This shot is what convinced me to shoot in RAW (RX10)

Started Mar 1, 2014 | Discussions thread
sybersitizen Forum Pro • Posts: 11,082

Chris59 wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Chris59 wrote:

sybersitizen wrote:

Chris59 wrote:
... Try removing chromatic aberrations or distortion from a JPEG.

That is perfectly easy to do in post processing, and is even becoming widely supported in-camera. You picked a bad example if you want to highlight drawbacks of shooting JPEGs.

Wrong. JPEGs from in camera have the chromatic aberrations and distortion "removed" from the RAW data before the data is converted into a JPEG.

So what?

Also, removing distortion and other aberrations from a JPEG may be "easy" but it introduces far more digital artefacts than doing it from RAW.

You're grasping at straws. The process works, though you implied it doesn't.

Read the post again. I'm talking about going over old files and removing the aberrations. If you do it with a JPEG not only is the process less successful image quality wise, saving a JPEG after the process brings an inevitable further degradation to the image. This won't happen with RAW.

The "implication" wasn't that the process wouldn't work but that the process is a poor substitute.

So, essentially you are just repeating the position that you don't like PPing JPEGs because they will be saved the second time with some changes in the data (which, BTW, are not necessarily visible even on close inspection if you choose an appropriate compression option). This is a separate complaint from thinking there's something wrong with the lens correction tools that are readily available for JPEGs.

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