple Photo editor.) After sitting in front of a computer at work all day the LAST thing I want to do is PP in my free time. Just my opinion FWIW.