fjo
Loc: Georgetown Texas
CHG_CANON wrote:
Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. RAW is one of the true wonders of modern digital photography. Many times while editing my RAW files, I begin to see my connection to the fabric of the universe.
Thinking way too deep about this.
fjo wrote:
Thinking way too deep about this.
He's in his own little bubble. It comes from inhaling too much fixer in the darkroom.
RAW is better to repair your photos.
Too many people subscribe to advanced software to edit RAW files to impress people they don't even like.
cmc4214 wrote:
There will never bs consistency over long periods of time...someone always has a "better" idea
Let the academic standards bearers put a stamp on that, first.
It's like using "impact" as a verb. If I did that in college, I would get an automatic F on a paper. Harbrace Handbook said that was verboten! Today, it is listed in most dictionaries as both a noun and a verb, probably because Boomer journalists protested so loudly by using it in news stories as a verb. Smashing.
burkphoto wrote:
Let the academic standards bearers put a stamp on that, first.
It's like using "impact" as a verb. If I did that in college, I would get an automatic F on a paper. Harbrace Handbook said that was verboten! Today, it is listed in most dictionaries as both a noun and a verb, probably because Boomer journalists protested so loudly by using it in news stories as a verb. Smashing.
Things change, sometimes for the better, sometimes for worse.
I like being able to say "...will impact..." without reprisal.
Not that I would care...
Shoot the way you are most comfortable. There are many professional and highly paid photographers that shoot JPG while on assignment and there are some who only shoot RAW while being paid. I only shot RAW for about 11-years and I am just now, at 80, shooting some monochrome JGPs. I find them quite editable. I have always strived to "get it right in camera" and so I feel it matters little anymore. Photography is a science and it is also personal. Shoot what and how you want.
Using Raw I can do much more with raw than I can with a JPG. Changing blue shade with a little color yellow. I have lens corrections on ARC. I can change highlights, raise shadows much more easy than a JPG. If you ever shot film that is raw is the same as film but much better than film these days.
47greyfox
Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range
CHG_CANON wrote:
A 6000x4000-pixel RAW has exactly the same 24MP as the corresponding JPEG. Anyone that doesn't understand this 'basics of digital photography' probably should turn in their digital camera.
Wouldn’t that be a step backwards? Being left with their Instamatic (sic?) could be fatal.
burkphoto wrote:
It's like using "impact" as a verb. If I did that in college, I would get an automatic F on a paper. Harbrace Handbook said that was verboten! Today, it is listed in most dictionaries as both a noun and a verb, probably because Boomer journalists protested so loudly by using it in news stories as a verb. Smashing.
Well, in gastroenterology we used "impact" as a verb.
And "impacted" as an adjective (and diagnosis).
But that's another entire matter altogether!
Which might explain why, when someone or some righteous cause is described as "impactful," it brings me a smile.
Not admiral work, its photo repair
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.