raw+jpeg, a challenge for rx100 owners

Started Sep 2, 2012 | Discussions thread
Robert Deutsch
Forum ProPosts: 10,037Gear list
Like?
Re: Another jpeg vs. RAW comparison
In reply to nordic_light, Sep 3, 2012

Well, it depends on what you consider to be "worthy of mention." Some audiophiles view as important sonic differences that others consider to be trivial, and will spend large amounts of money on equipment that gives them the sound they want. Shooting and processing RAW is just as easy as shooting and processing jpeg (the way I do it, anyway), so if RAW has the potential to be better--by whatever amount--then why not do it? In my first three weeks with the RX100 I shot jpeg only, but now I wish I had those shots in RAW, to see if I could produce better final results. Those shots were also at default Contrast, Saturation, and Sharpness, and now I don't think those are the optimum settings--and, unlike with RAW, these cannot be fully undone.

On the other hand, jpeg for the RX100 includes features that are unique to this format: features that involve optimizing images by taking several pictures and combining them, and extending zoom reach through Clear Image View. My plan is to shoot RAW (not RAW+jpeg, which doesn't allow these jpeg-specific features) but be ready to switch to jpeg when it's needed.

Bob

nordic_light wrote:

Thank you Robert! Your test also confirm what I have already written. I cant see any difference (worthy of mention) between the two. RX100 is really worth a credit for its great jpeg-processing.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow