RAW heresy?

Started Sep 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
nannyg Senior Member • Posts: 1,749
Re: Maybe Raw's better, if you're better than Sony...

wansai wrote:

So many people aregueing about the merits of jpeg vs RAW and vice versa when it is all so very, very simple.

1. If you're happy with the way the camera processes your photo, shoot in jpeg.

2. If you're unhappy with OOC jpegs & have a distinct vision of what your images should look like, Shoot RAW.

3. Shoot RAW + Jpeg & use which ever suits your fancy.

I always check my jpegs first. Sometimes, it only requires minor touchup and it's usable. Most times, I require RAW but I always shoot both primarily because I have a particular processing style I prefer over the camera (and I can squeeze out extra detail) and RAW is, to me, easier to work with.

Now here's the biggest problem. RAW IS NOT easy to work with right from the get go. You need computing power for it. A lot of RAM. A lot of disk space. You also have to shoot the way you plan to process in advance.

THEN there's the problem of figuring out the millions of ways to use the sliders and how they all work together. IF you haven't or don't know what you want out of the RAW file, even if you know how to work the sliders, the Jpegs will still be superior due to it being the safest method. Most of the time the JPEGS are balanced fairly well and are pleasant.

Learning to process RAW is very time consuming. It only stops being time consuming if and when you start building out your presets. By that point, it's faster than modding the Jpegs for any particular vision.

For a person who is happy with their OOC jpegs, there's little point in editing RAW.

That may well be the most reasonable statement regarding the RAW vs. JPEG issue I have ever read.

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