Ysarex wrote:
Let's go over your 3 gross exaggerations above.
1. "Jpgs deteriorate so I shoot raw"
2. "If you want to edit a file, you must shoot raw".
3. "You can't fix white balance in a jpg"
1. JPEGs don't deteriorate; nobody claims that. JPEGs will be degraded by being re-compressed as JPEG if the file is first opened and edited. This damage is very slight and negligible if only done a few times. It is nonetheless real.
Degrade/deteriorate, the point is people often say they shoot raw because jpgs degrade/deteriorate each time you edit one. See "Just Fred's" post on the first page of this very thread.
This is meaningless because it's simple to preserve the original and or the edits with a developer file such as .PSD .ACDC or .AFphoto. See my response to "Just Fred" on the first page of this thread.
Ysarex wrote:
Editing a JPEG so as to alter tone/color substantially will cause JPEG-unique degradation of the image. This will always happen -- nothing can be done to prevent it. This damage is more severe than the above however for most people who edit JPEGs it is swamped in the resolution of the file and not visible given their normal use of the image. So no real harm if they can't see it.
Very few give a rats patootie if you can't see the difference. You, with your x-ray eyes, spectrograph and cape can always see the difference, but that's your problem. I already suggested you toss your 16 bit monitor and buy a cheap one, and maybe you'll begin see what most people see.
Ysarex wrote:
2. Of course you can edit a JPEG. People do it constantly. Rather than claim you must edit raw files (your gross exaggeration) the point is made that editing raw files provides substantially more editing options and avoids the degradation that occurs when a JPEG is edited (see #1 above).
Yeah, too many people are wringing their hands over stuff they can't see. I worry only about what I can see. The rest I'll leave to the physicists with their prism's and spectrographs, and of course you to analyze.
Ysarex wrote:
It is true that capturing and editing raw files in some extreme lighting conditions can achieve a successful result where shooting JPEGs won't but those are outliers and don't fall under the category of general photography.
Yes, said that a million times myself, I just don't wear the raw T-shirt, and don't suggest everyone that likes to edit must shoot raw, or editing jpg's always degrades the image, or that white balance can't be edited in a jpg, and a bunch of other nonsense. What I've also said that in a long list of things that make for a good picture, RAW is near the very end of the list.