Let's See Some Images That Clearly Show RAW Is Better Than JPG
Mar 25, 2015 07:49:00 #
johnst1001a wrote:
Shoot JPEG then, no one here cares what you do.
Your wrong I care
Mar 25, 2015 07:52:30 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
erniehatt wrote:
But you can get a similar result from the jpeg, and if you expose it correctly in the first place very little processing would be needed. for me raw is for those who do not have the time to set things up correctly, or are just to lazy,
First you cannot get similar results from jpegs. Second, implying that those who shoot raw either don't know how to set up their cameras to get a correct exposure or are just lazy, besides being ludicrous and insulting, displays your complete ignorance of the subject. Therefore we can safely ignore anything you have to say.
Mar 25, 2015 07:53:57 #
martinfisherphoto wrote:
I still spend all of my time in the field learning... (show quote)
I love thes pictures, thanks that's te camera an lens I have, you saved me a lo of money😱
Mar 25, 2015 07:59:33 #
Davethehiker wrote:
I'm not sure how to respond to your request but I'll try. I'm going to upload two images. One is the JPG provided by the camera. The second one is a JPG that was made from the RAW file and corrected and optimized to the limits of my skills. I hope this helps.
The second image is excellent however the first image can be corrected as well.
Mar 25, 2015 08:00:51 #
Jim Bob wrote:
I appreciate your enlightened response. Perfect example why folks dislike sites such as this. In other words, you don't know the difference. Why didn't you just say so?
I think your question has been answered....by a few who responded. So here is my answer, although I am not an expert , nor am I a professional. THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE, ON THE SURFACE. The advantage of shooting in raw comes in post processing the photos. For example, if you happen to have the wrong white balance setting, and you shoot some photos. If shot in jpeg, there is little that can be done to correct the photo. But, if shot in raw, those photos can be easily corrected in programs like photoshop. Of course, if one is an expert, NEVER having wrong settings in the camera, one needs not shot in raw.
Mar 25, 2015 08:01:01 #
joer wrote:
The second image is excellent however the first image can be corrected as well.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Mar 25, 2015 08:01:35 #
Jim Bob wrote:
Repeat: let's see some images. If you are telling me that one can not see the difference in this thread that raises some interesting issues doesn't it? All you RAW shooters, put up or shut up.
Please..........shut the f up
Mar 25, 2015 08:02:38 #
erniehatt
Loc: Queensland Australia
mwsilvers wrote:
First you cannot get similar results from jpegs. Second, implying that those who shoot raw either don't know how to set up their cameras to get a correct exposure or are just lazy, besides being ludicrous and insulting, displays your complete ignorance of the subject. Therefore we can safely ignore anything you have to say.
Before you go shooting your big mouth of, you should read whats written. My words were raw is for those who do not have the time to set up the shot, meaning, when they need to get the shot very quickly. Yes I did say for lazy people, how often do you hear, mI just snap it off, I can fix it in post, that spells LAZY
Mar 25, 2015 08:04:52 #
Wow! Ten pages, so far. Someone has probably mentioned this, but the advantage of raw is that you have more leeway in processing.
As for seeing images side-by-side, that's irrelevant without seeing the images before processing. A raw image can be made to look good if the exposure isn't ideal. A JPEG has much more limited processing available.
As for seeing images side-by-side, that's irrelevant without seeing the images before processing. A raw image can be made to look good if the exposure isn't ideal. A JPEG has much more limited processing available.
Mar 25, 2015 08:08:42 #
If we shot the image correct in the fist place is there any need for RAW convergence? Especially in a controlled environment like a studio.
Mar 25, 2015 08:09:29 #
jerryc41 wrote:
Wow! Ten pages, so far. Someone has probably mentioned this, but the advantage of raw is that you have more leeway in processing.
As for seeing images side-by-side, that's irrelevant without seeing the images before processing. A raw image can be made to look good if the exposure isn't ideal. A JPEG has much more limited processing available.
As for seeing images side-by-side, that's irrelevant without seeing the images before processing. A raw image can be made to look good if the exposure isn't ideal. A JPEG has much more limited processing available.
Irrelevant? Come on Jerry, you're better than that. If you can process a JPG such that it appears identical to the processed RAW capture, what is the real advantage in RAW? How can that be irrelevant? It goes to the very heart of the matter, wouldn't you agree?
Mar 25, 2015 08:10:15 #
mwsilvers
Loc: Central New Jersey
Jim Bob wrote:
Interesting response that will probably generate a... (show quote)
You are incredibly arrogant and need to work on your reading skills. We're trying to explain to you what raw really is and what it's used for and you simply haven't gotten it. For those who don't do extensive post processing edits jpeg is a better option as many of us have been trying to tell you. Sports photographers rarely shoot raw because of time constraints. There is nothing wrong with jpeg , and your hyperbole aside, no one is implying that anyone should be shooting raw and are ignorant for not doing so. Raw serves one purpose and one purpose only, it gives the photographer much greater latitude for adjustment in post processing, with much less added noise and image degradation than when adjusting jpegs. Jpegs contain far less shooting information where as raw contains all the shooting information. With raw you have more data to work with. That's it. You're just not getting the concept.
Mar 25, 2015 08:10:28 #
brian43053 wrote:
you certainly are combatative today!!
Not just today, my perspicacious friend.
Mar 25, 2015 08:11:43 #
Wesso wrote:
Your wrong I care
Thank you. You may be in the minority on this thread, but it's a good minority.
Mar 25, 2015 08:12:23 #
Showing your ignorance of digital files by this statement. The reasons have already been pointed out, you just fail to comprehend them...
Jim Bob wrote:
Repeat: let's see some images. If you are telling me that one can not see the difference in this thread that raises some interesting issues doesn't it? All you RAW shooters, put up or shut up.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.