Only RAW? (Page 3): Yeah, you've posted that before - nothing I'd care to claim. I'll stand on what I have posted. Not one Raw.

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Main Photography Discussion

Only RAW?

Page <<first <prev 3 of 13 next> last>>

Dec 9, 2019 20:45:54 #

Quixdraw Loc: x

Ysarex wrote:

It has nothing to do with religion. I'm also from ... (show quote)

Yeah, you've posted that before - nothing I'd care to claim. I'll stand on what I have posted. Not one Raw.

Dec 9, 2019 20:53:13 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

quixdraw wrote:

Yeah, you've posted that before - nothing I'd care to claim. I'll stand on what I have posted.

Yes I have posted it before -- it's good solid proof that shooting raw allows us for one to capture images impossible to capture shooting JPEG.

You'll stand on what? That you "...get results I am pleased with using JPEG." I'm sure you do. Then why did you asked to see outcome differences while limping under the weight of that shoulder chip?

Joe

Dec 9, 2019 20:55:26 #

Quixdraw Loc: x

Proves nothing to me. Different Movies.

Dec 9, 2019 21:06:20 #

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

words will not convert a shooter of jpgs or raws to switch sides. Only personal experience will do that and I sense that the interest is lacking in both cases.

Dec 9, 2019 21:09:18 #

Quixdraw Loc: x

Anyone with an eye for the light, composition and a decent digital (or film) camera can take good photos. If you need RAW, so be it. I need a knee brace for rough terrain or heavy work.

Dec 9, 2019 21:55:18 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

quixdraw wrote:

Proves nothing to me. Different Movies.

quixdraw wrote:

Anyone with an eye for the light, composition and a decent digital (or film) camera can take good photos. If you need RAW, so be it. I need a knee brace for rough terrain or heavy work.

It's not about using raw because you need a crutch. It's about using raw because it can do more than the camera image processor. YOU ASKED FOR DIFFERENCES IN OUTCOMES. Ok, so how about this:

Take this photo: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-612013-1.html#10535280

I guess we can assume it's a camera JPEG. The highlights in the clouds upper left are nuked to oblivion (crushed shadows too). When you have a good eye for backlight you can see that coming in a camera JPEG.

But with raw you can keep those diffuse highlights in the clouds while shooting backlight. The JPEG for the photo below is blown but the raw isn't.

Is that the outcome difference you want to see?

Joe

(Download)

Dec 9, 2019 22:17:18 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

quixdraw wrote:

Proves nothing to me. Different Movies.

quixdraw wrote:

Anyone with an eye for the light, composition and a decent digital (or film) camera can take good photos. If you need RAW, so be it. I need a knee brace for rough terrain or heavy work.

It's not about using raw because you need a crutch. It's about using raw because it can do more than the camera image processor. You asked for differences in outcomes. Let's do another one: Take the first two photos here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-608630-1.html#10464461

Flowers in direct sunlight will often do as you see in the first two photos in that link and blow highlights on the saturated flower petals when you shoot JPEG.

A big advantage of shooting raw is you never have to blow diffuse highlights -- including flowers in direct sunlight like the photo below.

Joe

(Download)

Dec 9, 2019 22:38:04 #

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

quixdraw wrote:

Anyone with an eye for the light, composition and a decent digital (or film) camera can take good photos. If you need RAW, so be it. I need a knee brace for rough terrain or heavy work.

I normally don't critique the work of others but your holier than thou pontification couldn't be overlooked. I examined dozens of your images and was surprised by what I saw based on your bravado. Almost all of them were dark and murky, with dull colors. They are also not particularly sharp, with a general low level of detail and much of it lost in the shadows. Many of your images are also suffering from the presence of haze. All those things can be successfully adjusted in post and your mostly mediocre images could be much improved.

Before you criticize others by implying that post processing raw files is some kind of a crutch for poor photographers, consider that perhaps you are the one who needs to develop " an eye for the light". While your composition is often fairly good, you clearly should be shooting in raw and learning how to PP effectively to improve on the general drabness of your images.

Dec 9, 2019 23:24:29 #

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

quixdraw wrote:

Proves nothing to me. Different Movies.

quixdraw wrote:

Anyone with an eye for the light, composition and a decent digital (or film) camera can take good photos. If you need RAW, so be it. I need a knee brace for rough terrain or heavy work.

It's not about using raw because you need a crutch. It's about using raw because it can do more than the camera image processor. You asked for differences in outcomes. Let's do another one: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-605767-1.html#10410828

Look at the second image in the above link. Highly saturated colors, especially reds, are very difficult for camera JPEG processors. They normally crash and burn as in this example. The red channel is nuked and the flower is just a solid posterized red. There really is no good way to get a camera to handle this.

With a raw file however you can target and process the red independently of the rest of the photo and photograph a red flower with detail and tone variation in the petals which of course was actually there.

Got your outcome differences now or do we need to do more?

Joe

(Download)

Dec 10, 2019 05:55:36 #

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

rtryan wrote:

Anyone shoot only RAW? I find as I shoot more and then go to edit and create catalog or a book of travel or events, I use Mac Photo and after importing and saving on my iMac I have to spend time pulling the RAW from the jpeg/RAW slot.
Any disadvantage to shooting only RAW besides the size of the file?

I shoot in jpeg. because I shoot at a high frames per second and I can get more frames per second in jpeg. vs. RAW. I also find I can make all the adjustments I need in Photoshop to any jpeg. image I shoot.
Below is an example, by the way, this was shot with a Sony HX90 pocket camera. I cannot take credit for the lighting, that was done by the big guy upstairs.