Camera LCD vs Computer screen...

[SilverUser]

Tweaks indeed. There's no secret that Nikons and Canons render colours differently. There's also no secret that PHotoshop will try and make both these cameras render colours the same.

I say the JPEG will come out better because that's what people were used to. The number of times I have convinced people to use Lightroom and shoot RAW only to have them come back and say "but the colours don't look anywhere near as good as my camera" makes me cry. I had the same theory. When I switched to RAW the skies were rendered in such a light greenish blue that I thought "what are all these self proclaimed photographers ranting about, its all wrong".

Really all that was happening is my D200 biases that blue tint of a lovely polarised sky slightly to the purple, the ACR3.3 profile slightly to the green, the Adobe standard profile gets it pretty right though, but hey that's another change some people complained about. The defaults in ACR just simply look like crap to some. Classic example is that it "will apply a bit of sharpening." A friend of mine had his camera sharpening set to maximum. When he switched to RAW he complained about blurry looking photos...

I fully advocate sticking to JPEG unless you're going to take the creative control RAW offers you and start tweaking a LOT. RAW is a big step backwards if you're not going to use it. It's like buying a Ford F250 custom for city driving. Most of your time is wasted in the petrol station keeping it running for no real advantage.

I would say that 90% of what you wrote about raw is plain wrong! I would hope people that read this thread have this figured out too. Raw is not just for creative shooting. You seem to know little about this subject, sadly.

Raw is NOT supposed to look "right"...it assumes you, the photographer will call the shots in regard to sharpening, saturation, contrast, etc, etc...there are many more benefits to raw too...it's not just for creative or hard to get shots...it is for ANY shots that you dearly want to eeek the most quality from.

 

[Garbz]

Err so RAW is not supposed to look right to the photographer yet the photographer calls all the shots with how it's supposed to look. What a contradiction! Ironically the rest of your paragraph seems to agree with me that RAW is for the tweaker who likes to call the shots. By your own account that's just plain wrong. Or maybe your reading comprehension just sucks.


Also if you read the first post rather than nit picking at the responses you'll see that the point of the post was a question on sharpness. To which I sadly will have to repeat myself to you. There is negligible difference between a RAW out of the box and a JPEG. If not maybe you need to turn the sharpness on your screen down a bit, or reset your RAW processor to default.