POLL: How often do you shoot raw images?

Started May 1, 2014 | Polls thread
Darrell Spreen Forum Pro • Posts: 10,455
Re: May I offer a comment (and an example)

nicodimus22 wrote:

A couple of thoughts:

-I really wasn't trying to offend anyone. I have only been shooting RAW for 3 months, and have many more years of experience shooting and editing JPEGs, and I just offered my opinion as someone who has worked with both.

-Bear in mind with the image of the owl that you're not editing an OOC JPEG...you're editing a JPEG that was produced from a RAW file. An OOC JPEG would be slightly lower quality, and have more artifacts produced by the camera.

This image is unusable in my opinion:

It's just too dark, noisy, and small.

Even the image I showed is borderline unusable to me:

This was not meant to wow anyone with awesome image quality, it was just meant to demonstrate the 'safety net' aspect of shooting RAW. I don't feel that I have exaggerated or made any misleading statements in this thread. There are advantages to both formats, and there are disadvantages to both. I would not disparage anyone for using one or the other. Having tried both, I prefer RAW because it gives me more margin for error, and slightly better image quality. YMMV.

Now I guess I'm annoyed as this is turning into quibbling -- we both know that the image you displayed in your post has to be a JPEG -- whether you used a raw converter to create it or whether the camera's JPEG engine converted its internal raw file to create the JPEG is pretty much immaterial.  It will contain JPEG artifacts wherever it was done and they may be insignificantly different -- you simply don't know.  JPEG compression is a standard.  No need to suggest the manufacturer doesn't know how to do JPEG compression well.

Small?  The image I posted is identical to the size I downloaded.  And, on my monitor (calibrated NEC) I feel my version is about as usable than yours, which also shows many artifacts and noise due to the dark original conditions.  Yes, the owl was actually in a dark environment and perhaps I may have showed it more accurately in that respect.  I was not trying to match your rendering.

The whole point of my involvement in this exchange is to demonstrate that your original posted JPEG was not so dark that there is nothing to be recovered; that is simply wrong and you did nothing to illustrate or even suggest what could be done.  That is what I consider to be misleading.  You may perfer your pp of your raw file -- fine, but that is missing the point.

-- hide signature --



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