RAW or JPEG???

[Superfitz]

No it doesn't

Yes it does

 

[Juga]

...

As for baseline editing in camera...no thanks. I like to have the ability to change contrast, saturation, highlights, etc. so on and so forth.

If you use your camera correctly 100% of the time the raw edits will look just like the jpeg

That is not true. What if I wanted to add more contrast to the image to give it the look and feel I am trying to vision than the jpeg in camera processing can give me? As Shane just stated, it is a way to have more control over the final product which does eventually get converted into jpeg. But when shooting RAW is the way to go at least for clients. Getting composition and frame right in camera is a very different topic.

 

[480sparky]

No need to. Get it right in camera, and any edit that can be done on raw can be done on jpeg.

I nominate this post for the TPF I Don't Know What I'm Talking About Award for the month of July.

 

[Buckster]

No need to. Get it right in camera, and any edit that can be done on raw can be done on jpeg.

I nominate this post for the TPF I Don't Know What I'm Talking About Award for the month of July.

Seconded.

 

[Superfitz]

I nominate this post for the TPF I Don't Know What I'm Talking About Award for the month of July.

It should be nominated for that award because of all the pro raw fools. Jpeg is the greatest format period...times infinity!!! Bam! You can't get better than that. I am right..that's all there is to it. Now I sleep.

 

[Ysarex]

...

As for baseline editing in camera...no thanks. I like to have the ability to change contrast, saturation, highlights, etc. so on and so forth.

If you use your camera correctly 100% of the time the raw edits will look just like the jpeg

That's complete rubbish and nonsense. The camera processing software can't think and it can't see and it simply isn't equally capable regardless of the contrast and saturation controls available on camera.

We've been through this before too many times. Recently in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...nces-between-raw-jpeg-edited-16-bit-mode.html We got the camera out and provided hard photographic evidence that raw capture and hands on editing can deliver a photo that the camera JPEG engine is not capable of matching. That thread contains proof that it's not possible to get it right SOOC.

Joe

 

[Juga]

Please Buck tell this fool something. Turn this thread into a 90 post bashing.

 

[ShaneF]

if i did my editing in Microsoft paint id probably shot jpeg too.

You cant manipulate information that is not there.

 

[Superfitz]

That's complete rubbish and nonsense. The camera processing software can't think and it can't see and it simply isn't equally capable regardless of the contrast and saturation controls available on camera.

We've been through this before too many times. Recently in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/328218-challenge-noticeable-differences-between-raw-jpeg-edited-16-bit-mode.html We got the camera out and provided hard photographic evidence that raw capture and hands on editing can deliver a photo that the camera JPEG engine is not capable of matching. That thread contains proof that it's not possible to get it right SOOC.

Joe

That thread is complete rubbish and nonsense. Everything I've said in this thread is correct.

 

[Superfitz]

if i did my editing in Microsoft paint id probably shot jpeg too.

You cant manipulate information that is not there.

Get it right in camera and Microsoft paint is all you need. Actually I have a Mac so I just use preview.

 

[ShaneF]

The man on the corner with the sign saying jesus is coming really does believe that too. Wonder if he shoots Jpeg?

 

[Juga]

That's complete rubbish and nonsense. The camera processing software can't think and it can't see and it simply isn't equally capable regardless of the contrast and saturation controls available on camera.

We've been through this before too many times. Recently in this thread: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...nces-between-raw-jpeg-edited-16-bit-mode.html We got the camera out and provided hard photographic evidence that raw capture and hands on editing can deliver a photo that the camera JPEG engine is not capable of matching. That thread contains proof that it's not possible to get it right SOOC.

Joe

That thread is complete rubbish and nonsense. Everything I've said in this thread is correct.

:Sniff: :sniff: .... I smell troll.

 

[480sparky]

It should be nominated for that award because of all the pro raw fools. Jpeg is the greatest format period...times infinity!!! Bam! You can't get better than that. I am right..that's all there is to it. Now I sleep.

None are so blind of those who refuse to see.

Obviously, you're the pinnacle of photography. Capable of sharing the Greats. I bow to your superiority.

And my mama always said, "Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level the beat you with experience."

I'm done here.

 

[Superfitz]

The man on the corner with the sign saying jesus is coming really does believe that too. Wonder if he shoots Jpeg?

See...that proves you know nothing about photography. You can't take photos with a sign.

 

[Ysarex]

if i did my editing in Microsoft paint id probably shot jpeg too.

You cant manipulate information that is not there.

Get it right in camera and Microsoft paint is all you need. Actually I have a Mac so I just use preview.

All talk and no show is just noise -- go troll somewhere else.