Raw
Apr 2, 2017 12:13:30 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
This subject I find very interesting. I shoot a lot of video. I extract my stills from video for clients from the hybrid HD 10 bit from the camcorder. I find the pictures have great detail and great color.
I realized if I was working with an image that I wanted to optimize I would use Raw. I mostly use Photoshop CC and have do shoot raw and jpgs when I do shoot stills.
I find my quick enhancements of jpgs really easier to do in PS. I am a fan of Ken Rockwell. I never really understand why some people have so many issues with him.
He flows with the art and business of imagery and tells you his real thoughts. When he reviewed the hot Nikon D800 against the Canon being the Nikon guy he said damn
the Canon is better. I wanted to get a bridge camera and he said he picked up the Sony RX10 III and haven't put it down for months. His lens reviews are straight forward.
He ups his color saturation while shooting and that seems to be his style that works in selling to companies. Not a favorite on mine.
I am perplexed by the grading color mess in the film (video) You need to be a scientist to get a workflow once you have produced neutral file to launder through many software
options and choose camera settings are numerous. How does this relate to this post. Ken is right about jpgs. I dont want to spend even more time laundering visuals.
I realized if I was working with an image that I wanted to optimize I would use Raw. I mostly use Photoshop CC and have do shoot raw and jpgs when I do shoot stills.
I find my quick enhancements of jpgs really easier to do in PS. I am a fan of Ken Rockwell. I never really understand why some people have so many issues with him.
He flows with the art and business of imagery and tells you his real thoughts. When he reviewed the hot Nikon D800 against the Canon being the Nikon guy he said damn
the Canon is better. I wanted to get a bridge camera and he said he picked up the Sony RX10 III and haven't put it down for months. His lens reviews are straight forward.
He ups his color saturation while shooting and that seems to be his style that works in selling to companies. Not a favorite on mine.
I am perplexed by the grading color mess in the film (video) You need to be a scientist to get a workflow once you have produced neutral file to launder through many software
options and choose camera settings are numerous. How does this relate to this post. Ken is right about jpgs. I dont want to spend even more time laundering visuals.
Apr 2, 2017 12:56:04 #
To me it is a personal choice based on your needs. I prefer RAW however if someone else prefers jpeg, that is fine. We all have different reasons and in the end, there is no one right answer on this one.
Apr 2, 2017 13:00:14 #
burkphoto wrote:
Raw vs JPEG is like Mac vs. Windows or any yin vs. yang you can imagine... some folks are fanatics about one or the other.
The truth? They're both good tools. I use both, for VERY different reasons. Your conclusion is reasonable for many.
This thread will be great "click bait" for Google ads. It'll probably hit 10-12 pages!
The truth? They're both good tools. I use both, for VERY different reasons. Your conclusion is reasonable for many.
This thread will be great "click bait" for Google ads. It'll probably hit 10-12 pages!
err.....
Your comparison is simply disingenuous. In the name of peace and political correctness often prevalent on this site you select to avoid that they can only be compared with a car engine, the road (and laws) limitations and the skill of the driver.
raw = 1000 horse power. Only good experimented drivers can use a car with an engine like that.
PJG = 1 horse power. Toddler electric cars are more powerful than that.
Both are limited by requirement in size and/or format (as in UHH). JPG has the least 'sharing' limitation and can be required by the client/agency.
raw is all about potential. raw needs the same (if not more) care when taking the initial capture than a JPG (SOOC). raw demands that the 'button pusher' knows what he/she is doing in PP.
Where you are correct is that there is an element of 'faith' on both sides as well as an element of disdain for the other.
JPG vs raw is a non debate for several reasons.
- 'debate' or 'faith proclamations' are moot when the camera cannot produce a raw output.
- Use/requirement of a capture determines what format is best or needed.
- If one is untrained with PP the result will be in the same digital vomit regardless of format.
- Anyone can choose any format and quite frankly I do not see why not.
- What anyone selects is nobody's business since in the end most captures are reduced to JPG for 'sharing'.
The true debate for 'sharing' lies in the PNG vs JPG format but that is another can of worm. Uploading/downloading speed vs relative accuracy...
_________
Something else that does not concern your post.
The white balance is just as correctable in JPG than in raw. The absence of raw subtleties when it comes color shade does not prevent the white balance adjustment. Now if one mentions luminosity adjustment I would agree.
Apr 2, 2017 13:02:31 #
rfmaude41
Loc: Lancaster, Texas (DFW area)
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)
Try this:
Load picture into any one of the editors
Do some manipulation
Save as a jpeg
Load picture into any one of the editors
Do some manipulation
Save as a jpeg
Do that several times
What you'll get is a TOTAL MESS. Each time you sequentially save in jpeg, you'll (for a practical matter) lose about 1/2 - 3/4 of your pixels.
First save compressed by 4
Second save compressed by 4 more
Again and again
Just take a quick look at the file size(s) as you continue, you can take an original jpeg down very, very RAPIDLY.
Apr 2, 2017 13:26:33 #
With JPEG, how would you go about adjusting the white balance (if it need and adjustment)?
Apr 2, 2017 13:35:33 #
why let the camera process the image for you? thats jpeg. if you want to be a complete photographer then the darkroom is still a necessity - yes its dry now, but an absolute must. RAW gives you total control and all information. let the phone do the jpeg for FB stuff. bottom line: you TAKE a photo then you MAKE a picture! gl.
Apr 2, 2017 13:48:23 #
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)
To each his own, but, I'm not a professional or semi-professional. I've been shooting exclusively RAW (NEF) since it became available to me. I taught myself to use Nikon Capture NX2 for post processing. I can process a RAW image just as quickly as a JPG and get better results since the RAW file has a lot more data to work with. Not sure what you mean by an "average photographer, but, that's kind of a slap in the face to infer they are too stupid to learn RAW processing. It isn't rocket science.
Apr 2, 2017 14:38:51 #
Apr 2, 2017 14:47:15 #
Apr 2, 2017 15:19:23 #
Apr 2, 2017 15:45:37 #
bdk wrote:
I shoot RAW because I dont like all the lost data when u shoot JPG.
Yes, it's all that lost data that will surely make or break an image every time ....
Apr 2, 2017 16:11:37 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
If jpg fine works for you, then by all means use i... (show quote)
Dirt Farmer: You understand about this! Would you please, help me? I'm successfully importing images
onto my Ext HDD through my Laptop w/LR6 yet, things are going "a bit wrong. I don't EVER get the opportunity
to add any Keywords.
Everything that I import goes into a Sub-Folder on my Ext HDD; There's one, main one; called "Master Photography" and from here, there are Sub Folder's, one for each Memory Card that I import. These are automatically arranged by LR6 during Import by Yr/Mon/Date they were shot. (Which I like to have.)
My first import had 1,600 images and went OK except, that I never had a chance to add any Keywords to it.
However, when I imported my second memory card having 1,700 images, with newer dates, that had some overlap
in the years; I then saw on the LR6 Panel that showed my Ext HDD folder's, a long list of all the years, that contained very huge numbers of images in each of these year folders! (And I realized that these year folders were going to just
continue to grow extremely huge if I kept on doing what I'd been doing---that I was doing something wrong!?)
I became concerned, that if I continued to add my ten other memory cards, (let alone all that I keep shooting into the future), if I keep going on like this, that I'll have an immense, bloated number of images and system, in all of those ten "Year Folders" on my EXT HDD, and I'll never, be able to find anything!
I can, click on the "Drive-Folder Area", somewhere?, and have the images displayed, by the "original memory card", so that they appear as a group, together, I believe? (So perhaps, I could live like this? But I realize, that I'm not doing something the way, that is according to proper protocol, and am heading for a very big mess of some kind.
Do you think that you could set me straight? I'd sure appreciate it, before I go any further. Thanks. Rob.
Apr 2, 2017 16:38:19 #
Apr 2, 2017 16:39:10 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
If I were using both I would set the camera to shoot raw+jpg because otherwise there would come a time when I needed the raw file but I forgot to reset the camera after only needing jpg.
Of course if you only need jpg you can always use the jpg preview from the raw file. So it's only necessary to shoot raw.
Of course if you only need jpg you can always use the jpg preview from the raw file. So it's only necessary to shoot raw.
Basic lack of knowledge is why the whole argument is stupid. Did you know that the 30,000+ portrait, team, and player photographers in America use nearly 100% JPEG workflow? WHY do they? Time, cost, and lab workflow constraints. The product is inexpensive, so the process must be.
How do they do it? Exposure and custom white balance TARGETS. Precisely controlled lighting. Procedural discipline. Checklists...
The same JPEG only systems work for many situations.
BUT, raw isn't just for rookies. Pros do use it, especially those covering weddings, sports action, and other one-of-a-kind events... product photography for ad campaigns or point-of-purchase displays, or for any situation where post-processing is desirable or warranted. Architectural and landscape work are usually recorded in raw.
When you have the knowledge, discipline, skill, experience --- or can follow a formula designed by someone who does --- JPEG capture is an incredibly useful and important tool.
The most important thing to know about processing and saving JPEGs at the camera is that you are NOT at the mercy of the camera's defaults! The many menus offer a very wide range of PRE-processing control. All you have to do is test them to know what to do. THAT takes time, patience, control, and careful review of the results.
That said, I seldom use JPEGs for personal work. Much of what I cover is not done under controlled conditions, so I'll record raw or raw+JPEG.
Apr 2, 2017 16:52:03 #
viscountdriver wrote:
In the last few weeks I have read numerous article... (show quote)
I am a pro and in one week I will shoot over a few thousand images. I have considered shooting in raw but time constraints to upload at the studio and the fact that the studio wants jpegs for yearbook work keeps me shooting jpegs. I shoot over a few thousand jpegs every week when the work load is high. I prefer to spend my time shooting and beside I can do some raw editing when I open a jpeg in raw. The only time I have done that is when I thought the shots at the bowling were a little thin. I did a batch in Adobe to adjust exposure and then saved them as new jpegs and the studio knew nothing of the edit. I do so prefer to turn all my work in not needing an edit as I did in film days. Shooting jpegs reminds me of shooting Ektachrome with just a smidge more room than Ektachrome gave me. Sorry folks I preferred Ektachrome to Kodachrome. I shot a lot of slide shows back then.
Maybe if you have the time to sit and fudge with editing until you tweek the H out it, raw is great but if you find you want to shoot it and make images quickly I say go ahead and perfect your skill in jpegs. Either way you go perfecting the exposure will be great even if you shoot raw.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.