Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

Now that's funny:lol:

bibsthecat Loc: Cold Spring MN

MEEEOOOOOWWW - Thanks for the compliment.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Well - I am amazed - but pleased for you. Amazed because RAW files from any camera should (inherently) require some PP. But you are finding that "very few" of your RAWS require "any post processing" and that your JPGs were not as good as that. :-)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

I too am amazed. I find very few raw file images SOOC that are ready for prime time without PP. They tend to look flat with less sharpness and less saturation. While I believe in the end you can get better results with raw, SOOC jpeg, compared to SOOC raw, usually win hands down if well exposed.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Agree. If the end result is great then it's irrelevant how you got there. Too many seem more concerned with the process. I happen to shoot only Canon raw. If I feel a shot needs work I adjust it in LR and Elements 13. However, I don't convert my raw files to Adobe's DNG and retain my .cr2 files. That way if I'm happy, or close to happy, with the image SOOC, I can open it in Canon's Digital Photo Professional (DPP) instead. DPP retains all the in camera settings with raw files and I can still perform some tweaks there if I want to. If I export raw files from DPP to jpeg I get results identical to Jpegs SOOC. It gives me the option to go down either path without having to explicitly shoot jpeg + raw.

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

And a point I've made during these endless, stupid debates (RAW vs. jpeg) I have a huge library of RAW files on external hard drives and DVDs, etc. Many times….MANY TIMES…I have returned to an image shot years ago, reloaded the RAW file in the LATEST version of Capture One. Every time…the software pulls more from the RAW file than I thought possible the first time I processed the image………..
Bet many have taken an old negative and reprinted it years later with much better results…of course, experience played a huge roll but perhaps a new paper or a better enlarging lens helped…same thing...

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Mudshark- The RAW / JPG debate HAS become endless - but still some interesting points are drawn out - and most of us seem to enjoy returning to the debate - or we wouldn't do it. Your experience with old negs in this latest chapter is interesting, and I guess you enjoyed recounting it. So - endless yes - stupid no. :-)

Kuzano

You Betcha' but I'd actually really and truly want a Dairy Queen Buster Bar... or perhaps a lime covered Dilly Bar.

Frankly Dilly Bar was my second wife's pet name for a part of my anatomy
:thumbup:

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Additionally revisiting a raw file down the road may give better results simply because of your improved skills and greater understanding of the PP process aside from software improvements.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

I've heard you Americans are really into ice cream - how big are Buster Bars and Dilly Bars :?: :lol:

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

That is not my experience, but I am not certain why that would be. I do notice a tremendous difference between opening a raw file on the manufacturer's proprietary program as opposed to opening it in a third party image processing program. Testing it now, in the third party program (I use Corel, but I suspect it would be similar in Adobe programs based on people's comments here) the raw file does look flat with less sharpness and less saturation. SOOC raw wins hands down compared the SOOC JPEG in my experience. There certainly is no issue with sharpness or saturation with raw files.

If people are in fact seeing images that are flat with less sharpness and less saturation when they open a raw file, no wonder they are reluctance to use raw files, and no wonder they think that raw files mean more post processing.

Interesting. Thanks. I will leave it to someone smarter and more knowledgeable than I am to explain this. For me, I am extremely happy to have found a system that works and that provides vastly better results with much less work and much more quickly. I guess that contradicts the experience or theories of others, but I am certain about this even if I can't explain it.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Is it a debate? Need it be? I didn't take the original question to be a call for a debate. I cannot see any basis for controversy about this topic. That which is objective fact is not open to dispute, and nor is that which is a matter of personal preference.

Mike

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

A few posters, Peterff, mwsilvers, and I, took the OP at his word and answered the question seriously. The ensuing discussion has been of value to some. Where is the problem?

Mike

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Well we have seen the controversy. As for need - debate keeps our minds sharper. Personal preference is subjective, so you seem to be saying that whether the subject is objective or subjective, it should not be debated. But have you not joined the debate? Even Einstein's theory of general relativity has been partly disproved.