amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

The "negative" people have a point and at least some justification to be a bit testy about this question...

RAW vs JPEG has been asked and answered in great detail thousands of times here and a lot of other places on the Internet... and the answers haven't changed.

In a nutshell: Raw tolerates post-processing manipulation much better than Jpegs do. Raw is 16 bit (actually 14 bit... or 12 bit in some cases... that's been interpolated). Jpeg is 8 bit. That's a difference of millions of colors vs thousands of colors.

Raw allows you to have all the data the camera captured to work with. JPeg from the camera have been in-camera processed (all images start out in raw form, regardless), so when shooting jpegs you will need to be more certain of your camera setting and less able to change your mind or try an alternative setup later on.

In other words... better do your best to get jpegs "right" in-camera... raw allows you to correct things or try other things and experiment more after the fact.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Welcome to the UHH, a community of determined, innovative folks who live by the adage, "If there's a will, there's a way." If we want to be bothered, by gum, we WILL find a way! The topic is completely immaterial, as is the way in which a question is posed. Conversely, if we wish to be helpful, by gum, we'll find a way to do that too!

nassm

you can try jepeg with raw and you will see the diffrent

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Kuzano

YES.... By All Means.

And what you will find is that if you intend to sell your images in the market place, you will have little problem if you become first and foremost a success at "marketing"

Every marketing person knows this little rule about markets:

"Everything can be sold.. good, bad or otherwise. Income is mostly related to the the success of a good and aggressive marketing program.... and to a lesser degree product quality. Somebody out there will buy a pile of dog turds if you create a need, and a relevant price range"

In fact, I think I will call my photo business, "Dogshit Pictures". It's catchy!

Many people are making money with Cell Phone Camera's.

I just sold my P&S because my Moto G (4 MP) created better OOC pics than my Canon 12 MP S100, and I can mail them to myself almost immediately. I use Snapseed (free) on my Lollipop Android and can even process them in many ways.

Daido Moriyama, has for years created a successful career in Japan, using primarly a Ricoh GRD (He switched to Nikon PS and almost immediately went back to Ricoh). He has had major showing alone and collaboratively in major museums around the world.

There are many videos about Daido Moriyama on YouTube. Take a peak. Especially see his image "black dog", very stark work.

Here is one, the dog is near the middle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foWAs3V_lkg

Here is another of Moriyama at the UK Tate Museum:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk_CyvXeLcs

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

I'm with you. If only I was good enough to shoot in JPG, and remember to set WB, etc. :D :D

Kuzano

1

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Besides using more space on a memory card what other benefits are there when shooting Raw?

Answering responsibly to an inane question that implies not only a lack of research but also a total incomprehension as to what a file is???

So a large size is better hey?

Funny I once heard a woman said that she was tired of the 'size' claims as 'when they are {over sized} they are also too soft to do anything good'...

Then again, you may have stock in some card manufacturer... I would not trust that product thought as you lack basic understanding over much of what surrounds your 'digital curiosity'. Your stock may not be worth all that much...

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

:?:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Gutter mind, what do you expect? My bed has two left sides!

:shock: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rongnongno Loc: FL

The WB 'easier in raw' is a myth. JPG is a bad format (too many limitations and destructive compression) but it can be edited like everything else.

Open a JPG as raw and you get the same tools. Just do not expect to beat raw potential, even if you adjust the color depth to 16 bits, it just fills the gaps with limited data.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

I don't think any of us disagree by much in this situation, except that step #2 does serve an educational purpose . I think we read and interpreted the original post slightly differently.

Step two as presented just said "copy raw files and convert them to jpeg".
It did not explicitly say without any presets or other adjustment. So whether any presets would be permitted is a matter of interpretation. The outcome of that conversion would clearly be different depending on the nature of the process. It's really a problem of having something expressed in simple terms in a complex situation.

Bull drink water's exercise was completely valid, and step #2 could serve a useful educational purpose to demonstrate that there is more to the raw / JPEG thing than just a computer file format. This is not always obvious to everyone.

In the majority of cases a JPEG delivered by a camera includes more than a format conversion, compression and discarding some of the data deemed unnecessary. Depending upon the camera settings it frequently includes other image adjustments, which will vary for landscape, portrait, or monochrome for example.

So in looking at the exercise presented, with some enhancements:

1 shoot in raw/jpeg. - this provides a basis for comparison

2a copy raw files and convert them to jpeg without anything other than the format change - this will provide a viewable version of the raw file in JPEG format. It will probable look fairly bland in comparison to the JPEGs from the camera and demonstrates that the camera introduces some kind of additional processing

2b do more raw to JPEG conversions for any given file using some different adjustments - brightness / contrast / sharpening etc., then repeat for a few similar frames with the same presets - this can be automated if preferred, which is actually an important workflow step for many.

3 pick a few "good" or "challenging" raw files and individually make adjustments to either fix some issues - white balance, blown out areas, incorrect exposure etc., or to adjust the image to your desired result.

4 compare the results of steps 2a, 2b, and 3 with the JPEGS out of the camera and see which you like best.

Personally I think that would provide a more complete example of the differences between shooting JPEG only, shooting raw and the PP that is involved in producing a final JPEG whether from the camera or from post-processing. It is however an academic exercise to illustrate differences, not a recommendation for a workflow.

Cheers

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

While performing PP on raw files that are poorly exposed can result in acceptable images, that is not really raw's strength or purpose. It's real strength is that it gives the photographer the ability to make good exposures better, and great exposure even greater. There are few exposures, regardless of how good they look SOOC, that can't be made to look even better in the right hands, (or worse in the wrong hands). Raw files provide all the data accumulated at the time the image was captured instead of a compressed subset of the data found in a jpeg.

Marionsho Loc: Kansas

Gutter mind? I was jus wunder'n how you reply in red? :lol: :lol: :lol: