RAW heresy?

Started Sep 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
mike winslow
mike winslow Contributing Member • Posts: 561
Re: RAW heresy?

(Thank you - for the examples..)

Incredible how people are arguing that an irreversible in-camera transformation where information content is discarded is somehow equivalent to the original exposure..  Maybe a side-by-side comparison of a few hard situations with in-camera process compared to what was developed out of the RAW..  JPEGs are great most of the time, but there are times where it's just not as good.

I think that there are allot of people who want to understand the fine points, but this thread has really gotten cluttered with allot of strange commentary.

It's really simple. There is less information in a JPEG, it's compressed for crying out loud.

It's nice to have the original and not a degraded copy sometimes..

-- hide signature --


 mike winslow's gear list:mike winslow's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX10 Sony Alpha NEX-F3 Sony a6000
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow