Reading mode: Light Dark

JPEG or RAW?

Go to last post
You may have opened up a Can of worms with this one. I will say this to you though as to be a bit more neutral than some will be here as far as which way to shoot. Shoot jpeg when and if you want to learn to set your in camera picture style settings to the way you like (adjusting the saturation, sharpness, contrast, tone and using the appropriate style for the task, ex: landscape, standard, etc) and you set your WB for the occasion (whether AWB is enough or if you must manually set it) and then snap away. If you plan on editing your photos, simply shoot in raw which will give you more editing room. No style is better than the other, each has its benefits. Let you be guided on if you feel you want to edit or not. No editing, Jpeg straight from camera is probably easier and better. Editing, shoot raw. Good luck.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
Welcome

When you see wonderful j-peg photos on these forums that yours dont compare to in detail or colour or punch ,realise that these were taken as RAW and converted to J-peg

in the majority of cases.I spent too long shooting Jpegs and being totally frustrated with what I was seeing compared to what were converted images.

Regards
Roger

--
Nikonicon
 
PrasadIndi said:
I'm going to get my first DSLR this week. I have a question about the file formats.

Can anyone please explain me how much control I can have in PP if I shoot JPEG vs RAW?
Click to expand...
As lots of folks have said, the camera shoots RAW and then makes a JPEG. The JPEG is compressed in terms of brightness levels and has some presets (white balance and noise reduction come to mind) incorporated in the conversion. A lot of data is thrown out in the process. The result of this is that if the JPEG looks OK, you're OK. If the JPEG needs fixing, the fix may not be there anymore.

If you're an expert at exposure and have set your camera up so it makes JPEGS that meet your standards, you can shoot JPEG only and get excellent results. There are people that can do this and I admire their skill.

I think that's too hard, especially when the sensor in the camera has so much more range than is expressed in the JPEG. I miss some exposures. I've been taking pictures for more than 50 years and used a Weston Master and a Lunasix and I still miss exposure. So I am absolutely thrilled to be able to save this stuff by using RAW. And since I've gotten Lightroom, there's absolutely no extra effort to it. Just import your shots into Lightroom and take a look at them. If it looks OK, leave it. If it's too light, too dark, too flat, too contrasty, grab a slider and fix it.

So my experience is that, with the right software, RAW is easier than JPEG and produces better results.

--
Leonard Migliore
 
Rakumi said:
You may have opened up a Can of worms with this one. I will say this to you though as to be a bit more neutral than some will be here as far as which way to shoot. Shoot jpeg when and if you want to learn to set your in camera picture style settings to the way you like (adjusting the saturation, sharpness, contrast, tone and using the appropriate style for the task, ex: landscape, standard, etc) and you set your WB for the occasion (whether AWB is enough or if you must manually set it) and then snap away. If you plan on editing your photos, simply shoot in raw which will give you more editing room. No style is better than the other, each has its benefits. Let you be guided on if you feel you want to edit or not. No editing, Jpeg straight from camera is probably easier and better. Editing, shoot raw. Good luck.
--
Click to expand...
As for opening up a can of worms... It is one thing to be "a bit more neutral" but it is quite another to be incorrect.

Shooting JPEG doesn't only mean making all those settings on your camera you mention (as well as sharpness and noise reduction) correctly (and without being able to see the result before you take the photo) but to do so for every shot. The reason is that each shot will require a different "treatment" to look its best and this cannot be evaluated properly until after the shot is taken. Apart from that, many shots can benefit from different treatments, say colour or monochrome - you cannot do that with JPEG!

As for "no style is better than the other", you couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, JPEG and RAW aren't "styles" they are file types. JPEG is a lossy and poor image file created by the camera in about a tenth of a second from the data the sensor has captured, RAW is the unadulterated data itself.

JPEG image files created during post processing, even without any adjustments, are superior to JPEGs created in the camera in resolution, contrast and colour. Once you start making adjustments to your images (and I contend that 99% of images will require adjustment to look their best no matter how careful you are), then it is no contest, RAW is easier, quicker and produces images without degradation.
Rakumi said:
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
Click to expand...
 
Leonard Migliore said:
If you're an expert at exposure and have set your camera up so it makes JPEGS that meet your standards, you can shoot JPEG only and get excellent results. There are people that can do this and I admire their skill.
Click to expand...
Agree with all your points regarding RAW. I would also like to add that I would rather be free to concentrate on composition, lighting, framing, subject, focal length, focus, correct aperture and all the other things that are truly important to a photo, than the stuff I can correct later.

As for the skill to be able to do the camera settings correctly, that is admirable but I put it to you and others, that this is a skill which can be mastered better during post processing RAW images where you can see exactly and immediately the effect of increasing or reducing contrast, saturation, noise reduction, sharpness and so on rather "guessing" the correct settings in a field situation.
 
Chris59 said:
Rakumi said:
You may have opened up a Can of worms with this one. I will say this to you though as to be a bit more neutral than some will be here as far as which way to shoot. Shoot jpeg when and if you want to learn to set your in camera picture style settings to the way you like (adjusting the saturation, sharpness, contrast, tone and using the appropriate style for the task, ex: landscape, standard, etc) and you set your WB for the occasion (whether AWB is enough or if you must manually set it) and then snap away. If you plan on editing your photos, simply shoot in raw which will give you more editing room. No style is better than the other, each has its benefits. Let you be guided on if you feel you want to edit or not. No editing, Jpeg straight from camera is probably easier and better. Editing, shoot raw. Good luck.
--
Click to expand...
As for opening up a can of worms... It is one thing to be "a bit more neutral" but it is quite another to be incorrect.

Shooting JPEG doesn't only mean making all those settings on your camera you mention (as well as sharpness and noise reduction) correctly (and without being able to see the result before you take the photo) but to do so for every shot. The reason is that each shot will require a different "treatment" to look its best and this cannot be evaluated properly until after the shot is taken. Apart from that, many shots can benefit from different treatments, say colour or monochrome - you cannot do that with JPEG!

As for "no style is better than the other", you couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, JPEG and RAW aren't "styles" they are file types. JPEG is a lossy and poor image file created by the camera in about a tenth of a second from the data the sensor has captured, RAW is the unadulterated data itself.

JPEG image files created during post processing, even without any adjustments, are superior to JPEGs created in the camera in resolution, contrast and colour. Once you start making adjustments to your images (and I contend that 99% of images will require adjustment to look their best no matter how careful you are), then it is no contest, RAW is easier, quicker and produces images without degradation.
Chris59 said:
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Shooting in jpeg from the camera is like riding a multi gear bike. There is a lot of shifting per picture but some get use to this and prefer this over pp. Also you are wrong thinking one format is better than the other. It all depends on what the shooter likes to shoot. You cant say shooting raw is better for a person who hates pp and it cant be said jpeg is better for a person who is a master at photoshop. You seem to be one of those who thinks "My way is best" and that is why threads about jpegs and raw become battles.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
Rakumi said:
Chris59 said:
Rakumi said:
You may have opened up a Can of worms with this one. I will say this to you though as to be a bit more neutral than some will be here as far as which way to shoot. Shoot jpeg when and if you want to learn to set your in camera picture style settings to the way you like (adjusting the saturation, sharpness, contrast, tone and using the appropriate style for the task, ex: landscape, standard, etc) and you set your WB for the occasion (whether AWB is enough or if you must manually set it) and then snap away. If you plan on editing your photos, simply shoot in raw which will give you more editing room. No style is better than the other, each has its benefits. Let you be guided on if you feel you want to edit or not. No editing, Jpeg straight from camera is probably easier and better. Editing, shoot raw. Good luck.
--
Click to expand...
As for opening up a can of worms... It is one thing to be "a bit more neutral" but it is quite another to be incorrect.

Shooting JPEG doesn't only mean making all those settings on your camera you mention (as well as sharpness and noise reduction) correctly (and without being able to see the result before you take the photo) but to do so for every shot. The reason is that each shot will require a different "treatment" to look its best and this cannot be evaluated properly until after the shot is taken. Apart from that, many shots can benefit from different treatments, say colour or monochrome - you cannot do that with JPEG!

As for "no style is better than the other", you couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, JPEG and RAW aren't "styles" they are file types. JPEG is a lossy and poor image file created by the camera in about a tenth of a second from the data the sensor has captured, RAW is the unadulterated data itself.

JPEG image files created during post processing, even without any adjustments, are superior to JPEGs created in the camera in resolution, contrast and colour. Once you start making adjustments to your images (and I contend that 99% of images will require adjustment to look their best no matter how careful you are), then it is no contest, RAW is easier, quicker and produces images without degradation.
Rakumi said:
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Shooting in jpeg from the camera is like riding a multi gear bike. There is a lot of shifting per picture but some get use to this and prefer this over pp. Also you are wrong thinking one format is better than the other. It all depends on what the shooter likes to shoot. You cant say shooting raw is better for a person who hates pp and it cant be said jpeg is better for a person who is a master at photoshop. You seem to be one of those who thinks "My way is best" and that is why threads about jpegs and raw become battles.
--
Click to expand...
Sorry, no. Shooting in JPEG is not like riding a multi-gear bike and the two are not image "formats". You are also absolutely incorrect to say that JPEG and RAW are in any way equivalent.

It is also wrong headed to say that RAW is not better than JPEG for people who hate post processing. Who says RAW images need post processing? - they don't, all they need is converting. You see, shooting and saving RAW doesn't mean you can't fiddle with the camera settings for every photograph just like JPEG. The only difference is that the images are better (more detailed, better colour, better contrast) when converted outside the camera. RAW files don't need to go anywhere near Photoshop!

I suggest you learn what it is you are talking about because it is clear from your posts that you don't. It isn't an issue of whose way is "best" but a fundamental lack of understanding of what JPEG and RAW are. Bottom line is that there is nothing you can do with JPEGs that you cannot do better with RAW and there is no need to post process RAW images if you don't want to.
Rakumi said:
Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
Click to expand...
 
in your attempt to prove raw is the end all of all things, you are missing the point being made. The point is you cant tell somebody their preference of settings is not better than a form they choose not to use. If a person likes shooting jpeg and not raw, then jpeg is better for them. You are just looking to prove raw is great and that has nothing to do with what i was talking about. If a person says they like apples better than oranges, even if you debate oranges are healthier from your point of view, still does not change the fact another person may simply still like apples.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
Rakumi said:
in your attempt to prove raw is the end all of all things, you are missing the point being made. The point is you cant tell somebody their preference of settings is not better than a form they choose not to use. If a person likes shooting jpeg and not raw, then jpeg is better for them. You are just looking to prove raw is great and that has nothing to do with what i was talking about. If a person says they like apples better than oranges, even if you debate oranges are healthier from your point of view, still does not change the fact another person may simply still like apples.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
Click to expand...
If the point you are making is that JPEG is good if you want to shoot JPEG there is no point to make. You are also wrong (that is not too strong a word) to argue that JPEG is like a multi speed bike or that JPEG and RAW are like apples and oranges. They are none of those things - one is an image file created by the camera using the settings made while the other is a data file containing all the information captured by the sensor.

I am not debating that oranges are healthier than apples to someone who likes apples either. What I am saying is that there are no advantages to shooting JPEGs except for the minor ones of maximising the number of images your memory card can hold, being able to send your images through the internet without converting them first, (great for paparazzi) and for recording a longer burst of images in multishot mode.

It is obvious to me that you have never shot RAW and converted to JPEG (or TIFF) or you wouldn't be using such asinine analogies as bikes and apples and oranges. Do yourself a favour, try RAW and see for yourself - it isn't a matter of personal choice when it comes to image quality. Purely and simply if you want the best images, shoot RAW. If you are too frightened by an imagined complexity or you have no desire to learn, perhaps then you should stay within your comfort zone and have nothing to do with RAW except to disparage what you don't understand.

To the beginners I repeat, there is nothing to be gained by shooting JPEGs and nothing to lose but much to gain from shooting RAW. Don't let those who wish to prolong a battle of their own making by pretending that it is only a matter of personal choice between two equivalent "styles" fool you. In the words of JFK - we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
 
Well said. Good response. I wish that those with no idea what RAW is would try it before commenting on it.
 
I never said Jpeg was better. And you made a point I was saying from the beginning, and that is that jpeg has some advantages and those advantages might appeal to a shooter. If a person shoots both raw and jpeg and process his raw and it comes out looking as good to him as his jpeg, he might decide he will just shoot jpeg. If it suits him, why argue with what a person likes and enjoys. Especially if the person feels it saves time. You were mistaken thinking I was taking a side on any of this. I was not saying jpeg was better... but you decided to say raw was better. I have shot raw and I have shot jpeg. And as a shooter who has shot both... I prefer jpeg. I am not making the argument jpeg has better quality. I really do not care. If I feel the need to bring out the best of my pictures, i will experiment with any process necessary to achieve that, and this includes shoot raw and pp. But if I am in the mood to just snap away just for the sake of having the moment or recalling the scene and if I am happy with the way my jpeg came out, nobody can dispute that I am happy with it. Nor can somebody tell me raw would be better if I say I like shooting jpeg. So the point simple is that some people like shooting in different formats and there is nothing wrong with that. One is not better than the other in the aspect that they both have they pros and cons and if you are not comparing them directly for their pros and cons, both are good in their own way.
Chris59 said:
Rakumi said:
in your attempt to prove raw is the end all of all things, you are missing the point being made. The point is you cant tell somebody their preference of settings is not better than a form they choose not to use. If a person likes shooting jpeg and not raw, then jpeg is better for them. You are just looking to prove raw is great and that has nothing to do with what i was talking about. If a person says they like apples better than oranges, even if you debate oranges are healthier from your point of view, still does not change the fact another person may simply still like apples.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
Click to expand...
If the point you are making is that JPEG is good if you want to shoot JPEG there is no point to make. You are also wrong (that is not too strong a word) to argue that JPEG is like a multi speed bike or that JPEG and RAW are like apples and oranges. They are none of those things - one is an image file created by the camera using the settings made while the other is a data file containing all the information captured by the sensor.

I am not debating that oranges are healthier than apples to someone who likes apples either. What I am saying is that there are no advantages to shooting JPEGs except for the minor ones of maximising the number of images your memory card can hold, being able to send your images through the internet without converting them first, (great for paparazzi) and for recording a longer burst of images in multishot mode.

It is obvious to me that you have never shot RAW and converted to JPEG (or TIFF) or you wouldn't be using such asinine analogies as bikes and apples and oranges. Do yourself a favour, try RAW and see for yourself - it isn't a matter of personal choice when it comes to image quality. Purely and simply if you want the best images, shoot RAW. If you are too frightened by an imagined complexity or you have no desire to learn, perhaps then you should stay within your comfort zone and have nothing to do with RAW except to disparage what you don't understand.

To the beginners I repeat, there is nothing to be gained by shooting JPEGs and nothing to lose but much to gain from shooting RAW. Don't let those who wish to prolong a battle of their own making by pretending that it is only a matter of personal choice between two equivalent "styles" fool you. In the words of JFK - we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Click to expand...
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
Don't be mistaken... I never said Raw was bad. I do not know if you had a chance to check out the beginning of what I said before he started dogging it. But I simply said some like shooting jpeg and some like shooting raw and one is not better than the other if you have your reasons for shooting that particular way. This is not a debate whether one is better than the other IQ wise or how the shots come out. I was simply saying for the reasons jpeg is better might be the reasons one shoots that way. For the reasons raw is better is the reasons why a person would shoot that way.
MarkNicholas said:
Well said. Good response. I wish that those with no idea what RAW is would try it before commenting on it.
Click to expand...
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.
 
Chris59 said:
[body of message snipped]
In the words of JFK - we have nothing to fear but fear itself.
Click to expand...
It was FDR.

Everything else was right.
--
Leonard Migliore
 
Of course if you prefer to let the camera create your jpegs using the same camera settings then that is up to you. This forum is for beginners and the OP has raised a valid query. The OP is entitled to be advised of the severe limitations of letting the camera create Jpegs and the benefits of keeping the RAW data.

The creation of Jpegs (and other formats) from the RAW data on the computer using your chosen software is called RAW conversion / development. Post processing is the attempted manipulation of Jpegs that have been created by the camera.

The only advantages to allowing the camera to create Jpegs (if you can in fact call it an advantage) are increased burst rates, less storage and a more instantaneous file to distribute. None of these so called advantages are likely to get even close to outweighing the advantages of RAW.
 
Nicely put, Chris. Also, there are many times when we expose in the field, knowing we're going to have to adjust later during processing. There might be times when we just can't capture the image properly in the field because it is technologically impossible, so we expose for part of the image knowing we can bring the other part out later. When shooting Jpeg, that's impossible.

Some JPeg shooters like to say they want to "get it right" in the camera. That is often impossible. One can more often "get it right" when one knows how to process later. The entire process from pressing the button to final display is often needed to get the image right.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile
 
Rakumi said:
Nor can somebody tell me raw would be better if I say I like shooting jpeg. So the point simple is that some people like shooting in different formats and there is nothing wrong with that. One is not better than the other in the aspect that they both have they pros and cons and if you are not comparing them directly for their pros and cons, both are good in their own way.
Click to expand...
You're right. If you are satified with your Jpegs, you're done. There are many snap shooters who are not critical of their work and who are satified not getting all they can from the image. This is a hobby. Many photographers are not computer savvy. They don't want to learn how to use software. They may not have the time. Photography may not be a serious passion. Who knows? Look how many point and shoots are sold compared to DSLRs. Few of those people really care about getting the most out of the image. They care about recording the event for later viewing.

Also, a Jpeg shooter can often get a great image where the camera settins just happened to be exactly what they wanted. Some of the better cameras do ok at Jpeg processing and RAW conversion. It's nowhere near as accurate is doing it yourself but it's faster. Some professional wedding photographers don't have the time to carefully process each and every image. If it's good enough for the client, it's good enough.

It's a bit like 18-200 and 18-270 lenses. They certainly aren't the best optics in the world, but they might be good enough to get by for many photographers. Snapping off shots in JPeg with a super ratio zoom may meet all some camera owners expectations and might be better than their old point and shoot could do. I personally advise this to many beginners when they express an interest in not willing to really learn the craft or not really having the passion to learn it all.

The only ones I feel a bit of pity for are the computer illiterate people who shoot Jpeg and justify this with all kinds of reasons when the real reason is they are uncomfortable with using the software and learning how to use a computer. I'd guess those types are probably rare on an internet forum, though. In a beginners class I've often taught, I find those types and try to enroll them in a computer class or two. I sometimes teach computers and Internet for free at a retirement center here in town. I've convinced many an elderly person to get into Adobe Photoshop Elements where they've had a ball, once learned. They just need initial help. They are often quite smart and quite lucid.

There are also those folks who have tried to process RAW but for some reason or another just don't get the hang of it and end up with either ruined images or images that look the same as the Jpegs. Many of those people have just given up and again make excuses for shooting JPeg. I'd ask those to maybe join a photo club and get some help with mastering the software. Some of those were using poor and often free software and never really learned it. Again Elements can help those folks with a really inexpensive and easy package.

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile
 
Rakumi said:
Shooting in jpeg from the camera is like riding a multi gear bike. There is a lot of shifting per picture but some get use to this and prefer this over pp. Also you are wrong thinking one format is better than the other. It all depends on what the shooter likes to shoot. You cant say shooting raw is better for a person who hates pp and it cant be said jpeg is better for a person who is a master at photoshop. You seem to be one of those who thinks "My way is best" and that is why threads about jpegs and raw become battles.
Click to expand...
Rakumi, you are right in many ways, but I think miss a point about this. It's really not about shooting RAW vs. JPeg or even that RAW is an Image format. It's not, and everyone shoots RAW. It's what happens after you shoot a RAW file.

Is it better to let the somewhat trivial software in your camera do the RAW converson and editing then Jpeg storage or is it better for the photographer to take control of those parts of photography. Either way it is after the shutter button is pressed. The person who is going to develop his/her own image from a RAW file needs to be a little more concerned at the button pressing time, often making decisions that affect how he/she is going to process it.

But the point is that it's not Apples and Oranges. They are not equivalent things that can be compared like that. Using Paint Shop Pro or Photoshop CS5 would be like Apples and Oranges. Shooting and letting the camera the last half of image creation is lke a subset of the enitre process where you take part in all of it. It's more like comparing half an apple with a whole apple.

Still, I have zero problems with folks who have decided that they don't want to learn or don't have the time with learning to do that part of photography. I only have issue with it when those people seem to express that shooting Jpeg is somehow purer because it's "right from the camera" or they think they are "getting it right" in the camera. To me, that's when it shows they really don't understand the digital workflow. Shooting Jpeg just is not taking part in anything after the button press. That's all. No big deal. No war.

I've seen some awefully nice images done by people who are just shooting Jpeg. I think they could do better if they learned the other half, but that's up to them. So, I don't look down on Jpeg shooters. I understand the issues they face. I think it's too bad. I wish I could have an hour with them and Elements with a RAW file they took and a couple of cold drinks coupled with a friendly attitude, but that's not going to happen.

Finally, for beginners, shooting RAW and learning that is really not an issue. It's so easy these days and Adobe Elements is so trivial to learn that it is no more complex than resizing a Jpeg for emailing. There is simply no reason for a beginner not to start right off shooting RAW if they wish. It might be even better in that they can see what is possible and not get discouraged. I don't know. That would be another debate.

When people who don't process tell beginners that it's too hard and they should concentrate on the button pressing part, I wonder at the motive. Since they don't really know how to process productively, who are they to tell a beginner that it's too hard to learn? How do they know? ;)

--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile
 
Guidenet said:
Still, I have zero problems with folks who have decided that they don't want to learn or don't have the time with learning to do that part of photography. I only have issue with it when those people seem to express that shooting Jpeg is somehow purer because it's "right from the camera" or they think they are "getting it right" in the camera. To me, that's when it shows they really don't understand the digital workflow. Shooting Jpeg just is not taking part in anything after the button press. That's all. No big deal. No war.
Click to expand...
You are too nice Craig ;)

While I generally agree with what you say above... I do have an issue with a sub set of JPEG shooters. Those are the ones that look down on RAW shooters saying, essentially, that we're lazy unskilled photographers that resort to tricks (RAW and post processing) because we cannot "get it right in the camera"... like we do not know how to expose properly yada yada yada.

I'm only talking about a small minority of "purists"... most JPEG shooters are nice enough people :)

--
Ciao!
Roberto

My photos: http://www.robertodemicheli.com
 
Guidenet said:
Nicely put, Chris. Also, there are many times when we expose in the field, knowing we're going to have to adjust later during processing. There might be times when we just can't capture the image properly in the field because it is technologically impossible, so we expose for part of the image knowing we can bring the other part out later. When shooting Jpeg, that's impossible.

Some JPeg shooters like to say they want to "get it right" in the camera. That is often impossible. One can more often "get it right" when one knows how to process later. The entire process from pressing the button to final display is often needed to get the image right.
--
Cheers, Craig

Equipment in Plan via Profile
Click to expand...
I agree. The thing that gets me is how on Earth can you make a valid decision about how much and what kind of noise reduction to a JPEG before taking the photo. How do you set white balance in a situation where your eyes have adjusted to the ambient light? How do you know how much sharpness to dial in? These are of course rhetorical questions...

The other thing that worries me is that photographers who obssess about "getting it right" in the camera, may well try to ensure the settings are exactly as they want before the shot, but it takes so much time that the moment or the subject has gone.

For the beginner in today's digital world listening to someone who grew up with film, getting it right in the camera it may sound like a good idea, but the reality is actually quite different.

When you come down to it, what is it we fiddle with when we play around with RAW files? - colour saturation, colour or white balance, contrast, picture "style" sharpness, noisiness and so on - all things the old film SLR user never had to worry about because he was locked into using the film he chose when he put it in the camera! Think about it - all the camera settings JPEG shooters are fiddling with are things film photographers (who a lot of them are trying to emulate) never had to bother with.

As for me, I'll repeat for all the beginners reading this - concentrate on the things that matter when taking photos - subject matter, composition, focal length, aperture, shutter speed, focus and capturing the critical moment. Leave all those things that can be altered until later and save the RAW file so that you can make all the alterations you want or need without any degradation in image quality.

Okay, I'll get off my soapbox now :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top