Spirit Vision Photography wrote:
Hello Hoggers
Iām new to digital photography. Is sharpening recommended for images shot in RAW format? Is there any reason to shoot in RAW and JPEG?
Thanks
You are scaring me!!! New to photography?
R u sure? Pila This photo is wonderful
pila wrote:
You are scaring me!!! New to photography?
R u sure? Pila This photo is wonderful
He said new to digital photography, not new to photography...
When I am out shooting for clients or working for customers that are out of town I routinely shoot both RAW and Jpegs. I use the RAW file to maximize post-processing actions when necessary and the Jpegs for quick and dirty transmissions to clients for discussion purposes and to even post some of the shots here on the forum without too much fuss. Tales up a little more space on my cards- but I have lots of cards to go around.
Someof the clients, art directors, and ad agencies I deal with are in different cities and even countries. With Covid-19 many are not tavelig and/or working from home base. I can send them some rough ideas and preliminary shots on my cellphone and save lots of time.
By the time this thread is over, virtually every software program will recommended to be the best.
Kozan wrote: "I dare say that RAW never gives you an acceptably finished image. I have only had one RAW image I thought was acceptable in five years of shooting."
If you mean only one image after processing/editing, I couldn't disagree more. I can't recall ever seeing anyone state anything like that before. Raw files have been compared to a negative from the film era, and just like those negatives, Raw files require processing and when that's properly done amazing results can be had.
What would your mother think if you told her you edit in 8-bit?
raw (*.cr2 in Canon) is what the camera makes... IMHO you are always shooting in "raw". It what you decide to save it as.... to view it, you either use canon dpp directly or convert to jpg... each time you save (repeat "save") a jpg you lose some quality and it gets reprocessed to make the file smaller. If you save a jpg, then save the result, again and again, eventually you will end up with a two pixel file (black and white) GBG!! You can of coarse convert "raw" to *.tff, *.bmp or whatever.. For whatever reason I always save both raw and jpg, tho I am not sure why..
imagemeister wrote:
Yes, ALWAYS sharpen ...........for me, NO reason to shoot raw - and I DO always post process JPEGS.
.
Two reasons to shoot raw:
1. To, as Gene noted, be able to take photographs that are impossible to take shooting SOOC JPEGs. I do that all the time.
2. To achieve an IQ result in the final photo that's superior to what can be done shooting JPEGs. I do that all the time.
srt101fan wrote:
He said new to digital photography, not new to photography...
Thanks. I have 45 years of experience in film photography. Just a bit new to the digital world. š
ek2lckd wrote:
! You can of coarse convert "raw" to *.tff, *.bmp or whatever.. For whatever reason I always save both raw and jpg, tho I am not sure why..
yeh, raw is not portable to other media, jpgs are more or less universally recognised...if you send a raw in an email, first it is hugh and second it your recepiant may not be able to view it and third, some emails will not take it because of its size........ with a a jpg you do lose some quality every time you save it, saving the raw,somewhere, permits you to return to square one if you wish to reprocess for whatever reason...
ek2lckd wrote:
yeh, raw is not portable to other media, jpgs are more or use universally recognised... with a a jpg you do lose some quality every time you save it, saving the raw,somewhere, permits you to return to square one if you wish to reprocess for whatever reason...
Qualify that, every time you save
an edit, not just saving the file from one place to another.
ek2lckd wrote:
yeh, raw is not portable to other media, jpgs are more or use universally recognised... with a a jpg you do lose some quality every time you save it,
The quality loss that results from re-saving a JPEG is very minor. Compared with the quality loss that results from making an edit change to the JPEG the loss from re-saving is inconsequential. It's the editing changes to tone and color that do the real harm. And that can't be avoided.
ek2lckd wrote:
saving the raw,somewhere, permits you to return to square one if you wish to reprocess for whatever reason...
Longshadow wrote:
Qualify that, every time you save an edit, not just saving the file from one place to another.
if you save a jpg, it gets reprocessed, if you copy it, it does not...... again resaving a jpg often enuff gets it reduced beyond unusable.. everytime you save a jpg, it gets a little smaller...
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.