The RAW vs JPEG debate

Started Nov 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
seilerbird666 Senior Member • Posts: 1,101
Re: The RAW vs JPEG debate

Alfred Molon wrote

I simply stated that that specific image was overdone, with way too much saturation and that kind of overprocessed look, like you have put in a lot of effort to make it look great and now it looks too "great".

This is one of the problems with RAW: if you are not very careful, you risk ending up with images which just look unnatural.

You just don't get it. That is one of the huge advantages of RAW is that I can process the image to look exactly the way I want it to look. I think the image looks great considering the situation that I was shooting in.

If you set up your camera properly, you will find out that in many cases the JPEG output is so good, that it's pointless to even try to improve it further. Not in all cases of course, and this is why I shoot RAW+JPEG.

Maybe you think that way but that is not the way I see it. Almost every jpg shot I see can be improved with proper post processing. I asked you to post an out of jpg shot you have taken that cannot be improved by post processing and you naturally completely ignored my request. I notice you have no shots posted in your gallery. It takes a lot of guts to criticize someone else's work and then refuse to post your shots, which are obviously much better than my shots.

By the way, please stop using offensive language and name calling.

I have not used any offensive language and I have not called anyone a name.

-- hide signature --

My photos:

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