JPG vs. RAW
Jan 14, 2024 16:32:28 #
Ysarex
Loc: St. Louis
Blenheim Orange wrote:
I don't understand what the confusion is about.
There's no confusion. He's twisting words looking for an exit from his error that's all.
Blenheim Orange wrote:
The discussion is about having the camera render a bitmap from the raw data, or using a parametric editor on your computer to render a bitmap from the raw data.
"User options" are part of that process either way.
"User options" are part of that process either way.
Jan 14, 2024 16:55:51 #
Ysarex wrote:
Oops sorry, kind of assumed you knew how to use yo... (show quote)
Great demonstration.
It blows all of the arguments we keep hearing right out of the water. "Pixel peeping" is not required to see the dramatic improvement; hours and hours spent at the computer are not required; one's "intention of altering an image," as the OP stated it, is irrelevant (the camera "alters" the image when it produces a JPEG), working with raw files is not merely to "fix bad images" and not because people can't "get it right in camera." Yet those same debunked arguments are trotted out again and again here whenever the topic of raw files comes up.
Jan 14, 2024 18:24:17 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
We are performing a valuable service to UHH by increasing the traffic, thereby improving the value of the site to advertisers.
Jan 14, 2024 18:27:50 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
I agree with much of what was previously expressed. If you do not intend to post process then shoot in JPEG. I shoot RAW because I do post process and I can get much more detail out of my RAW file than I get out of JPEG straight out of camera (texture in a woman's hair, as an example).
Jan 14, 2024 18:40:44 #
photoman022 wrote:
I agree with much of what was previously expressed. If you do not intend to post process then shoot in JPEG. I shoot RAW because I do post process and I can get much more detail out of my RAW file than I get out of JPEG straight out of camera (texture in a woman's hair, as an example).
The reason to shoot raw is that you never know before the exposure whether or not the picture needs editing.
Jan 14, 2024 18:45:19 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
That doesn't make any sense. Comparing the JPEG SOOC to editing a raw file (not a "RAW image") is a valuable exercise and it is exactly what the OP was asking, although the question was not sincere and it was initially not phrased honestly.
WOW!!! You know better than the OP what he meant by his question? His "question was not sincere"? His question was "not phrased honestly"? What arrogance!
Jan 14, 2024 18:53:53 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
The reason to shoot raw is that you never know before the exposure whether or not the picture needs editing.
I would suggest there are many experienced amateurs and pros that know before the capture that they do not need to shoot RAW, because they know exactly what they are doing.
Jan 14, 2024 19:11:34 #
srt101fan wrote:
WOW!!! You know better than the OP what he meant by his question? His "question was not sincere"? His question was "not phrased honestly"? What arrogance!
I am quoting the OP, as I have said.
First, this:
"If there is no intention of altering an image after taking it, is there any advantage in shooting RAW vs. JPG, such as greater sharpness, etc.?"
Then, the response after I asked why they asked the question and what they were expecting:
"Very simple and obvious. I wanted to know which was superior/inferior to the other and why."
The OP got a response to the first question - "no reason to use raw files" - and the claimed that the answer applied to the second question:
"Mwsilver on Page 1 and Bill_de on page 27 recognized exactly what I was asking and why."
Pretty obvious.
Jan 14, 2024 19:21:35 #
Grahame wrote:
I would suggest there are many experienced amateurs and pros that know before the capture that they do not need to shoot RAW, because they know exactly what they are doing.
Hubris
Jan 14, 2024 19:31:44 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
Hubris
Nope, common sense rather than making pointless generalisations demonstrating a lack of awareness that there are those that know exactly what they are doing and why.
Jan 14, 2024 19:44:53 #
Grahame wrote:
Nope, common sense rather than making pointless generalisations demonstrating a lack of awareness that there are those that know exactly what they are doing and why.
What does knowing exactly what you are doing and why have to do with working with raw files? I don't see the connection between the two.
Jan 14, 2024 19:48:10 #
Blenheim Orange wrote:
What does knowing exactly what you are doing and why have to do with working with raw files? I don't see the connection between the two.
Perhaps you should have read the post that my comments were applicable to.
DirtFarmer wrote:
The reason to shoot raw is that you never know before the exposure whether or not the picture needs editing.
Jan 14, 2024 19:56:58 #
Grahame wrote:
I would suggest there are many experienced amateurs and pros that know before the capture that they do not need to shoot RAW, because they know exactly what they are doing.
How insulting. Ironically, many in the "JPEG is all you need" crowd wants us to believe that they are the ones being persecuted or maligned somehow.
It has been irrefutably demonstrated right here on this thread that there are undeniable advantages to working with raw files, no matter how talented the photographer and no matter how well an image is taken.
Yet here you come insulting all of us by saying that working with raw files is not needed for those who "know exactly what they are doing."
Jan 14, 2024 19:59:17 #
Grahame wrote:
Nope, common sense rather than making pointless generalisations demonstrating a lack of awareness that there are those that know exactly what they are doing and why.
Oh, I did.
Jan 14, 2024 20:21:08 #
Grahame wrote:
I would suggest there are many experienced amateurs and pros that know before the capture that they do not need to shoot RAW, because they know exactly what they are doing.
I agree. HOWEVER, I shoot both so that when I mess up the shot, and don't notice it until later, I have the raw to try and salvage the shot, BUT I prefer to take the time getting it right in the camera. This includes adjusting my S&H (among other things) BEFORE I take the shot. I have preset options for places I repeatedly go to.
I also prefer to use filters rather than fix it with software.
We are all artists and use the tools we like.
There is no right or wrong way. We also cannot critique exposure or DOF. Maybe the photographer wanted a darker or lighter image to convey a mood or evoke a response from the intended viewer
(I know, I got off track)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.