Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Photos thread
OP Gary Eickmeier Veteran Member • Posts: 3,479
Re: Still Trying to Convince Myself on RAW

busch wrote:

Why keep trying? If you are getting the reults you want, don't fight it! Seriously!

I believe a properly exposed shot is the key to good JPEG's. I also think a poorly exposed shot can be better worked on if it is RAW. I shoot almost 100% JPEG. With the a77 and some of the others, there is really not much excuse to not properly expose a shot.

This JPEG vs RAW has been going on for ages and will continue for a long time. JPEG engines get better but some don't seem to take that into consideration.

There are those that swear by RAW and those that swear by JPEG. Simply do what makes you happy.

This isn't a feel good question, it is a technical question. I am not seeking approval or permission to shoot either way, just trying to figure out whether it is possible to outprocess the camera and how to do it.

As for RAW being like a camera negative, well not completely. The RAW image still has the ISO amplification in it, and I believe still has the white balance that you put into the settings. In the film days, you shot at the recommended ISO or else had to push process the negative. In digital you can specify the ISO and the "negative" will be exposed properly. In the film days, the White Balance was either daylight or tungsten, and if the actual light was different the printer would compensate with filters.

So the RAW file has some of the corrections already applied but not others. But I can sharpen and set levels and white balsnce and even noise reduction in JPG. Why should I have to attempt to duplicate the camera's noise processing manually before printing?

-- hide signature --

Gary Eickmeier

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