Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
I have a question!
Page <<first <prev 10 of 11 next>
Jan 21, 2021 22:02:30   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
pego101 wrote:
I was wondering if raw photography more about photoshop skills and jpeg photography more about photographic skills?


What does PhotoShop have to do with a sharply focused image?
What does PhotoShop have to do with selecting an appropriate shutterspeed for the composition?
What does shooting in JPEG have to do with getting level horizons or cropping for composition?
What does shooting in JPEG have to do with being prepared when the action occurs?
What does shooting in JPEG have to do with getting the subject to feel comfortable and smile?
What does shooting in JPEG have to do with being in position for sunset, or sunrise, or a flower in perfect bloom?

Reply
Jan 21, 2021 22:13:43   #
srt101fan
 
pego101 wrote:
I was wondering if raw photography more about photoshop skills and jpeg photography more about photographic skills?


As someone said - There is no such thing as "Jpeg Photography". Oh, that was you!

Reply
Jan 21, 2021 22:30:19   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
" SuperflyTNT" Yep I am a picture taker. I take pictures the way I like them and if they are good enough I sell them. They judge my pictures. Guess I got lucky two days ago, again. A business owner wanted a train picture I had two in stock showed them and said they were the only done but had a bunch mere. He took the two and said let me see them and I will pay you for 20 more now. I don't take the money and will show him a bunch on my laptop for him to pick out. They will be either 13X19's on paper or at 24X36 or 30X40. We all get lucky now and then.

Reply
 
 
Jan 21, 2021 22:57:03   #
pego101
 
srt101fan wrote:
As someone said - There is no such thing as "Jpeg Photography". Oh, that was you!


Now there is such a thing I guess. There are 2 types of photography Jpeg and Raw. I stand corrected.

Reply
Jan 21, 2021 23:09:40   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
pego101 wrote:
I was wondering if raw photography more about photoshop skills and jpeg photography more about photographic skills?


No it’s not.

Reply
Jan 21, 2021 23:25:03   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Picture Taker wrote:
" SuperflyTNT" Yep I am a picture taker. I take pictures the way I like them and if they are good enough I sell them. They judge my pictures. Guess I got lucky two days ago, again. A business owner wanted a train picture I had two in stock showed them and said they were the only done but had a bunch mere. He took the two and said let me see them and I will pay you for 20 more now. I don't take the money and will show him a bunch on my laptop for him to pick out. They will be either 13X19's on paper or at 24X36 or 30X40. We all get lucky now and then.
" SuperflyTNT" Yep I am a picture taker.... (show quote)


Good for you, although I would conjecture that sales don’t necessarily correlate to quality. The song “Disco Duck” sold over 2 million copies but I don’t think anybody is gonna confuse it with the Beatles.

Reply
Jan 22, 2021 08:19:09   #
will47 Loc: Indianapolis, IN
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Deja vu all over again


You sound like Yogi Berra!

Reply
 
 
Jan 22, 2021 08:26:43   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
Gene51 wrote:
This is likely to go to 40 pages.

Very simply, it is far easier to make adjustments to a raw file than to a jpeg. You need more knowledge and skill to edit jpegs. On the other hand if you are ok with digital Polaroids, then there is no need to shoot and edit raw. On yet another hand, it is far easier to adjust raw file to suit the individual image, than it is look at your camera picture settings and customize them on a shot by shot basis. The beginners I teach find it MUCH easier to edit raw, btw. They are completely intimidated by the 10,000 commands and processes in Photoshop.

If you want to take your images beyond what a camera can do with its limited adjustments, then raw presents a good and easy way to do this. Most of those who complain about raw have never really done raw editing.

Either way, neither is a replacement for creating great images - you need the skills regardless.
This is likely to go to 40 pages. br br Very sim... (show quote)



Reply
Jan 22, 2021 08:54:25   #
srt101fan
 
After 10 pages of "conversation", I was considering a smart aleck post to the the OP, like "hey, Julian, did you get answers to your question?"

When I first saw his original post, I thought it was another silly "which is better, JPEG or RAW" question by someone who had raised the topic before. I readily dismissed the categorizations of "JPEG photography" and "RAW photography" as a lame attempt to stir up the old photographic divide.

But then I remembered rmalarz's and other's approach to exposure. He sets his exposure values to get the best RAW file. As a result his exposures can produce really lousy in-camera JPEGs.

So there you have it: expose for the best JPEG ("JPEG Photography") or expose for the best RAW file ("RAW photography"), that is the real question, no?.....😐

Reply
Jan 22, 2021 11:04:32   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
"SuperflyTNT" Quality in your mind may be different than in my mind, don't make either wrong. Quality can be the perfect technical picture with no noise etc, or could a picture that is eye catching and you will buy and hang on the wall and enjoy looking at. Some times it has to be fixed in RAW or in some case a JPG fix is enough.
We each do what we want and that is what makes photography what it is, a vast game.

Reply
Jan 22, 2021 12:37:26   #
kenArchi Loc: Seal Beach, CA
 
It doesn't matter.

The camera will always shoot raw.

You choose to either export Jpeg, Raw, or Raw+Jpeg.

Reply
 
 
Jan 22, 2021 13:39:22   #
srt101fan
 
kenArchi wrote:
It doesn't matter.

The camera will always shoot raw.

You choose to either export Jpeg, Raw, or Raw+Jpeg.


It COULD matter. You choose exposure settings to get the best JPEGs or the best RAW files and they're not necessarily the same....

Reply
Jan 22, 2021 14:03:37   #
Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)
 
In a nutshell:
If you prefer to display your images online or as small prints, say, up to 16”x20” and don’t get turned on using your creativity in post processing, shoot 8 bit-depth jpeg image files.
If, on the other hand, you want to capture more discernible detail for large prints and/or if you really like exercising your creativity in post processing, go for 12 or 14 bit-depth.raw captures.
Best regards,
Dave

Reply
Jan 22, 2021 16:35:38   #
rgrenaderphoto Loc: Hollywood, CA
 
pego101 wrote:
Makes no sense what you are saying. Polaroid was a chemical photography system. Absolutely no connection to compressed images. Also my Polaroid cameras never needed shaking. I suspect you are trolling us.


It was like a joke.

Reply
Jan 22, 2021 16:55:30   #
pego101
 
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
It was like a joke.


I don't think so I think the writer was serious.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 11 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.