RAW Troublemaker Again

Started 11 months ago | Discussions thread
stevo23
Senior MemberPosts: 3,155Gear list
Like?
Re: Do you really have to RAW??
In reply to Clayton1985, 11 months ago

Clayton1985 wrote:

splashy wrote:

I didn't read the whole thread, but in the A99 book Gary Friedman writes about the Raw question,

only use Raw when you need a backup or if something goes wrong (lighting)

Chapter 15 of my A99 book doesn't say that at all. In fact, it does a pretty good job of explaining the differences and the pros and cons of shooting raw or jpg.

There are certainly valid reasons for shooting jpg but it hasn't nothing to do with the jpg magically being better. It has to do with time, file size, desire to PP, lack of PP skill, etc.

A photographer of Nat Geog. got complains of the people processing his RAW images, they had a hard time producing the same quality of jpg's out of a Raw, the camera makes in seconds.

No one is saying you have to shoot raw to get results you are happy with. And if the Nat Geog. photographer can't get people to process his raw images to equal or surpass the jpgs then either fire them and hire someone else or use the jpgs....... it's really not that complicated. Raw only gives you the potential to produce equal or better results... if you screw it up then don't blame the raw file. But the "people processing his RAW images" shouldn't be confused with any and all people.

Raw + jpeg setting was created for journalists specifically for this reason. They save the Raw for awards, cover shots etc. The jpeg is "good enough" and requires less bandwidth to transmit overseas as well as being easier for service bureaus to process at the 11th hour. They don't have time to make it better, just good enough. In fact, this is a great example of why one would shoot one or the other.

But to the OP - it was implied that sometimes, jpeg is better, so shoot both - as if the jpeg somehow contains something that the RAW does not. This is incorrect. The jpeg that you get comes from that very RAW and noise reduction, CA reduction etc. is all being applied in camera. With the RAW, most of those things are not being done. It can be better straight out of the camera and one would expect so. But the potential is always greater, by definition, that RAW can at least match that jpeg. In reality, I've always found it possible to beat the jpeg. There isn't enough headroom in the jpeg. So you take your 11.5 stop DSLR and chop it down to something like 8? I don't know exactly.

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