JPG vs. RAW
Oct 4, 2023 13:29:30 #
trapper1 wrote:
If there is no intention of altering an image after taking it, is there any advantage in shooting RAW vs. JPG, such as greater sharpness, etc.?
Trapper1
Trapper1
17 pages for such a simple question. Well, welcome to UHH.
My answer is; NO !
Bruce.
Oct 4, 2023 13:30:18 #
therwol
Loc: USA
User ID wrote:
To assure 20 pages, or to go for an impressive over run, it would help to know whether your dog uses a filter and a hood.
Not to mention if your dog's camera has a mirror. Would your dog be better off with a Nikon or Sony?
Oct 4, 2023 13:45:57 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
selmslie wrote:
The 4096 value is wrong because a 14-bit raw file can actually record 16384 values in each channel.
Not all cameras have or have been equipped with 14 bit ADCs. He never mentioned the ADC bit depth of any camera. By listing the 4096 value it's fair to assume his info was somewhat dated from back when cameras with 12 bit ADCs were more the norm.
Oct 4, 2023 13:48:42 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
Ysarex wrote:
Not all cameras have or have been equipped with 14 bit ADCs. He never mentioned the ADC bit depth of any camera. By listing the 4096 value it's fair to assume his info was somewhat dated from back when cameras with 12 ADCs were more the norm.
In which case the corresponding JPEG handling capabilities may have also been significantly crippled against what is easily achievable in more modern times.
Oct 4, 2023 13:53:33 #
Robertl594 wrote:
Depends on your ability to capture a properly exposed image 100% of the time.
That is certainly not true.
Oct 4, 2023 13:59:33 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
larryepage wrote:
In which case the corresponding JPEG handling capabilities may have also been significantly crippled against what is easily achievable in more modern times.
The tech in our cameras has continued to improve over the years -- of course.
Oct 4, 2023 14:02:56 #
Ysarex wrote:
Not all cameras have or have been equipped with 14 bit ADCs. He never mentioned the ADC bit depth of any camera. By listing the 4096 value it's fair to assume his info was somewhat dated from back when cameras with 12 ADCs were more the norm.
Just remember what your teacher warned you about the word “assume”.
Oct 4, 2023 14:07:30 #
mwsilvers wrote:
If you have no intention of altering an image ther... (show quote)
None of that is necessarily true, Mark.
Oct 4, 2023 14:16:35 #
Oct 4, 2023 14:22:12 #
Oct 4, 2023 14:24:43 #
Rongnongno wrote:
Two more pages to go!!!!
Yea buddy, let's hope UserId has enough popcorn, beer, pizza to make it through. Yupper two pages to go.
bruce.
Oct 4, 2023 14:47:21 #
srt101fan wrote:
How so?
The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the person challenging it, but I will respond and demonstrate that the broad general claim made is simply not true, for many reasons. For example, it is not true that raw files "tend to be flat looking and less sharp than JPEGs straight out of the camera because no in-camera settings for sharpness, contrast and color tone are applied" in the case of viewing rendering of Canon raw files in Canon's proprietary software designed for that purpose.
It is also not true that one should "only shoot raw if your intention is to edit the raw files in post processing." Raw files cannot be edited. It is also not true that "if you have no intention of altering an image there is no advantage in shooting raw." That overlooks a big reason for working with raw files, and that is the possibility that you or someone else may want to work with them in the future. When I first started shooting digital images I had no idea what could be done with raw files, but I sure wish I had raw files from those early years now.
I listened to the people saying that raw files "tend to be flat looking and less sharp than JPEGs straight out of the camera because no in-camera settings for sharpness, contrast and color tone are applied," that one should "only shoot raw if your intention is to edit the raw files in post processing," and that "if you have no intention of altering an image there is no advantage in shooting raw." I regret listening to that advice.
Oct 4, 2023 15:28:17 #
Real Nikon Lover wrote:
In fact many of the Raw photos I have seen post processed were actually worse than the jpg versions.
How might that happen, do you think?
Oct 4, 2023 16:09:06 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
The burden of proof is on the person making the cl... (show quote)
Thank you for your response. I thing your misinterpreting silvers to some degree but I understand where you’re coming from.
Oct 4, 2023 18:23:04 #
Stalled at 18? Come on!!!!
Go back to your weird argumentation, so the pages keep going!!!
Go back to your weird argumentation, so the pages keep going!!!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.