tell the truth: Try shooting JPG ,, 99 per cent as good as Raw. A lot less work ,, and I find it JUST BETTER than RAW.. Also JUST dont buy adobe . NoMAM NO More adobe MODE.
Every time I'm tempted to go back to JPG I remember the table in this article:
Even though JPGs can look very very good these days, you lose a lot of subtle levels in them over RAW. For snapshots, or web use that may not matter at all - but for anything you really want to be able to process to get the best out of, that detail is gone. You can "paint it back in" if you're good enough, but you're then becoming a digital artist, not a photographer.
JPG has it's place for sure - but RAW cannot be thrown away for the images that really matter.
If you look at the table you'll realise in the fine details, it's not even 50% as good let alone 99% as good. It's a trick of the eye. It may be "99% good enough" but it is nowhere near that close in the bits and bytes
don_van_vliet: Market research for Adobe?
Seems likely to be .... and they already got the answer.
Go this way ... and go the way of the dinosaur.
"Cloud" services are one thing - subscription pricing is different. A lot of people may be ok with the former, far fewer the latter IMO.
I look forward to Google Lightroom - a free cloud based RAW handling service
Adobe has done a wonderful thing here .... for their competitors.
I look forward to seeing what pricing and new features they bring to the market for the serious amateurs and home enthusiasts. Pros might be able to justify continual payment, but I'll bet most won't and will look elsewhere.
Nice one Adobe!
Debankur Mukherjee: Cant understand what Nikon and Samsung want to do with this, if they are serious then why don't they put a phone in it............
Maybe not a phone in conventional sense - but if it has 3g/4g and Android you have Skype, numerous VoIP solutions (which actually I find better than Skype), plus WhatsApp (which I also prefer to SMS).
Conventional phone - no - phone of the future, maybe IMO
You're joking right?
.... a 3G + Wi-Fi model and a 4G + Wi-Fi variant (carrier and regional information TBC) ....
imbsysop: Not sure what the point of this article is. IMHO, The HDR concept has gotten a nasty smell by making it an equivalent of throwing in over saturated, Disney cartoon colors and telling the people that this should be their goal. Ban the cursed tone mapping! I do not need more lollypop colors in my pictures, I need a larger dynamic range! ergo a larger span to capture black to white. & BTW the Iceland picture??? heck, I've been in Scotland on many occasions and I've seen similar landscapes under many kinds of "light" but I've never seen one like this ... (unless it was taken on Mars of course ...) extended technology promoted to an art(?) aberration?
I've been to Iceland twice - and both times failed to capture the range of colours from the volcanic terrain, much to my disappointment.
I agree this photo does not look very realistic as a whole - seems over softened in places at the very least. But the colours are a darned sight closer to what the eye sees when there than I managed without HDR,