Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Well yes.. but how do you define quality? I can find myself reworking my images with the new product updates. In the current update for CC 2015, there is a new tool - dehaze. It does just that, removes haze from images. What was once thought to be fine and reworked is now ever better. Having a raw images allows me to apply new techniques to older images. I suspect, Adobe will perfect camera shake. When and if that happens, I will have older raw images ready and waiting to rescue and correct. Having them as raw gives me all the data I need to further optimize my images today or five years down the road.

erickter Loc: Dallas,TX

4 meg file size isn't going to cut it for a quality 20x24 print. Need more like 15-25meg file size, +-.

TheDman Loc: USA

Meg doesn't tell you how large a photo can be printed. Pixel dimensions is a much better determiner of that.

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

Once again Mark, I think you missed the subtlety of the point in the OP's question.

If one wants to aim for the best possible quality from any image then using the best possible camera and raw images is the way to go. No real debate there. The question is about the result within a price envelope, not the technique employed in this case.

A professional delivers what is agreed, an artist goes to irrational extremes. Both perspectives are valid, but they are not the same.

A professional engagement has boundaries. Art does not.

How do you reconcile those things?

A contract, a price, an agreed deliverable, and a delivered result to the specified conditions.

Is any further discussion necessary?

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

You can't say what will be down the road. They may come up with something that work well with next to nothing.

FYI:
My only thoughts now are, what's going to happen to all my images when Ikick the bucket? No one will find them in my drives nor will they be saved if I don't keep paying for cloud storage. (There was a post about that very same thing on this sight and it got me to think about it.) Sorry about going off on another subject. I'll shut up now.

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

I did not miss a thing... you need to read my other posts on this question, and put them all together as opposed to a snip here or there. Do you think you can do that?

As for the comment, "If one wants to aim for the best possible quality from any image then using the best possible camera and raw images is the way to go". Wrong ... did you forget light (direct, indirect, refused, reflected) and composition? Having the best camera and even shooting raw alone, does not guaranteed a quality image. Photographers know that, non-photographers don't. In a studio for example, the photographer has complete control. Jpeg or raw will render the same image. In addition, jpeg will increase my frame/burst rate and buffer capacity. If you want to be creative RAW gives you extended opportunities. However, doing portraiture in controlled conditions will render quality images, quickly and easily directly to print. Reducing my workflow, reduces my time, increases the number of jobs I can do within a time frame, will increase my profit. Will the client see a difference - not likely, not ever. Why? Because there would be no difference.

Outdoors the photographer takes the same considerate and disciplined approach. Aside from camera settings, the photographer will consider light, foreground , mid and background elements along with perspective, DOF, bokeh, appropriate lenses and more.. He or she can also bring in defussers and reflectors, multiple light boxes, coordinated flash, etc. There is so much more than just shooting jpeg or raw, again sooooo much more. In these controlled conditions, jpeg and raw would likely look exactly the same. Whatever tweaks are necessary, i.e., cropping can be done just as errectively in jpeg as in raw.







Do you do studio work? Care to post your images or link to your website?

Moles Loc: South Carolina

Action sports almost has to be JPEG because of the file size. Most editors want the pictures right after the event, and RAW would take forever to upload, as well as filling up the cards quickly.

BTW, why isn't $30 per shot entirely reasonable, if not downright cheap? Several hours work and the skill involved?

Correct me if I'm wrong, and I am sure some will, but aren't we buying professional images of an event?? As long as the quality is good and the contract is adhered to, what difference does it make if they are JPEG or RAW? It's implied that RAW can be modified to a greater extent, but no photographer I know wants their pictures changed.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

As a final product, JPEGs are entirely appropriate and are what I'd supply too, most of the time.

I shoot RAW... which I would absolutely NEVER sell to a private party and usually wouldn't sell for commercial usage either. RAW are unfinished images. I typically only sell finished images.

Not to mention, RAW are proprietary. In other words, there's also good chance that a customer would not have the necessary software to be able to work with the RAW file, especially a private party/personal use-type customer.

Most often JPEG is best and what customers want because it's the most ubiquitous format. But there are other finished file formats I'd supply if requested... TIFF, PNG, etc. Commercial usage are more likely to need TIFF or other file type, and depending upon the customer and their planned usage, I might sell a RAW file to them.... perhaps converted to a DNG or a PSD... but in 10+ years shooting digital I can't recall ever being asked for RAW or those formats.

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

With respect, you missed almost the entire point of the OP's original post, by a wide margin, and I fully stand behind my previous comment. You might be feeling a little sensitive today, sorry if I trod on a nerve!

Remember that quality is not an absolute fixed thing, it comes in varying types, it describes the nature of something but does not define something. A "thing" - an image, print or a file in this instance - possesses quality, and that quality should be appropriate to the context. A plastic spoon can be of higher quality than a silver spoon, and also much more appropriate to the intended purpose, and could also be significantly more valuable depending upon the circumstances.

And no, I did not forget lighting and discipline and all the other things that go into creating a good photograph. None of that has any relation to the OP's question.

I still stand behind my comment that "If one wants to aim for the best possible quality from any image then using the best possible camera and raw images is the way to go". At no point did I say that those were the only considerations to take into account. Better equipment, more versatile file formats will definitely be beneficial. Then skill, discipline, the ability to use more sophisticated tools or materials in the future all can enhance quality further. I do not disagree in any way with that, but I did not introduce those things, and neither did I exclude them, I just didn't mention them. Was I wrong? I do not think so. However, you seemed to take this as some kind of "pissing contest".

What caused you to get your pretty, frilly, little pink panties in such a twist?

Finally, not only did I read your posts, I have read many of them over quite some time, and "Frankly, My Dear, I am not very impressed!"

Have fun!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

As you are well aware, these topics and forums slide left to right of the OP's question. In part I respond to the OP and then, responds to specific comments made by others. It is called a discussion. Are we clear?

BTW the OP never mentioned camera's or lenses. Why are you?? - I sense hypocrisy...so just "shuddup".

You don't have to shoot exclusively raw to get the best images. If you control the light, you will need to do less in raw. If you are not expanding beyond the original given sizes taken in the camera, again less in raw. If you expose correctly and avoid highlights and shadows, you are going to do less if anything at all.

So back to he OP - he got what he paid for. He did not indicate that he was dissatisfied with the product or services. Hence, this is not an issue about better or best cameras or lens because that was never the question.

So please don't ever tell me what I understood or not because you are the least of all here to make that comment.

GENorkus Loc: Washington Twp, Michigan

You made me go back to re-read things also.

My origional thought was any mods by him. After re-reading it, he's saying that your g-daughter can't modify it. (Miss read it earlier)

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

Woohoo! well, go you! Aren't you just having another little hissy fit today! Did you forget to take your meds again? Did I tweak you?

Apparently you believe that you are a legend in your own lunchtime. I did not even initiate a discussion with you, nor did I disagree with what you posted except for indicating that it was somewhat off topic. Even then I posed questions rather than disagreeing with your position. It was you that chose to respond in the manner that you did, and if you can't deal with the response that is your own problem. By all means run back to Mommy screaming "He hit me back!", but that will not help you very much. If you want to pick on people, you need to pick on people of your own size, otherwise you might get your ass kicked.

Think about it, Sweetheart, you are out of your depth here and very easily provoked!

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Oh, love the sweetheart .., did I press your button? You definitely need to find another forum if that is what you are looking for. I am definitely not going there.

As for being out of my depth. You posted two nondescript images with a $300 Canon Ti3. One of a bug and another in a zoo. Both where badly composed, no understanding of light, blown out highlights and shadows, no depth, sharpness, etc. You clipped the ear off one of the animals. They were done poorly. A five year old with canyons could have done better. The questions you do ask are nonsensical and some times it appears one one even responds.

So who is out of their depth? Once again, hypocrisy abounds. I don't think you have the credibility to be here at all. Shoo shoo ...

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Oh, love the sweetheart .., did I press your button? You definitely need to find another forum if that is what you are looking for. I am definitely not going there.

As for being out of my depth. You posted two nondescript images with a $300 Canon Ti3. One of a bug and another in a zoo. Both where badly composed, no understanding of light, blown out highlights and shadows, no depth, sharpness, etc. You clipped the ear off one of the animals. They were done poorly. A five year old with canyons could have done better. The questions you do ask are nonsensical and some times it appears one one even responds.

So who is out of their depth? Once again, hypocrisy abounds. I don't think you have the credibility to be here at all. Shoo shoo ...

Mark7829 Loc: Calfornia

Oh, love the sweetheart .., did I press your button? You definitely need to find another forum if that is what you are looking for. I am definitely not going there.

As for being out of my depth. You posted two nondescript images with a $300 Canon Ti3. One of a bug and another in a zoo. Both where badly composed, no understanding of light, blown out highlights and shadows, no depth, sharpness, etc. You clipped the ear off one of the animals. They were done poorly. A five year old with canyons could have done better. The questions you post are nonsensical and some times it appears one one even responds.

So who is out of their depth? Once again, hypocrisy abounds. I don't think you have the credibility to be here at all. Shoo shoo ...