RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

[OniMirage]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

OniMirage wrote:

Kim Letkeman wrote:

OniMirage wrote:

A starting point.

Of course you then finish the image to your taste.

Nope not at all quite the opposite. I am against default profiles or presets.

You against many things that you do not understand fully. Defaults are tools that people use to set things they always set.Profiles are tools that people use to choose an appropriate starting point for an image.

But more often than not used a crutch to save time.

BS ... you cannot possibly have data to back that up. You are simply making shti up to suit your straw man position here.

Do you ever talk to others in real life that have expensive cameras, go to conventions or other random normal people events? If you had you would know that the majority of people that actually own good cameras don't know anything about what they are doing. Those that know what things do but can't be bothered to learn how it all works together will use Auto or Program Auto and just select raw and edit later. No, data I do not have just life experiences in real world situations. We on the forum tend to have a much deeper understanding of everything at work when dealing with photography. But I am sure if you ask the website devs how many people participate in the forums daily the number would be but a blip in overall camera sales.

Neither is mandatory. Neither is destructive because all parameters can be changed anyway.

Thankfully.

So you agree. That does not surprise me.

Nor I.

Your use of JPEG is the ultimate application of defaults and profiles yet you somehow have convinced yourself that there is a difference ...

Not at all I have just convinced myself that if I intend to use a default why use an additional step for the same outcome.

Because it cannot possibly be the same outcome. With JPEG, the changes are permanent and hard to reverse or correct ... with RAW the changes are simply a starting point with every setting fully open to changing without penalty.

At this point I have decided that you are being obtuse on purpose to yank my chain. No one can possibly be that dense.

It most assuredly can be the same outcome. Have you ever created a jpeg from a RAW directly either in camera or the manufacturers software? It's the same as a baked JPEG. Even dpreview uses them to compare different modes and options from the camera software.

Well, there is. You cannot reverse what the camera has done, but you can reverse any bad setting in Lightroom by tweaking a slider.

Only within the data available. If you mess up severely in the capture you can be sure RAW cannot recover it.

Good grief ... you have completely lost the plot.

What we are debating here (and it is pointless to debate with someone who shows so little focus) is my assertion that JPEG puts images at risk and RAW minimizes the risk for all the reasons I have posted so far. Here, you are simply repeating that RAW does not protect you from a profound screw up. The answer is DUH!

And if you are capable of finishing the thought, then you will realize that such a profound error will have utterly destroyed a JPEG capture. The RAW will be salvageable now and again depending on the size of the screw up.

You could also focus on what your doing at the time of capture so you will be the ultimate minimizer of risks. We need to know how to use our tools properly regardless. If your good enough with the camera you can be sure your images can be nearly indistinguishable from RAW.

Why apologize? Do you think I care if you and I agree? I care that your misinformation is corrected. As I did above in another sub thread, I will give you a free pass to post anything you like (unless you abuse it) ... I am done debating with someone who really does not understand the fundamental issues involved.

It seems you do care because here we are... The issue is I do understand, more so than you will ever credit me for, and that's ok.

Ok, let's presume that you have a deep, almost Ninja-like, understanding of the subject matter.

In which case your debating style is completely inconsistent and unfocused. So you are right ... this is a huge waste of time.

I would like to be known as a Pirate, a scallywag drunk on life and ale who cares not for absolutes and rules and would sooner break laws than conform to them. Deceptive to the point of absurdness but true with the thrust of my blade.

I have already won, a long time ago you just refused to realize it.

I did not realize that the tallest Leprechaun judging had been completed. Congrats. (Seriously, what did you expect form such a ridiculous comment.)

Now take your best shot. What a bore this has become ...

You claim it boring but entertain the response. Sooner or later you will learn to accept the dark side, if your already using an EVIL camera you have already made the first step.

 

[Lights]

Kim Letkeman wrote:

Lights wrote:

The reason I shoot both at the same time: If to improve my skill as a photographer I choose to get as close to the final output as possible and perhaps even use it. Which is always best, even in Raw (to get as close as possible to the final output).

I have no idea what that means. "The final output" is defined when you get there and not before. Some choose to accept the JPEG engine's definition.

Seriously.

Sometimes I don't get close enough. Sometimes the tonality, or the tone roll off is not good enough with jpg. Yes jpg tends to posterize more easily. I am fully aware of the benefits of the added data with Raw (as I'm sure are others) and the benefits of using such data. Then it is there.

The person with whom I am debating is not only unaware, but militant with the opposite opinion. I was obviously not debating with you.

I shoot with a 4gb card. If I fill it, I put another in, and another. Space is not a problem.

If you say so.

The final word for yourself may be adequate...but it's not the final word for everyone? Thanks.

The final word in the sub thread portion of the ongoing debate with one individual. I thought that was obvious from the context.