RAW vs JPEG
May 13, 2018 08:15:17 #
Kuzano wrote:
I do Not shoot RAW. Jpeg fills all my needs and av... (show quote)
You spoke for me. But, on occasion I will shoot something in RAW + JPG Fine and compare just to re-confirm my decision
May 13, 2018 08:15:44 #
May 13, 2018 08:18:54 #
Looking at example images provided seems couple untouched are poorly shot and updated are over cooked.
Alot of images I see updated have crossed over from actual to art like a painting. Not saying breathtakingly just not actual.
I shot both JPEG and RAW, and find bit more option post processing the RAW. But I've been scolded when presenting comparison of untouched and then Luminar updated as being over cooked, finding it's easy to do so.
Alot of images I see updated have crossed over from actual to art like a painting. Not saying breathtakingly just not actual.
I shot both JPEG and RAW, and find bit more option post processing the RAW. But I've been scolded when presenting comparison of untouched and then Luminar updated as being over cooked, finding it's easy to do so.
May 13, 2018 08:19:35 #
Minx wrote:
Can you tell me how you convert raw to jpeg? Is it easy?
My RAW editor (DPP) has a file option to "convert and save". Check your editor.
May 13, 2018 08:20:42 #
I just wanted to start a discussion on the matter, seems there is always someone who gets upset and says to use the search button. I’m very aware of that feature. Probably the best response in that situation would be none. Terribly sorry to have wasted your valuable time. To the rest of you who have replied, thank you very much!
May 13, 2018 08:23:12 #
Most cameras will come with software that will covert RAW to other formats such as JPEG. For Canon it is the DPP software. Lightroom and Photoshop also have RAW convertors as do other editing tools. Think of the JPEG as the final product that you will produce after doing the edits in your PP software. I would suggest starting with the software that comes free with your camera and then progress on to more powerful editing tools as you gain knowledge and experience. I don't consider most edits I do to my RAW files as hard at all and you can also batch process images in most all editing tools too.
Minx wrote:
Can you tell me how you convert raw to jpeg? Is it easy?
May 13, 2018 08:26:59 #
rmalarz wrote:
Thanks, mwsilvers. You're very correct. It's a sim... (show quote)
It appears to me that the first is as the eye would see it - the second is, to me, overly saturated and possibly a tad too much sharpening. It makes for a vivid colorful image that draws the eye and will certainly draw approving comments. My preference is, however, as the eye would see it. The second image speaks to your skill as a photographer in that your composition is good and your skill in PP, however - again - my preference is as the eye sees it.
May 13, 2018 08:27:58 #
Some images can be "overdone" in some people's view. But it is also the intent and the result that the maker is looking for out of an image. I shoot many images just as documentation...for example railroad cars, locomotives and artwork painted on the railroad cars. Other things such as race cars I may be looking to create a more dramatic and less natural looking image. Neither is wrong or right, just what I am trying to create.
ltj123 wrote:
Looking at example images provided seems couple untouched are poorly shot and updated are over cooked.
Alot of images I see updated have crossed over from actual to art like a painting. Not saying breathtakingly just not actual.
I shot both JPEG and RAW, and find bit more option post processing the RAW. But I've been scolded when presenting comparison of untouched and then Luminar updated as being over cooked, finding it's easy to do so.
Alot of images I see updated have crossed over from actual to art like a painting. Not saying breathtakingly just not actual.
I shot both JPEG and RAW, and find bit more option post processing the RAW. But I've been scolded when presenting comparison of untouched and then Luminar updated as being over cooked, finding it's easy to do so.
May 13, 2018 08:29:35 #
NCMtnMan
Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
Winning photography has seldom been about taking a picture and having it printed exactly as it was shot. During the days of film much improvement and enhancement of shots was performed in the dark room using various techniques to enhance the print from the negative. Now with digital photography the capabilities of the camera have expanded and the dark room (now called post processing) have as well. So, don't feel like you have no chance to produce excellent and winning photographs. Just as in the past, it has always been a multiple step process. There are free post processing software programs out there so you don't have to spend a lot of money. Relax and enjoy learning about all of it.
May 13, 2018 08:29:52 #
LarryFitz
Loc: Beacon NY
I shot RAW. I have found that the post processing part of photography and be just as challenging as going out and taking the pictures. Also, I can post process when it is cold and rainy. I still need to learn how to delete more image before a start PP, so I can spend more time on best images.
May 13, 2018 08:51:41 #
DW wrote:
So I’ve been reading about the pros and cons of shooting RAW vs JPEG. Which do you use abd why?
A point made well by some here: if you are not comfortable with computer post processing, there is no reason to shoot RAW. If you are comfortable, RAW gives you better opportunities to bring out details that your eye missed.
May 13, 2018 08:52:18 #
May 13, 2018 08:59:45 #
Wuligal
Loc: Slippery Rock, Pa.
To each his own but think of this:
To each his own but..........
Which has more processing power: your digital camera or your computer? Shooting in Raw will give you much more control over how your image looks and it's lossless. If you shoot in JPEG you're asking your camera to do the post processing for you and and the cost is the loss of data.
Back in the days of film.....if you did your own dark room work it was equivalent to shooting in RAW. If you sent it to a lab you depended on someone else to do the PP which is tantamount to shooting in JPEG.
https://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg/
To each his own but..........
Which has more processing power: your digital camera or your computer? Shooting in Raw will give you much more control over how your image looks and it's lossless. If you shoot in JPEG you're asking your camera to do the post processing for you and and the cost is the loss of data.
Back in the days of film.....if you did your own dark room work it was equivalent to shooting in RAW. If you sent it to a lab you depended on someone else to do the PP which is tantamount to shooting in JPEG.
https://digital-photography-school.com/raw-vs-jpeg/
May 13, 2018 09:04:57 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
I shoot both but as an amateur my editing needs are limited. I will use just the JPEGs if it's a family gathering or standard snapshot stuff without much for potential. I'll use RAW for photo outings or travel memories that have more potential for creativity.
May 13, 2018 09:20:06 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.