The RAW vs JPEG debate

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
seilerbird666
Senior MemberPosts: 1,101
Like?
Re: The RAW vs JPEG debate
In reply to Alfred Molon, Nov 18, 2012

Alfred Molon wrote:

seilerbird666 wrote:

That is pure fantasy. Just about every out of camera jpg I see needs post processing. It is not that in camera jpgs are useless trash. That is a stupid statement. In camera jpgs can almost always be improved by post processing. Which is why so many people shoot RAW. It improves what comes out of the camera. If you are happy with your in camera jpgs then I am happy for you. But you need to understand that many people have much higher standards than you do.

My standards *are* high. But you seem to overdo it sometimes:

https://picasaweb.google.com/SeilerBird/2005#5612874643375028594

This photo has too much contrast and saturation. The colours in fact are psychedelic.

It's one of the problems with post-processing RAWs: if you are not very careful you end up with images which are too "perfect" and look innatural.

It is too bad you really don't have a clue as to what you are talking about. The image you referenced was taken in 2005 by a Kodak DX6490 point and shoot camera that is NOT EVEN CAPABLE OF PRODUCING A RAW IMAGE. It is a 4 megapixel camera and that is a jpg straight out of camera. It really needs some post processing because the colors are too bright. Now you have proven my point. Jpgs straight out of the camera need post processing. The shot was taken two years before I started shooting RAW.

And by the way genius. Innatural is not a word. Unnatural is. Turn on your spell checker.

-- hide signature --

My photos:
picasaweb.google.com/seilerbird

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Huh?New
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow