That RAW Troublemaker Again With Files

Started Sep 2, 2013 | Discussions thread
Allan Olesen
Senior MemberPosts: 2,255
Like?
Re: Or....
In reply to Claudio Galli, Sep 4, 2013

Claudio Galli wrote:

Clayton1985 wrote:

I may have missed it but I didn't see anyone saying this...

I have only said that it was my feeling. Not that somebody said this.

"This" obviously refer to what follows below (which is very important for context):

the original point made by the OP (with an example to show exactly what he considered better) was that "sometimes the jpg is better"

In other words:

In the two threads started by Mr. Eckmeier, the topic is not the usual raw vs. JPG discussion which is usually centered around whether anyone needs the extra quality of raw, or whether this extra quality even exists. The topic here is much more controversial:

Can the JPG file in a raw+JPG set result in a final quality that would not be possible with the raw file from the same set?

My answer is: "Obviously no!". You can alway take the raw file, run it through Sony's raw converter and get a JPG file which is equal to the JPG from the raw+JPG set.

From that point you can do anything with this converted file that you would do with the JPG from the raw+JPG set and end up with the same final quality.

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