Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Yes, but if you don't NEED the adjustments...

See CaptainC's observations above, about shooting under constant (never mind controlled) lighting.

This tends to be one of those things that attracts religious, rather than rational, responses.

Cheers,

R.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Oh most incorrecto :-)
There are many settings that affect the in-camera processing of the sensor information during compression of the RAW data to JPG (called 'picture style' in Canon rigs). Such are Sharpness, Contrast, Saturation, Color Tone, and White Balance. How WELL these settings translate the captured light into a JPG representation of what was seen in the photographers minds eye will vary based on the actual conditions - - hence you may preconfigure a number of different picture styles - and hopefully you will select the correct one for each shot. IF you are in a controlled setting - ie a studio - then you may be able to pre-configure a picture style that works 95% of the time - saving an enormous amount of time that would otherwise be spent in Post. IF, however, you're running around in tourist mode, the lighting environment is likely to change from shot to shot - making any one single picture style suboptimal to ensure proper coverage in all conditions.
IF your cameras' JPG rendition provides the desired result - then you have a winner. IF you're not really happy with the automatic JPG result - then it's nice to have the full RAW sensor data available to re-manipulate to something that is more to your liking.
Sure - you can tweak the camera JPG in Post - I just think that you have much more flexibility if you can go back and START over with the RAW data.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

I agree... RAW has an almost cult like following.

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Hmmm - - any relation to photographers oil ?

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

saichiez Loc: Beautiful Central Oregon

Not sure where you got this idea "can't get back a Jpeg". While it's true that RAW saves more data, and you can't destructively edit an original RAW, It is not true about not getting an original RAW back.

However, you have to be very careful about making copies or duplicate of your "out of camera" jpgs and archiving them. Never edit the original OOC or archived jpgs. Always make a copy and edit the copy. That way you always have the original Jpg as it came from the camera. Just make sure you only edit copies.

Learning to manage your files for security and backup purposes is very important.

Once you have destructively edited a jpg, if you need the original just get a copy of the original from your archive location.

Another way to accomplish this is to never overwrite the file you are working on when you save. Always give the file a new name, as in add 001,002,003 at the end of the name, but before, the file extension .jpg. If you do this the file is never overwritten with the destructive edits and a new compression algorythm.

Two simple tricks to save files from loss or destructive edits.

1) Always set aside originals in an archive and work with copies.
2) Do saves as file>save as> and never overwrite the file you are working on. Save continuous edits to the new file name and the original you started with is still intact. If the new file becomes unworkable, start over by pulling up the first copy and start over, duplicating the same technique of never overwriting your original copy of your original shot.

Does that all seem understandable?

When I download images from my camera, I put the originals in an archive folder on my external drive. Then I pull copies of the files I want to work with, back to a work folder on my machine hard drive. I never edit on originals. I also rarely shoot RAW.

So now for one final point. Always remember that Jpg, is a progressive compression algorythm. Each time you save, or save-as- a file you run compression again. After a time the deterioration becomes visible. Always do your editing in one continuous session and wherever possible Save As, one time. Not once and then continuous saves as you work along. Don't do one process, save and then do another. Save last. Also sharpen last.

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

I agree... RAW has an almost cult like following.[/quote]

Would you care to elaborate on this? Or is just a deliberately provactive statement made in condensation rather then a logical discussion? Could your statements about JPEG also be considered equally fanantical, in that nothing is going to change your mind either?

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

GRAMMAR POLICE:
U said . . . . . . . . U Meant
Provacative = ? Provocative ?
Condensation = ? Condescension ?
Fanantical = ? Fanatical ?

Definition: Condensation is the process by which matter transitions from a gas (or vapor) phase into a liquid phase.
{and maybe that's what you meant ?? }

Hee Hee - - I love it when the Grammar Police arrive :P :mrgreen: :lol: :mrgreen:

Now boys - - be nice :-)

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

If we are bein entirely correct here, you are not the grammar police, but rather the spelling police. My syntax was correct, my typing was not. I did not say; To boldly go", there by splitting an infinitive, which is bad grammar. So get your definitions right before you police. 'There I run rings around you logically" :mrgreen:

zoodriver Loc: Virginia

Just for the record , I am so new that the doc hasn't hit my butt yet! And after being on here just looking, I am ready to go back in the womb! What part of this place is for defanitions of various terms used in here? I am not lazy, just time deprived. :) Working on finding an easy to use camera is on my list and also what is the BEST enhancement program for the computer?

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

To every thing, there is a season/And a time for every purpose under heaven. Ecclesiastes 3:i

For many purposes, raw is better. It's what I normally shoot.

There are times when JPEG is better. Quite often I'll use it for simple pack shots and step by steps, under controlled lighting.

To adhere blindly to either -- indeed, to adhere blindly to anything, refusing to hear that there are times when the other might be better -- is a mind-set more commonly associated with religion than with rational debate.

Cheers,

R.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

No it's not. It's an imaginary 'fault' invented by pseudo-pedants using an analogy with Latin, where, after all, you CAN'T split an infinitive.

We are all free to form the opinion that someone is an illiterate halfwit or a pedantic snob, and of course either may be true, but the simple truth is that most of us fall somewhere between those extremes, and that we all make mistakes sometimes, such as 'there by' instead of 'thereby'.

Cheers,

R.

WNYShooter Loc: WNY

Exactly, both file types have their avantages and disadvantages, I think it's great that we have such flexibility in our medium. That was hardly the case back in the 35MM arena that many of us learned in.

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Sorry Roger... When I agreed with you, I didn't mean to imply that you shared my "cult" comment view. Your position on this issue is safe and clear.

Funny though... I was never against RAW per say. My support for JPG is only to dispel the idea that if you didn't use RAW 100% of the time, you weren't capable of taking good photos. I think the newbies that come to this forum for help with this question should know that JPG is not just for "snapshots" that only belong to the ranks of amateurs.

Yes, in my opinion, RAW is overrated. Put this question another way... If you didn't have the choice of shooting RAW and only had JPG would you still be using digital? I think most professionals would say yes.

Vanderpix Loc: New Jersey

Thank you Mdorn, that puts your opinion in a proper perspective and very interesting question in the end. But perhaps my answer could be , I shoot RAW because I can.