RAW/JPG Article

Started Nov 8, 2012 | Discussions
Yemble
Senior MemberPosts: 2,061
Like?
Re: it's a little more complicated than that
In reply to marike6, Nov 10, 2012

marike6 wrote:

Not sure why you're calling me names,

by "meaningless" I meant "unimportant" in the sense that they are just quick grab shots. I never said family photos, as clearly those are important. Wasn't trying to offend, just trying to distinguish a quick snap for your Facebook page in which you might shoot JPEG for speed vs a landscape image you make with your tripod or a studio portrait with strobes where you'd certainly want to shoot RAW.

But you posting those wonderful images brings up a greater point: Would you rather have those priceless images in JPEG, or a proper DNG or RAW?

Keep digging...

Memories are not "meaningless" and neither are they "unimportant".  In fact I would argue that IQ has little to do with capturing the moment.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
GuyMcKie
Contributing MemberPosts: 534
Like?
Re: One misunderstanding
In reply to ranger604, Nov 10, 2012

From the article:

"As if the above points weren’t enough, what has to be one of my favourite reasons for shooting in RAW is that all image editing is non-destructive.  Unlike a JPEG file, where any changes made to the image are permanent, all changes made to a RAW image are stored in a metadata file associated with the RAW file, leaving the original file untouched.  This means you can never irreparably ruin an image by saving some mistaken changes and also you can go back to an image a few weeks, months or years later and reprocess it, from the original RAW, as your processing skills improve."

The smart jpeg-shooter leaves the original unaltered en save the processed image as a copy. As such jpeg is not more destructive than raw.

Non-destructive means that you don't loose tonal information in the picture, often leading to solarization in a print and irreversible. There are a lot of non-destructive techniques to work on jpeg pictures in photoshop.

After raw conversion what counts is not the original raw format but the outputted format. And it is as easy to create a destructive result with a raw convertor.

A good reason to shoot in raw is not only that you can reprocess later with improved skills (you can do that also with your original jpeg picture) but that you can reprocess it with new and better versions of raw software. You can't update image processor in your camera.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: it's a little more complicated than that
In reply to Yemble, Nov 10, 2012

Yemble wrote:

marike6 wrote:

Not sure why you're calling me names,

by "meaningless" I meant "unimportant" in the sense that they are just quick grab shots. I never said family photos, as clearly those are important. Wasn't trying to offend, just trying to distinguish a quick snap for your Facebook page in which you might shoot JPEG for speed vs a landscape image you make with your tripod or a studio portrait with strobes where you'd certainly want to shoot RAW.

But you posting those wonderful images brings up a greater point: Would you rather have those priceless images in JPEG, or a proper DNG or RAW?

Keep digging...

Memories are not "meaningless" and neither are they "unimportant". In fact I would argue that IQ has little to do with capturing the moment.

I never said memories were meaningless.  I was drawing a distinction between quick snapshots as opposed to serious, carefully composed photography.  Try to keep up.

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads