I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!
SonnyE
Loc: Communist California, USA
Consider that anything you see here, or pretty much on the web, is a jpg.
That said, you are compromising your abilities to work with (manipulate) your photographs with jpg's.
So, what will you be doing with the proposed photo's?
I have a DX and shoot mostly JPEG. I will shoot RAW when I have a questionable Lighting conduction. I have no problems at all. You will find tons of Die Hard RAW people chiming in about the virtues of RAW.
I do find a bigger difference in the glass I have on the input side of box to be a bigger problem then JPEG VS RAW.
Depending on the software you use for PP you should be fine.
ecrocker wrote:
I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!
I never shoot raw, I set the settings in my camera, sharp, etc. the way I like them. Check out my post Recent trip to Ireland. JPEGS with an IPnone. I use aD7000 and a Canon G10.
To start off I am not a photographer as such I take photographs and I wonder why all of the so called professional photographers have to alter all of the photos that they take? Aren't any of them good enough to use the photos as they are taken? Just wondering.
Unless it is a very difficult lighting situation, I quite frankly have the time to process " Raw." This is for people who have lots of time on their hands. I know that I will be attacked by the " Diehards," but cameras have become so efficient. I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. bb
ecrocker wrote:
I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!
The need and justification for shooting RAW has been diminished in recent years by improved sensor and software technologies. The differences between RAW and JPEG are becoming smaller and smaller.
ecrocker wrote:
I have been shooting raw with ff cameras for years and was considering a newer crop dslr. How good are theses camera using jpeg, since raw is time consuming. What kind of results are you getting?
Also would be interesting knowing if anyone that once used raw is no using only jpeg?
thanks for your reply!
I have both a ff Canon 6D and a crop 7DII. Even though I tend to prefer the 6D for landscapes, portraits, etc, in reality there seems to be little difference in IQ, especially shooting jpeg, provided I use the same Image settings with each camera. The ff does have better high ISO performance and is supposed to have better color depth and dynamic range, but you would really have to look to see it, IMO. I usually shoot both jpeg and RAW, but in most cases, for me anyway, jpeg produces the results I want and is much handier.
Scott 42 wrote:
To start off I am not a photographer as such I take photographs and I wonder why all of the so called professional photographers have to alter all of the photos that they take? Aren't any of them good enough to use the photos as they are taken? Just wondering.
Because they know how to make them their best. That's what makes them professionals.
Scott 42 wrote:
To start off I am not a photographer as such I take photographs and I wonder why all of the so called professional photographers have to alter all of the photos that they take? Aren't any of them good enough to use the photos as they are taken? Just wondering.
Having not seen any of yours, I will I have never seen a photo that didn't benefit to some degree from post possessing.
Scott 42 wrote:
To start off I am not a photographer as such I take photographs and I wonder why all of the so called professional photographers have to alter all of the photos that they take? Aren't any of them good enough to use the photos as they are taken? Just wondering.
The problem is that when you shoot jpeg, you are allowing the camera to make certain decisions for you about the coloring and lighting of the photo. Sometimes the camera makes good decisions, sometimes it makes so-so decisions, sometimes it makes downright awful decisions. By shooting raw and making those decisions yourself, you get a better photo.
I shoot both raw & jpg. For many candid shots, the jpg is just fine. But sometimes the lighting is complicated and the camera screws up the flesh tones, especially if any fluorescent lighting is involved. Then I pull up the raw image and adjust the white balance manually. Or, the jpg version might have some shadows or blown out areas. If I work with the raw, sometimes I can recover detail in those areas.
So yes, the camera is good enough to capture the data off the sensors, but once it has that data, it doesn't always make the best choices in converting that data into the most pleasing photo. The human eye can make better choices in post processing.
Ideally, the goal is to spend more time shooting and less time in post processing, and that's where getting the best quality camera comes in handy.
mdsiamese wrote:
The problem is that when you shoot jpeg, you are allowing the camera to make certain decisions for you about the coloring and lighting of the photo. Sometimes the camera makes good decisions, sometimes it makes so-so decisions, sometimes it makes downright awful decisions. By shooting raw and making those decisions yourself, you get a better photo.
I shoot both raw & jpg. For many candid shots, the jpg is just fine. But sometimes the lighting is complicated and the camera screws up the flesh tones, especially if any fluorescent lighting is involved. Then I pull up the raw image and adjust the white balance manually. Or, the jpg version might have some shadows or blown out areas. If I work with the raw, sometimes I can recover detail in those areas.
So yes, the camera is good enough to capture the data off the sensors, but once it has that data, it doesn't always make the best choices in converting that data into the most pleasing photo. The human eye can make better choices in post processing.
Ideally, the goal is to spend more time shooting and less time in post processing, and that's where getting the best quality camera comes in handy.
The problem is that when you shoot jpeg, you are a... (
show quote)
I believe this is not about RAW - The OP is asking if there is a difference between FF and DX in the JPEG format.
mdsiamese wrote:
Ideally, the goal is to spend more time shooting and less time in post processing, and that's where getting the best quality camera comes in handy.
As there is nothing good to shoot in my living room, I find the two activities do not interfere with each other. ;)
Bobgood1 wrote:
Unless it is a very difficult lighting situation, I quite frankly have the time to process " Raw." This is for people who have lots of time on their hands. I know that I will be attacked by the " Diehards," but cameras have become so efficient. I also don't care for heavy PP. I like Natural condition pictures. Everybody has their likes. bb
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.