Regardless of that or other videos, I have been using digital cameras since 2002, and I have never shot a RAW image, be it a Fuji, Nikon, Canon or Olympus camera.
I've definitely seen examples of people doing impressive things with challenging photos by post processing. OTOH years ago a friend of mine went on a trip and shot all raw since he'd heard it was better, and got back and had no idea what to do & was surprised to realize he had no way to view the photos.
I use raw so I can try the other film sims later.
For modest adjustments to a .jpg, the Fast Stone viewer is great. It has brightness, shadow, highlight, gamma, contrast, and saturation sliders among others. It does not have white balance directly; for that, you can play with its R,G,B sliders or curves. It's effective, and it is a good way to develop a feel for color relationships.
I didn't listen to his entire presentation but chances are I'd agree with most of what he said.
Well, with all the JPG-ites weighing in here, I feel the other group of dedicated RAW-philes needs at least a little representation.I didn't listen to his entire presentation but chances are I'd agree with most of what he said.
First, I have to say that I don't buy any camera without reading a couple of trusted professional reviews and if the reviewer says something like "to get best results shoot raw" I immediately cross that camera off my want list.
Second, and this is just an opinion, I think JPEG post-process programs have improved so much that almost anything that can be done with a raw image can also be done with a JPEG image. The one exception may still be White Balance but even that can be done, to a certain extent, with JPEG.
DPR has said, in the past, that Fuji JPEG files are so good that shooting raw is much less important unless you're concerned about white balance issues and I agree with that because the white balance is much easier to correct with a raw image than with a JPEG image.
I still shoot raw + JPEG because I see no reason not to but I'll admit that 9 times out of 10 I end up using/processing the JPEG image. I never use an image straight out of the camera.
Just the same, everyone is different and however they shoot or whether they process their images or not, as long as they're happy with the results that's all that matters.
It’s important to note that processing and resaving a JPG file is a destructive process with some data lost each time it’s saved (which admittedly may be insignificant with respect to the finished product). Subsequent saves will result in more lost data, should that become necessary. Working with RAW files ensures that the integrity of the originally captured data is never compromised or lost due to file compression. So, for me, working with RAW files gives me the ability to revisit post processing iteratively (due to missed issues seen later or newer versions of PP software that offer better editing options) without worrying about compromising IQ in any way. Also, as was pointed out, some changes like WB are extremely difficult to accomplish with JPGs, while very simple and straightforward when done from RAW files.Agreed!Well, with all the JPG-ites weighing in here, I feel the other group of dedicated RAW-philes needs at least a little representation.I didn't listen to his entire presentation but chances are I'd agree with most of what he said.
First, I have to say that I don't buy any camera without reading a couple of trusted professional reviews and if the reviewer says something like "to get best results shoot raw" I immediately cross that camera off my want list.
Second, and this is just an opinion, I think JPEG post-process programs have improved so much that almost anything that can be done with a raw image can also be done with a JPEG image. The one exception may still be White Balance but even that can be done, to a certain extent, with JPEG.
DPR has said, in the past, that Fuji JPEG files are so good that shooting raw is much less important unless you're concerned about white balance issues and I agree with that because the white balance is much easier to correct with a raw image than with a JPEG image.
I still shoot raw + JPEG because I see no reason not to but I'll admit that 9 times out of 10 I end up using/processing the JPEG image. I never use an image straight out of the camera.
Just the same, everyone is different and however they shoot or whether they process their images or not, as long as they're happy with the results that's all that matters.
Again, I’m not in any way trying to advocate one approach or the other, and clearly my preferred method involves more hands-on work on the computer. That’s something that not everyone enjoys or embraces, so I’m not here to advocate it. However, I do feel the need to make sure that the discussion is balanced and that both approaches get sufficient air time for people who might be in the process of deciding which way to go.
Are you tweaking your Q settings on the fly? Not sure what you need to do to accomplish your ‘one setting fits all’ or ‘many settings fit many situations’....please elaborate. Thanks!
I think the lost data case is overstated - it is very easy to work on a duplicate so the original stays untouched, and I have used at least three photo editors that allow you to create different treatments of the same image without changing the original (four if you count the crappy default photo app on my tablet). During these RAW vs JPG discussions, people always seem to conveniently forget how much is possible with Photoshop, Gimp, or other image editors.Well, with all the JPG-ites weighing in here, I feel the other group of dedicated RAW-philes needs at least a little representation.
I think Jerry is saying that then saving the 'new' version of the original jpg in the v2 jpg form is 'lossy'...and I think he is very correct on this. Sure, make a copy of the original jpg and retain that, then work with succeeding new versions of the newly saved jpg file.I think the lost data case is overstated - it is very easy to work on a duplicate so the original stays untouched, and I have used at least three photo editors that allow you to create different treatments of the same image without changing the original (four if you count the crappy default photo app on my tablet). During these RAW vs JPG discussions, people always seem to conveniently forget how much is possible with Photoshop, Gimp, or other image editors.Well, with all the JPG-ites weighing in here, I feel the other group of dedicated RAW-philes needs at least a little representation.
In Lightroom, you can of course modify a jpeg. But note that you can reset corrections, go back in "history", etc. The original jpeg is preserved.
I think for a person who's an amateur (like me) or for a person who doesn't print their photos the lost data is probably so minor that none of us would ever notice a difference but for a professional or even for an amateur who normally prints their images and who does reprocess their images a few times I can understand the concern.I think the lost data case is overstated - it is very easy to work on a duplicate so the original stays untouched, and I have used at least three photo editors that allow you to create different treatments of the same image without changing the original (four if you count the crappy default photo app on my tablet). During these RAW vs JPG discussions, people always seem to conveniently forget how much is possible with Photoshop, Gimp, or other image editors.Well, with all the JPG-ites weighing in here, I feel the other group of dedicated RAW-philes needs at least a little representation.
...and then there are those of us who will edit "Virtual" copies rather than original files be they RAW, or JPEG, using software which has that feature.I think Jerry is saying that then saving the 'new' version of the original jpg in the v2 jpg form is 'lossy'...and I think he is very correct on this. Sure, make a copy of the original jpg and retain that, then work with succeeding new versions of the newly saved jpg file.I think the lost data case is overstated - it is very easy to work on a duplicate so the original stays untouched, and I have used at least three photo editors that allow you to create different treatments of the same image without changing the original (four if you count the crappy default photo app on my tablet). During these RAW vs JPG discussions, people always seem to conveniently forget how much is possible with Photoshop, Gimp, or other image editors.Well, with all the JPG-ites weighing in here, I feel the other group of dedicated RAW-philes needs at least a little representation.
That is of course the beauty of a nondestructive workflow, which can also take advantage of the use of working on virtual copies.
