mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Yes, mostly done with Dodging and Burning in the darkroom. In other words, post processing.

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

In order to obtain a spectacular print yes. But it could have been printed straight ad yet be considered a technically good photograph.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

Comparing raw to jpegs is like asking "Which is best to make bread, dough or flour?".

Jim Bob

Glad to see you go. Don't go away mad, just go away.

henrycrafter Loc: Orem Utah

I am a control freak when it comes to my pictures. I do a large amount of post prod editing. I shoot about 95% of my images raw. For me it is a personal preference. It all depends on what you are going to do with the image. There is no end all be all. Try both and then do as you like.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Jim Bob, you can't post the RAW itself to show the differences, what you do is process the RAW then convert it to JPEG or whatever for display etc. Working with RAW and then converting has more lee way than trying to work with a JPEG from the start.
I am sure you know and understand that, you are just having a good time goading people to prove it to you. Kind of like an English teacher friend of mine who would tell his Senior Composition students to write an essay telling someone who had never made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich "exactly" how to make one. Then he would follow their directions as written to demonstrate the flaws in their instructions and reasoning.
"Put the peanut butter and jelly on the bread." He would put a jar of each on top of an unopened loaf of bread. etc. etc. etc.

If you are happy with JPEG that is OK. It is your choice. My choice is to shoot RAW and convert. Do I have images that don't need the PP that RAW makes possible, yes. But my personal choice is have it if I need it and take the little extra time to convert. I have forgotten to reset the camera to RAW after doing some in-camera HDR and then gotten some pictures I really wished I had the RAW to process. Note to self, remember to reset camera in future.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Straight conversion of RAW to JPEG often looks worse than the in camera JPEG conversion if you don't make some adjustments in PP. This is because the in camera conversion is often set to adjust to a look that the programer (or his boss) thinks looks better. Each camera company sets their conversion a little different, and sometimes different on different models. Example, many people think Canon JPEGs have better skin tones out of camera than Nikon JPEGs. Other people disagree with them.

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

To paraphrase a line from "My Cousin Vinny", my question is directed to Jim Bob, and ONLY Jim Bob: As we approach page 40, have you gleaned anything from this spirited discussion you provoked that you are willing to share? Or is your intent to remain on the sideline and toss a meaningless, non-commital barb every once in a while in a pathetic attempt to fan the flames?

Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC

Yes, if you don't do post processing then don't shoot RAW. If you turn your RAW file into a JPEG without post processing it will not look as good as the JPEG right out of the camera.

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

But those who knew and worked with Adams said he was a genius in the darkroom.
Maybe even better than he was as a photographer.
Those good negatives were a starting point for him.
Example, "Moonrise Over Hernandez New Mexico". Adams personally made over 1300 prints of it according to some sources. They changed over the years as his vision of it changed and he got ideas for different things to do to it. If he had had digital and a RAW file of it what number of versions would he have produced?

Darkroom317 Loc: Mishawaka, IN

I know, that was my point. It was one of his former assistants, Alan Ross, that showed it to. Alan makes the prints from original negatives for the Yosemite collection

steve_stoneblossom Loc: Rhode Island, USA

He did have them, didn't he? (AKA the negative).

WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio

Thanks for the link. :thumbup: :thumbup:

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Introducing "Moonrise" into this conversation is a good move. If my recollector is working today, the negative for that picture isn't well exposed at all. If it had been shot with a DSLR, a sooc jpg would have been thrown into the trash. Using his dark room skills AA eventually (years!) turned a poorly exposed negative into a great photo. Todays tools using a raw file, as an equivalent to a negative, would likely produce similar results. Whether displayed in .jpg format or .tif. But it would require learned skills to get there, not an in camera "do all" preprogrammed image.

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

Gotcha. And thanks for the Wiki link. I believe I understand - at least a lot better than I did.
ron