What's new

What is so bad about RAW?

Well I think quality isn't just about the format. You can shoot RAW all day long, but if the shots aren't fit for toilet paper, then somebody else shooting jpeg who produces absolutely stunning work is going to get the vote in quality.

The file size is obviously bigger... but I think RAW vs. Jpeg comes down to what you intend/want out of it, as noted previously.
 
RAW is certainly a larger file, but it has more information in it, so it has to be larger. To give it a "+1" for quality, then a "-1" for file size seems kind of dumb. If it is "higher quality", why would anyone expect it to be a smaller file?
 
Let's say your front door sticks, binds, and the lockset won't work right. You hire a handyman to fix it. It Now, the handyman has a ton of tools to use, but I doubt he'll get out a 40' extension ladder or a band saw or a concrete core drill... simply because HE DOESN'T NEED THEM to accomplish the task at hand. He may use a hammer & flat screwdriver to pull the hinge pins, a hand planer to thin the door down a bit, and a screwdriver to pull the lockset apart or move the strike plate a bit. Yet on the next job, he may need the 40' ladder and not need the planer because he just needs to replace a window pane in an old window or patch a missing shingle tab.

Image format, to me, is just like all the tools the handyman has at his disposal. He just gets out the ones he needs to get the job done. Just like I choose a lens, filter, tripod, or any other tool at MY disposal. And the choice between raw and JPEG is merely a choice between two tools.


That said, I shoot raw 99.5718665% of the time. I only shoot JPEG when I know the image is for an extremely limited audience (say, my parents in Texas want to know how much it snowed yesterday), or for quick electronic conveyance (uploading to TPF as an example in a post).
 
What I'm saying here other people hate raw. They say jpeg is better than raw in both file size and picture quality.

So what?

I'm seriously at a loss as to why that could possibly be as upsetting to you as it obviously is...
 
Let's say your front door sticks, binds, and the lockset won't work right. You hire a handyman to fix it. It Now, the handyman has a ton of tools to use, but I doubt he'll get out a 40' extension ladder or a band saw or a concrete core drill... simply because HE DOESN'T NEED THEM to accomplish the task at hand. He may use a hammer & flat screwdriver to pull the hinge pins, a hand planer to thin the door down a bit, and a screwdriver to pull the lockset apart or move the strike plate a bit. Yet on the next job, he may need the 40' ladder and not need the planer because he just needs to replace a window pane in an old window or patch a missing shingle tab.

Image format, to me, is just like all the tools the handyman has at his disposal. He just gets out the ones he needs to get the job done. Just like I choose a lens, filter, tripod, or any other tool at MY disposal. And the choice between raw and JPEG is merely a choice between two tools.

Wow.

Just... wow...

That said, I shoot raw 99.5718665% of the time. I only shoot JPEG when I know the image is for an extremely limited audience (say, my parents in Texas want to know how much it snowed yesterday), or for quick electronic conveyance (uploading to TPF as an example in a post).

So which format do you think is better?
 
Good question.

There's no reason this can't be a friendly discussion.
 
Ok, that was a tough round, but we can come back from it. When he counters your counter, I want you to reverse it and agree.. while he's confused, throw in some large syllable words, keep your guard strong and shoot in for a single sentence takedown. Don't trade blows with this guy!
 
Ok, that was a tough round, but we can come back from it. When he counters your counter, I want you to reverse it and agree.. while he's confused, throw in some large syllable words, keep your guard strong and shoot in for a single sentence takedown. Don't trade blows with this guy!

OK Coach! :lol:



I realize this wasn't in reply to me, but that seemed to be the best reply to it.
 
What I'm saying here other people hate raw. They say jpeg is better than raw in both file size and picture quality.

So what?

I'm seriously at a loss as to why that could possibly be as upsetting to you as it obviously is...

You were helpful once, my apology for offending you.
 
RAW or JPG really doesn't matter - AT ALL. Do what you want and leave it at that. You will never convince someone else that they are wrong.
 
Why are we arguing?
From my observations, it's because you're trying to have a discussion and a few people who appear to get off on arguing more than anything else here have decided to participate. Soon enough, you'll see the pattern; They tend to take a counter-view and then get into it with someone in nearly every thread they participate in so that they continue that argumentative interaction. It's apparently their way of socializing.

24cb2c6e4dbe01438707ffc459add689.jpg
 
My smallest is an 8g and even on that you can shoot several hundred photos in RAW.

I always laugh when people say that 8gb isn't enough, it wasn't that long ago that 36 exposures was all you could expect from one "storage device" considerably larger by volume than today's CF and SD cards.
 
Why are we arguing?
From my observations, it's because you're trying to have a discussion and a few people who appear to get off on arguing more than anything else here have decided to participate. Soon enough, you'll see the pattern; They tend to take a counter-view and then get into it with someone in nearly every thread they participate in so that they continue that argumentative interaction. It's apparently their way of socializing.

24cb2c6e4dbe01438707ffc459add689.jpg

Stress:

The confusion caused when ones mind overrides the body's natural desire to choke the living **** out of some ******* that desperately needs it.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top Bottom