weltweit
Well-Known Member
I prefer the RAW versus JPEG arguments, and they are more relevant to Ken Rockwell also !!
Ken Rockwell is dangerous to photography
- Thread starter Bungle73
- Start date
Make your bloody mind up.I prefer the RAW versus JPEG arguments, and they are more relevant to Ken Rockwell also !!
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I have.
I shoot JPEG...
I used to have to, because I only had small memory cards and a slow computer and small HDD, now I have upgraded my computer but not yet bought bigger cards. But still, I like JPEG, it has an instant quality about it, and my camera produces very good jpeg images it has to be said, if the quality was not there I would think differently but as I like to do as much as possible in the camera, it suits my style of photography.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I agree with your post above. So end of argument. Plus life is too short for Raw processing.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Perhaps a raw aficionado will be along to dispute it .... I am pretty sure there are some on here!
[Quote ="weltweit, post: 13098849], member: 32888"Perhaps a raw aficionado will be along to dispute it .... I am pretty sure there are some on here! [/QUOTE]
Chacun a son goute
[/QUOTE]Chacun a son goute
weltweit
Well-Known Member
What about prime versus zoom Hocus Eye?
Do you have a preference?
I go through phases, I own both, sometimes I am happy with one, sometimes the other, they seem to have different plus points. On balance I prefer primes, smaller and unobtrusive, sharp and fast ... etc
For the record I shoot RAW (most of the time). This is because RAW gives more scope for post-processing - you can do stuff with a RAW file you simply cannot do with a JPEG. Also, with JPEGs the settings in camera (sharpness, saturation etc.) are set in stone and cannot be changed after the fact, so if you made an error setting them, or change your mind, tough! With RAW they are changeable at any time. And to quote Mike Browne: "I shoot RAW because I want to be in charge of the way my pictures look and not the camera".
Also, the other thing is, as I learn I learn how to process pictures better, which means I can go back to the original RAW files of pictures I took before, and re-edit them to make them look even better. Couldn't do that with a JPEG.
One of the tips Tony Northrup gives for city night photography requires RAW files: over expose the image when shot, and bring the exposure down in post. That way you end up with a less noisy image.
And RAW processing doesn't have to take a lot of time, because in Lightroom you can edit one photo, then get it to apply the changes to all of the rest
Also, the other thing is, as I learn I learn how to process pictures better, which means I can go back to the original RAW files of pictures I took before, and re-edit them to make them look even better. Couldn't do that with a JPEG.
One of the tips Tony Northrup gives for city night photography requires RAW files: over expose the image when shot, and bring the exposure down in post. That way you end up with a less noisy image.
And RAW processing doesn't have to take a lot of time, because in Lightroom you can edit one photo, then get it to apply the changes to all of the rest
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Bungle73 you can edit jpeg files. Not as much as raw I will warrant but first you need to get it as right as you can in the camera which I think is an aim for raw or jpeg shooters but you can edit jpeg images I do it often. And I don't lose anything by doing it either, the original jpeg remains write protected, the edits can be worked on as photoshop files, tiffs, bmps or whatever you want.
You are going to argue 8bit next I guess
You are going to argue 8bit next I guess
Weltweit I think you are just trying to keep this thread going. There is no point with only two of us on board.
Oh dear I was wrong, it looks like you have invoked Bungle without even mentioning his name. I will watch from the sidelines.
Oh dear I was wrong, it looks like you have invoked Bungle without even mentioning his name. I will watch from the sidelines.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I set how I want my jpegs out of the camera to look, I set colour, tone, sharpness etc myself and I like what my cam produces. Not all cams produce nice jpegs, mine was praised for its which was one of the reasons I bought it.
One of my favourite settings is black and white, hard tone, ISO1600 for some noise, no sharpening .... I love the way those images look.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
editor
hiraethified
I mainly shoot JPEGs. Get fantastic results from my Olympus and Ricoh cameras.
I like this article: http://theonlinephotographer.typepa.../ken-tanaka-shooting-jpeg-instead-of-raw.html
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I have been a camera club member for some 6 years and shown large prints and projected images often. Most camera club users are staunch RAW shooters and I don't tell people what I do, but never has anyone said weltweit your pictures would be better / sharper / more colourful / better exposed / whatever if you shot raw. They have no clue I shoot jpeg and they can't see the difference in the images. And surely it is the images that count?
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Yes, I like the article.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
So editor, what is it that prompts you to select raw?
I think if I was shooting a group of people in a sort of formal setting I might use raw, in the future when I have mastered it that is, because if I overexposed a face or two I could better recover it in PP than if I had used jpeg ....
editor
hiraethified
It's just about impossible to tell the difference between a RAW image and a decently processed JPEG in normal* circumstances. I've sold loads of photos and no one's ever asked about what file format was used to record it.
*regular print, web use etc.
editor
hiraethified
Wedding photos some assignments and maybe some circumstances where I feel I may need extra precise control later. But for the vast majority of the time, I'm firing off JPEGs.
My attitude is that the best post-processing action is to delete and retake the picture, or just forget it. This dates back to my black and white film days when I realised that you can waste a lot of time to try to save a duff image. In those days the saying was 'film is cheap but printing paper expensive.'
fractionMan
Custom Title
I can't be arsed with raw. Tried to care a few times but just didn't. The jpegs out of my pentax were ace and the ones out of the fuji are excellent.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I hadn't heard that one.
But I know Raw shooters now say memory is cheap so if you want jpeg why not shoot raw+jpeg ....
My dslr is about 14 years old, it is quite fast shooting 6mpx jpeg, its max "quality" is 12mpx RAW but the files are massive and the camera slows down enormously.
Ah, but the camera LCD lies. You look at the back of the camera and think you've got one thing, you get back home and look at the image on your PC and you've actually got something else.
I think that comes under the category of "a little local difficulty" You need to calibrate your computer screen. As a quick fix set your camera to underexposee by a third of a stop. Try it.
Last edited:
Johnny Canuck3
Well-Known Member
When I get film images scanned, they're turned into tiffs.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I agree on one aspect, my images on my small lcd on the back of the camera look like little gems, and at that size they are, but when I get back and look at 100% on my PC they often don't look quite as good or sharp. It is worse with a camera phone, on the phone they might look nice but again at 100% I am often disappointed. I think this is an effect of pixel peeping at large size on the computer as much as anything.
No, it's not that. It's actually something Gavin Hoey said in one of his videos, when he was processing an image he'd taken earlier in it, and when he said that I thought to myself "I know exactly what you're talking about".
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I bet they are massive?
Similar threads
