davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I think he intended no detail in the trees.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

How much detail needs attention? A lot , some a little at what point does it become obsessive.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

And sometimes you just want a nice photo no worries about the technical details you just want to it to invoke wonderful feelings and memories! Don’t spend the rest of your life worrying about one aspect it’s to light it’s to banding it’s no perfectly sharp under a magnifying glass

bonjac Loc: Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Kind of terse. Why not explain what banding looks like so that he knows what you are talking about instead of telling him he is deficient.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you want the job, it's there waiting for you...

btbg

Not questioning that. My post was in response to a post that said that sunset photos take little or no post processing, not regarding the original poster's photo.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Thank you gentlemen for participating in this thread. RAW vs JPEG will go forever. Do not talk to me about Adobe RGB or Prophoto with outstanding colors, we cannot see them and not even dream about your monitor because it cannot see them either. sRGB is a short color space but if any of you can see the colors, well congratulations.

I increased the number of pixels I was shooting from Medium to Large and then I began to test the new files with Adobe RGB. To my eyes Large Fine are excellent files and they admit somewhat more manipulation than my previous JPEG did. Let me repeat it again, getting the act together in camera is preferable to doing it in post.

I have been shooting only RAW data but I am going to experiment a little more with JPEG, Large Fine. I know my camera is old and I am sure modern JPEGs are superior to what I have. If you shoot strictly RAW data and you are happy with your results so be it. I say the same to those shooting JPEG.
My Olympus Super Fine JPEGs are awesome as my eyes see them. Keep editing from none to low in post and the files should be fine.

Once again, thank you all for participating.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

What a wonderful post

bebop22 Loc: New York City

hooray for RAW.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

It is always refreshing to discuss those topics in photography that tend to be controversial. I have seen the RAW vs JPEG discussed so many times with many different arguments of why RAW is always better than JPEG. From a practical standpoint a JPEG is a smaller file, with a universal color space (sRGB) and the standard for commercial printing. Indeed a JPEG, when the camera has been properly set, is a beautiful and colorful file ready to be shown to others, for printing or for use online. In my humble opinion its disadvantage is that having 8 bits of information manipulation of the file can cause color shifts and artifacts. I have no experience with modern JPEG engines except for those made with Olympus cameras, what Olympus calls SUPER FINE which are of excellent quality.

I have seen many prints, including mine, from original JPEG files and honestly, I have nothing against them. I know of a professional wedding photographer who only shoots JPEG and she never had anyone returning the prints saying they were of low quality. I have seen those prints and I do not believe I could do better shooting RAW and converting to JPEG. She saves a lot of time editing and her business is better than ever.

From the little experience I have now I would say that as a photographer you should shoot the format that makes you more comfortable. For critical work RAW is a better option assuming the photographer knows how to edit a RAW data to his entire satisfaction.
For the rest of us and especially if we are going to be shooting family, portraits and images to be shared on line JPEG is a great option.

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

Smaller doesn't mean better. I'd say it was a standard for online display and casual printing. Some commercial printers want more.

Properly setting the camera is a skill to be learned.

There is a recent thread on the subject of IMHO. Many people interpret the H as standing for Humble, but others may consider it to stand for Honest, or Harebrained. However, if you are expressing an opinion, you are being assertive, not humble. In this particular case I believe the poster is correct in his assertion, so the Humble part is superfluous.


Jpg images can be excellent, no question from me. A professional using jpg for wedding shots is probably tempting fate and Murphy, but it is certainly possible. Said professional most likely has considerable experience in setting the camera properly.



[ emphasis mine ]
Fully agree. Raw files take skill to process properly, but of course the same can be said of jpg files. The required skill is in the processing, not the file format. The results will be a combination of the camera settings and the skill of the post processor. Not to mention the skill of the OP (Original Photographer) in composing the shot (although even that can be modified in Photoshop to some extent).

neillaubenthal

Because that would actually be helpful instead of just sniping/trolling/whatever.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

If you want the job, it's there waiting for you. Show the OP and the community the depth of your communication and analysis skills.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Dirt Farmer wrote "Smaller doesn't mean better. I'd say it was a standard for online display and casual printing. Some commercial printers want more."

Things are changing with the new technologies. Joe and Mary Ann McDonald are using OM cameras with their small sensor to shoot wildlife. Peter Baumgarten and Jay Dickman are also using the OM small sensor for their professional work. Have you seen the portraits of Joe Edelman shot with Olympus cameras? Portraits enlarged to 20x30 inches showing all pertinent details. I do not know of any commercial printing in the Miami area that wants "more." As I write this they still want sRGB as the color space.

If I say "my humble opinion" I mean exactly that. Humble meaning I am no expert. The professional wedding photographer I am talking about used to be a photojournalist, she spent lots of time editing RAW data and she says that now it is a breeze working with JPEG files. She easily takes 500 shots during a wedding, sometimes many more. Yes, a JPEG could be all many photographers need when done right.

I bet you have photographed a sunset using RAW data. I bet you had to do skillful editing to bring back to the file all you saw when you made the image. RAW data has 14 bits of information and they are very flexible when it comes to editing. Artifacts and banding do not tend to occur during editing and all of the information from the original is there. It is the best information, I have no questions about it but without skillful use of editing it is worth nothing. Remember we have to convert the file to a JPEG with its 8 bits and all of those colors present in a ProPhoto or Adobe RGB need to be compressed into the sRGB color space of the JPEG file. What do we retain and what do we lose? I for sure do not know.

Shoot what makes you comfortable. Modern files are of excellent quality. I shot once again the same sunset I posted with the same 10 years old camera but this time I use Large Fine as my compression. I limited my editing that indeed was not necessary. It is a totally different file without bandings or artifacts. Could it have been better using RAW data? H for honest, I do not really know.