JohnR
Loc: The Gates of Hell
Makes a couple of incorrect statements - one is " you can't edit a JPEG as much as a RAW file" !!!! Of course you can - its just that you don't get the quite same results. Other than this sort of generalisation its not a bad effort. Boiling it all down to the essence its saying "If you like post processing then shoot RAW and if you don't then shoot JPEG"
JohnR wrote:
Makes a couple of incorrect statements - one is " you can't edit a JPEG as much as a RAW file" !!!! Of course you can - its just that you don't get the quite same results. Other than this sort of generalisation its not a bad effort. Boiling it all down to the essence its saying "If you like post processing then shoot RAW and if you don't then shoot JPEG"
For me, the major consideration for shooting RAW is that every time you edit a JPEG, you can suffer image loss. Repeated edits can degrade the quality of the image. RAW doesn't suffer this problem.
Not at all well balanced - biased, untruthful and yes - smug.
Almost every smug comparison of JPG and RAW shows three visual examples - RAW, JPG and a RAW edit - very rarely would a JPG edit be included. Therefore the comparisons are not worth our time in reading them, and do not show the truth. I attach the smugmug comparisons and the JPG now edited - taken from the above - which doesn't make it easier!
JohnR
Loc: The Gates of Hell
Just Fred wrote:
For me, the major consideration for shooting RAW is that every time you edit a JPEG, you can suffer image loss. Repeated edits can degrade the quality of the image. RAW doesn't suffer this problem.
Surely Fred you only edit once? I always keep the original unedited whether RAW or JPEG then I can always go back again and do a new edit if I so desire. (Hasn't happened yet though!! - have to make myself edit once!) I don't understand why anyone would wish to keep editing a JPEG file time and time again - madness I reckon
Just Fred wrote:
For me, the major consideration for shooting RAW is that every time you edit a JPEG, you can suffer image loss. Repeated edits can degrade the quality of the image. RAW doesn't suffer this problem.
NO! - only when you re-save to the original JPG do you suffer image loss. You can also save as a TIFF and re-edit without loss.
This has been beaten to death here and in many other forums. Today's JPEG are far better files than they were only 10 years ago. If editing is what you like RAW gives you all kind of opportunities. If you do not want to loose data while working with a JPEG file simply save it as a TIFF or work on a copy of the file.
Although JPEG files can be edit the fact that it is an 8 bits file can make some of the edits undesirable like when there are shifts of colors or bands in the sky. I find JPEG files far better than those of years back and Olympus offers excellent JPEGs when the camera is set to Super Fine. I shoot both files depending on the subject.
When I spent an hour editing a RAW file, it saved it as a jpeg that looked just like the SOOC jpeg; so, there just went an hour of my life; and I have thousands of RAW files, which are twins of my already-looking-great jpegs...
JohnR wrote:
Makes a couple of incorrect statements - one is " you can't edit a JPEG as much as a RAW file" !!!! Of course you can - its just that you don't get the quite same results. Other than this sort of generalisation its not a bad effort. Boiling it all down to the essence its saying "If you like post processing then shoot RAW and if you don't then shoot JPEG"
If you don't/can't get the same results, one can't edit the same (equally)...
Like saying they're
the same except for.........
If there are exceptions,
they're not the same.
I see no con in shooting raw+jpeg. I didn't run into out of buffer or out of space on memory card yet.
Interesting how different pros and cons are important to different people in different ways.
More interesting is that each person believes that their way is the "correct" way.
"Why don't you do it my way, I don't understand. It's the best way."
Longshadow wrote:
Interesting how different pros and cons are important to different people in different ways.
More interesting is that each person believes that their way is the "correct" way.
"Why don't you do it my way, I don't understand. It's the best way."
I don't like beets. I just don't understand how anyone can like beets. All that like beets must be losers....... 🤔
Just Fred wrote:
For me, the major consideration for shooting RAW is that every time you edit a JPEG, you can suffer image loss. Repeated edits can degrade the quality of the image. RAW doesn't suffer this problem.
Good news, you can stop shooting raw immediately.
1)You should always keep your original jpg file. Save edited jpgs to a different filename, perhaps append a number or letter to the filename.
2) Editors such as PS, Affinity Photo and ACDSee have Options to save your files in production mode, such as PSD, AFphoto and ACDC that is lossless and will preserve your edits to start where you left off.
There may be reasons to shoot raw, but your's are not among them.
Longshadow wrote:
Interesting how different pros and cons are important to different people in different ways.
More interesting is that each person believes that their way is the "correct" way.
"Why don't you do it my way, I don't understand. It's the best way."
Actually I prefer that most people don't do it my way. But of course I wouldn't tell them which way to do.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.