Raw processing versus jpg
May 11, 2017 12:03:23 #
May 11, 2017 12:18:16 #
Cape Coral Joel wrote:
You can do all the preprocessing you want before exposing a jpeg, but the jpeg image will be compressed (deleted unrecoverable data) your choice. I wish I could always take a perfect shot and than I will not need any post processing, but on second thought where is the fun in that.
JPEGs are great for:
Wire service photojournalists
School portrait photographers
eBay product photographers
Parts catalog photography
...and in consistent, controlled lighting, when little to no post-processing is required or even desirable.
Raw files are great for:
Artistic photography
High end portraiture
High end product photography
Photography under changing conditions such as nature, sports, and wildlife
Weddings and other non-repeatable events
At least, that's how I use the two file types. I have no particular preference other than using the appropriate tool for the conditions, time, budget, or end use.
May 11, 2017 12:38:29 #
May 11, 2017 12:46:32 #
JPEGs will give you image s that are satisfactory and as good as you may want. I shoot RAW because there are those special images that you had a vision for but the JPEG doesn't let you have. I would say 90% of my images are OK in JPEG but that other special 10% really sing to me when my original vision is obtained. The vision might not be as others might have seen it but it is YOURS! Enjoy playing.
May 11, 2017 12:56:13 #
May 11, 2017 12:57:46 #
DavidPine wrote:
Right on, Gene! I cannot imagine shooting my real estate images in JPG. I feel if I shot any image in JPG I could not produce as good of an image as I do shooting RAW. I understand the worms this topic produces among the SOOC crowd and JPG shooters but I consider shooting JPG akin to leaving food on the table.
May 11, 2017 13:06:42 #
I have never seen any difference between the Camera rendered JPGs and my Personally managed JPGs, and, yes, for most of my film work I allowed the Fuji machines to process and produce 4X6s w/o input from me; BUT...
Last week, I took my Canon lens off my camera and put a new Non-Canon lens on and the first thing I found was that the camera body no longer corrects for lens aberrations, because, to the people at Canon, only canon lenses exist. There is not even the ability to enter a correcting curve manually in the camera. I can go into PSP X9 and correct each image for distortion and for Chromatic Aberration, or I can process the photos in batch through Aftershot pro and correct for these lens errors. At the same time, I can set up Aftershot to match my selected film type (vericolor, ektachrome, gold, etc) and every shot I run in that batch will show as if done in that film. Now, in PSP, all I need to do is adjust selected individual shots for special effects desired. Aftershot will also add a watermark to my photos as I convert them. In all of this, RAW will also SAVE File space because the photos will only exist on disk as RAW with a db of corrections rather than saving a Raw and a Jpg of each photo.
I don't do RAW because of elitism, I do it because I have ALWAYS been functionally lazy - I will always find the easy way to do a job, and currently, I find RAW Processing to be the easiest method - FOR ME.
Last week, I took my Canon lens off my camera and put a new Non-Canon lens on and the first thing I found was that the camera body no longer corrects for lens aberrations, because, to the people at Canon, only canon lenses exist. There is not even the ability to enter a correcting curve manually in the camera. I can go into PSP X9 and correct each image for distortion and for Chromatic Aberration, or I can process the photos in batch through Aftershot pro and correct for these lens errors. At the same time, I can set up Aftershot to match my selected film type (vericolor, ektachrome, gold, etc) and every shot I run in that batch will show as if done in that film. Now, in PSP, all I need to do is adjust selected individual shots for special effects desired. Aftershot will also add a watermark to my photos as I convert them. In all of this, RAW will also SAVE File space because the photos will only exist on disk as RAW with a db of corrections rather than saving a Raw and a Jpg of each photo.
I don't do RAW because of elitism, I do it because I have ALWAYS been functionally lazy - I will always find the easy way to do a job, and currently, I find RAW Processing to be the easiest method - FOR ME.
May 11, 2017 13:07:16 #
camerapapi wrote:
In the first place, and this is the rule "if ... (show quote)
All, not many, photographers using a digital camera shoot raw. Oh the other hand, "many" are either happy ore required to take the shortcut and accept the results of in-camera processing of the raw data and turn into a jpeg. For them, the reasons are clear, expediency, shooting in controlled lighting, or the client insists on jpeg SOOC. And it works for them. The jpeg/controlled lighting situation will generally produce results no different than shooting raw and converting, so there it makes total sense. Ditto for the client that will not accept anything other than an SOOC jpeg. The results are more than good enough when the photographer knows what he/she is doing.
It shouldn't be called a raw vs jpeg discussion. In reality it's camera jpeg vs converted from raw jpeg, which is what the OP's thread title really implies.
May 11, 2017 13:17:01 #
TriX wrote:
JB, since you are having a serious discussion abou... (show quote)
You must understand that I really don't give a sh*t about respect on this site. I'm here to learn when I can and to share info when I can. Whether people like the manner in which I post or reply means nothing to me. I'm not seeking popularity, friends or life-long connections. It doesn't matter how many people put me on their ignore lists or take offense at my posts. Like The Rock used to say, "It doesn't matter..." If you can live with that fine, if not fine. That's just the way it is and I see no need to apologize for or seek to change it. If you shared my life experiences you might possibly understand.
May 11, 2017 13:18:37 #
May 11, 2017 13:20:08 #
canon Lee wrote:
Im so glad you give a damn about "customer service". My opinion is that, because a few may not be "courteous" or disrespectful, I wouldn't lowerer myself (self esteem) to their level, but would not respond at all. By having a "jaded & cynical view, is just perpetuating the disrespect. Why should I be disrespectful to someone? Then I am at their level. I know there are those that are impossible to talk with, but not all are... Communicating is skill.
Well if it were only a "few" I might be inclined to agree with you.
May 11, 2017 13:28:15 #
gbernier505 wrote:
I have a Samsung nx500 camera, which I have used with great results over the last year or so using jpg format. After reading so much about using the raw format, I decided to try it. After using jpg+raw and editing the results, I find that my raw edited pictures seem to be no better than my jpg pictures. Am I missing something here.
No, you've just been paying too much attention to the constant "haranguing" of the Church of Raw" acolytes.
They make a few reasonable sounding points, but in the long run, it's your decision. Even if they are right, will you spend the time and energy in adding RAW to your work flow, and the computer time, and the computer power needed, to make your images marginally better. And who will be the judge of that.
Did RAW, Did Photoshop, Did the whole increased work flow for 4 plus years. Dropped it out of the equation over 4 years ago. My file formats are Jpeg and TIFF.
May 11, 2017 13:37:29 #
Kuzano wrote:
No, you've just been paying too much attention to ... (show quote)
Yeah. The simple truth is as follows: a RAW file contains more data than a JPEG file. To extract that extra data generally requires more post processing time than is needed for a properly exposed JPEG. Whether that extra data is important (and worth the added processing time to extract) depends solely on the needs, desires and preferences of the individual photographer. The Guru has spoken. Long live the Guru.
May 11, 2017 14:15:15 #
capmike wrote:
Glad to read your comments. I have found the same, however, there are a few, very few pictures, that need raw to make it a picture of what you saw, low light, colors shaded, cloudy day of a beautiful bird. So I shoot both, usually, 99% of the time, edit the jpegs, and when happy, delete the raws. And yes, it is hours and hours of not much fun sitting in front of a computer. How much is your time worth? How much time do you have left? Is that how you want to spend it? Not I.
Mike
Mike
: May 11, 2017 14:16:46 #
TriX wrote:
What version of Elements? you need to be at Elements 13 or above to use ACR version 9.0 which is required for the 7200. If you're using an older version of Elements and don't want to upgrade, you can always download Adobe's raw DBG converter.
Will try it thanks.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.