JPG vs. RAW (Page 47): It should be obvious by now which side I am on. I am vert closely aligned to Yaserix. I have absolutely nothing against jpeg. Much of my photography is outputted...

btbg

Wallen wrote:

"No one is blaming the tool and in part it is the fault of jpeg" ?

Make up you mind which side you are on. You yourself is blaming jpeg.

It should be obvious by now which side I am on. I am vert closely aligned to Yaserix. I have absolutely nothing against jpeg. Much of my photography is outputted as jpeg. However the camera algorithims by necessity make compromises.

So by shooting raw I can still output as a jpeg but use a better algorithm for the specific photo. Nothing at all wrong with jpeg but there is plenty wrong with the in camera algorithms, which limit sooc of cera jpegs.

To try to argue that if an image has excessive noise the photographer went beyond the capability of his or her camera is ridiculous. If the camera manufacturer didn't intend the camera be used at 28,000 iso they would not have included that option in the camera. If they truly believed that their jpeg algorithms were perfect raw would not even be an option.

Instead the engimeers reckognize the limitations of in camera jpeg and give the photographer options to address it.

There is nothing wrong with jpeg, but it is intended to be a finished product. If the photo migjt need post processing regardless of intent then the photographer should shoot in raw, output the imveded jpeg if satisfied with it and if not satisfied correct the image in arc from the raw file. How hard is that to understand?

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

btbg wrote:

... If the camera manufacturer didn't intend the camera be used at 28,000 iso they would not have included that option in the camera...

While I agree with most of your post, I would point out that the camera manufacturers are driven not only by what the cameras CAN do, they are driven by the marketing department as well. Case in point: the D5 includes ISO up to something like 200K, then HI1...HI4 (don't remember exactly how high since my D5 is in storage at the moment and I rarely go over 25K ISO). I find ISO useful up to about 50K. Beyond that I can get useful images with a LOT of postprocessing but I have never gotten useful images from the HI ranges. They are there for marketing purposes.

I'm not the best photographer in the world, and I expect there are photographers better than I who can expand the useful ISO range but I suspect ISO of 3 million is really hype. I tested the D4 when I got it (~2012) and found that I was able to produce usable pictures using ISO in the couple hundred thousand range, but only if I could get a usable picture at about ISO 50K from the same scene. If anyone can do something similar with the D5 I'd be interested in seeing their results (and process).

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

srt101fan wrote:

Totally taken out of context. And you accused the OP of being dishonest. What convoluted thinking. 🤔

Here is the context.

I wrote:

"I am curious why you asked the question and what you were expecting. The question has been asked and answered so many times over the years, and I don't believe you are new here."

The OP quoted the first sentence from my post - "I am curious why you asked the question and what you were expecting" - and responded:

"Very simple and obvious. I wanted to know which was superior/inferior to the other and why."

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

DirtFarmer wrote:

"If there is no intention of altering an imag... (show quote)

Good post.

srt101fan

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Here is the context.

I wrote:

"I am curious why you asked the question and what you were expecting. The question has been asked and answered so many times over the years, and I don't believe you are new here."

The OP quoted the first sentence from my post - "I am curious why you asked the question and what you were expecting" - and responded:

"Very simple and obvious. I wanted to know which was superior/inferior to the other and why."

You missed where he said "If there is no intention of altering an image after taking it....". And you missed "You quite obviously do not understand my query. It is " If there is no intention..." and refers only to an image still in the camera prior to any further action of any ilk." And you ignored the post where he pointed out two responses from people who he said understood his question and had answered it.

Yes, that is taking things out of context....

Rongnongno Loc: FL

User ID wrote:

Agreeing with Silvers (above) ..... br br You win... (show quote)

How is 47 and months later?

petrochemist Loc: UK

Blenheim Orange wrote:

Apparently there is more than one JPEG embedded in raw files, and the quality is variable and not necessarily the same as the outputted JPEG that is written to the card. Also not all viewers/editors display the embedded JPEG and not all embedded bitmaps in raw files are JPEGs.

I am not sure why an editing program would show an embedded JPEG initially when working with raw files. Are you sure that is what is happening?

Quite sure, it's mentioned on the on-line instructions. This is to allow a quick preview of the file allowing the best image to go on for editing...

srt101fan

Rongnongno wrote:

How is 47 and months later?

Your post is a reply to User ID's post on p. 1 of this thread.

Yeah, mwsilvers and User ID gave the OP the answer on page 1. The OP said they had correctly understood his question.

But that's not good enough for some people. They don't want to believe the OP, so they concoct their own version of his question, in one case even accusing him of asking a dishonest question!

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

srt101fan wrote:

...But that's not good enough for some people. They don't want to believe the OP, so they concoct their own version of his question, in one case even accusing him of asking a dishonest question!

Part of the problem is the title of the thread. It is a frequently discussed subject that elicits strong opinions. The fact that the OP clarified the intent of his question further down the thread (basically asking which is better and why) led the discussion into higher realms.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

srt101fan wrote:

You missed where he said "If there is no intention of altering an image after taking it....". And you missed "You quite obviously do not understand my query. It is " If there is no intention..." and refers only to an image still in the camera prior to any further action of any ilk." And you ignored the post where he pointed out two responses from people who he said understood his question and had answered it.

Yes, that is taking things out of context....

I don't see it, sorry. I did read and consider every post. I directly quoted the relevant posts. I did not ignore the post you are referring to. That post buttresses what I am saying.

But maybe I am missing something. Can you explain exactly how you think I misrepresented the OP?

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

srt101fan wrote:

Your post is a reply to User ID's post on p. 1 of this thread.

Yeah, mwsilvers and User ID gave the OP the answer on page 1. The OP said they had correctly understood his question.

But that's not good enough for some people. They don't want to believe the OP, so they concoct their own version of his question, in one case even accusing him of asking a dishonest question!

Oh give it up ffs. Good grief. The OP isn't complaining! We have turned the thread into a pretty good discussion. I don't know why people are whining about it. I people are tired o this topic or think the thread is too log, then why do they keep posting on it? I the OP feels misunderstood or maligned he can come back and clear things up. He doesn't ewe you as third man in (a hockey reference).

Anyway, now that we know that JPEG shooters are in the minority here, I am going to start taking their side.

Damn straight trapper 1! Who needs raw anyway?

srt101fan

Blenheim Orange wrote:

I don't see it, sorry. I did read and consider every post. I directly quoted the relevant posts. I did not ignore the post you are referring to. That post buttresses what I am saying.

But maybe I am missing something. Can you explain exactly how you think I misrepresented the OP?

I could....but I won't....not worth it.

Wallen Loc: Middle Earth

Miker999 wrote:

Wow! 46 more pages about one of the great photogra... (show quote)

I'm trying my best to inform that, there is no reason to polarise between the 2 dissimilar format with dissimilar purpose.

Use what fits the need, and what one is comfortable with.
Art, beauty & perfection in most minds is arbitrary.
No need to step on others who do not follow ones process or way of thinking.

Bill_de Loc: US

srt101fan wrote:

I could....but I won't....not worth it.

Good to know

---

srt101fan

DirtFarmer wrote:

Part of the problem is the title of the thread. It is a frequently discussed subject that elicits strong opinions. The fact that the OP clarified the intent of his question further down the thread (basically asking which is better and why) led the discussion into higher realms.

DirtFarmer, I respect your opinions and admire your knowledge. And I agree that the topic title is terrible, a UHH red flag if ever there was one.

But I have to part company with you on the interpretation of the OP's question. When you look at all his posts on this thread together, it's pretty clear that he doesn't and won't do post processing.

But he's wondering if saving RAW would somehow improve the picture produced by the camera. He got his answer on the first page. Note that on p. 22 of this thread he said: "Gentlemen, it is time to let it go. It is a "30"". I think it's time for me to let it go....