Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
jpeg
Page <<first <prev 4 of 17 next> last>>
Jul 27, 2015 17:59:27   #
SonnyE Loc: Communist California, USA
 
Have you considered renting one (T6s) for a trial run?

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 05:51:35   #
Pandylou Loc: The Levant
 
SonnyE wrote:
Yep. Not reality.

But thanks for the graphic display of unnatural.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 05:59:26   #
Grand Loc: Lebanon, Pa
 
WessoJPEG wrote:
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


JPEG for me, no time for raw, if u take your time check your settings, JPEG all the way.

Reply
 
 
Jul 28, 2015 06:04:07   #
Bobbee
 
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!


for me, I never shoot JPG, all my cameras are set to RAW only.

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 06:08:53   #
Grand Loc: Lebanon, Pa
 
Bobbee wrote:
for me, I never shoot JPG, all my cameras are set to RAW only.


No time for raw.

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 06:14:30   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
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)


When shooting JPG the photogs can make all the decisions. When shooting RAW they can't - they have to wait to see what they got. The RAW will usually be flat and nasty before PP, but with skill a sow's ear can be turned into a silk purse. JPGs can also be PPd (all facets of). For several months I have been shooting and PPing both JPG and RAW. With most of my pics the differences are a close run thing. RAW wins when I blow the highlights (not often). So if you are in the habit of blowing highlights - shoot RAW.

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 06:23:56   #
waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li
 
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.


Post some of your best here, downloadable (store original) and I'm pretty sure some of the "professionals" or even some hobbyists here can improve on them. ;)

Reply
 
 
Jul 28, 2015 06:27:21   #
Bobbee
 
Grand wrote:
No time for raw.


What do they say about 'make the time to do it right'. This is also why I never shoot on Automatic. I do not like the pictures when my camera decides. I don't shoot for fun. So I cannot allow my camera to take crappy pictures that I cannot adjust. I leave taking crappy pictures up to me !! No one else to blame. LOL

Also, if I did not want to edit the RAW, I could.......just go into PS, click the Image Processor button, and boom, I have JPGS. There is also a free app that does the same. BUT.......if I ever wanted to go back and play, I have the option. With only JPG, I would be severely crippled. Why limit your options.

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 06:37:13   #
johneccles Loc: Leyland UK
 
I stopped using RAW over a year ago now. The main reason being that the file sizes are too large (15mb) and take much longer to process.
The Jpegs produce very high quality images and are quicker to process if required.
I give my photos two tests:
1:Zoom into full screen (Equates to A2 paper size)
2:100% crop.
These check for sharpness and colour etc.
If test no 1 is satisfactory I would almost certainly keep it.
The second test is more critical but if I am happy with the image quality it will confirm my first choice

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 06:39:16   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
Grand wrote:
No time for raw.


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 06:41:50   #
WessoJPEG Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio
 
johneccles wrote:
I stopped using RAW over a year ago now. The main reason being that the file sizes are too large (15mb) and take much longer to process.
The Jpegs produce very high quality images and are quicker to process if required.
I give my photos two tests:
1:Zoom into full screen (Equates to A2 paper size)
2:100% crop.
These check for sharpness and colour etc.
If test no 1 is satisfactory I would almost certainly keep it.
This test is more critical but if I am happy with the image quality it will confirm my first choice
I stopped using RAW over a year ago now. The main ... (show quote)


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Reply
 
 
Jul 28, 2015 06:58:20   #
Grnway Loc: Manchester, NH
 
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!


Boy! Talk about a discussion that has totally drifted away from your question! I shoot both jpeg and raw with both ff and crop. No noticeable difference. The FF has higher resolution and therefore both jpegs and raw should be more true.
I don't think anyone here sees jpeg and raw shooting as mutually exclusive. As long as you have the storage media for raw files, it's a good idea to take them and also take jpegs. If you want to play with your photos in PP, then your raw files will offer much more flexibility, since your jpegs have already had some PP decisions made for you in camera.

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 07:08:31   #
Wahawk Loc: NE IA
 
Grand wrote:
JPEG for me, no time for raw, if u take your time check your settings, JPEG all the way.


With todays cameras, from P&S to Bridge to DSLR and everything along the way, anyone that can pay attention to what they are doing can take very good photos in JPG, and any adjustments necessary can easily be done to the JPG files.

However, those who do NOT understand how to properly set their cameras will need to shoot RAW so they can make up for their lack of understanding of the BASICS OF EXPOSURE. Those are the people that probably can't make sense out of Bryan Peterson's books!!

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 07:10:00   #
Bobbee
 
Grnway wrote:
Boy! Talk about a discussion that has totally drifted away from your question! I shoot both jpeg and raw with both ff and crop. No noticeable difference. The FF has higher resolution and therefore both jpegs and raw should be more true.
I don't think anyone here sees jpeg and raw shooting as mutually exclusive. As long as you have the storage media for raw files, it's a good idea to take them and also take jpegs. If you want to play with your photos in PP, then your raw files will offer much more flexibility, since your jpegs have already had some PP decisions made for you in camera.
Boy! Talk about a discussion that has totally dri... (show quote)


I don't think it drifted. If you shoot a very good picture, RAW of JPG you are pretty much going to get the same results. But.......................

BTW, All my cameras are FF. Thought that was a given, considering the conversation. Still would not trust my end results to JPG only. Cameras and people are not perfect. Your right, more room for adjustments in RAW. As for space, 3TB HD's are cheap. I have three of them plus two 2TB 2.5's. I rotate them all as backups plus one off site (out of my house). Yes, RAW may not be for everyone. But if you are services oriented or simply are detailed driven........

Reply
Jul 28, 2015 07:10:54   #
Wahawk Loc: NE IA
 
waegwan wrote:
Post some of your best here, downloadable (store original) and I'm pretty sure some of the "professionals" or even some hobbyists here can improve on them. ;)


Change them, YES, but "Improve" them??? That is questionable and up to the individual taste of every photographer AND VIEWER!!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 17 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.