which format

frXnz kafka · Apr 10, 2008

Village Idiot said:
Not to the extent of a RAW file, as listed above. Issues like WB and exposure can't be correct as well. And with a JPG file, it's what you shoot is what you get.

You've heard of shooting to the right and being able to drop the exposure in photoshop to catch areas that appear slightly blown so that they're exposed normally for an image that's better over all?

You have to be shooting RAW files to do that.

Again, read my first post. You're preaching to the choir. I'm just saying, if you MUST use JPEG, then you're not going to run into any insurmountable problems.

mrodgers · Apr 10, 2008

Village Idiot said:
You've heard of shooting to the right and being able to drop the exposure in photoshop to catch areas that appear slightly blown so that they're exposed normally for an image that's better over all?

You have to be shooting RAW files to do that.

So, is the sliders in, for example, Lightroom harder to move if it is a jpeg? I don't have RAW capabilities with my camera and the sliders for exposure, WB, and others still seemed pretty easy to move around to me. I can't really see how you "have" to be shooting RAW to do all this stuff.

Oh wait, I shouldn't even comment, nor even be on this forum. I don't have a dSLR, thus I'm not even a real photographer. I do believe I saw that comment coming from quoted poster in another thread as well.

Can't always go by what some people say. After all, they have to justify the reason they shoot RAW or spent big money on a dSLR. These are the ways they justify it. For the RAW stuff, "you can't" and "it's not as good" are two different things. You certainly can fix/change exposure or whitebalance issues with a jpeg.

Rand0m411 · Apr 10, 2008

mrodgers said:
So, is the sliders in, for example, Lightroom harder to move if it is a jpeg? I don't have RAW capabilities with my camera and the sliders for exposure, WB, and others still seemed pretty easy to move around to me. I can't really see how you "have" to be shooting RAW to do all this stuff.

Oh wait, I shouldn't even comment, nor even be on this forum. I don't have a dSLR, thus I'm not even a real photographer. I do believe I saw that comment coming from quoted poster in another thread as well.

Can't always go by what some people say. After all, they have to justify the reason they shoot RAW or spent big money on a dSLR. These are the ways they justify it. For the RAW stuff, "you can't" and "it's not as good" are two different things. You certainly can fix/change exposure or whitebalance issues with a jpeg.

You can indeed edit .jpgs, RAW is just a much more versitile format. No matter what you change in a RAW file you never lose your original photo, the original metadata is always there. When you edit a RAW file you never lose picture quality due to compression. Since .jpgs are a compressed image, you lose quality everytime you edit and save it. It may be miniscule but its happening. No justifications there, just facts.

As far as you not being a real photographer... uh, ok. Im not sure what that has to do with archers question. But if you have a camera, whatever type it may be. I think you could indeed call yourself a photographer. I started with a Canon S2 point and shoot and that camera can take some darn good pictures. I had to beg, borrow and beg my wife some more, to finally get my XTi and my wife still out shoots me sometimes with the S2

.

BoblyBill · Apr 10, 2008

Socrates said:
Contrary to most of the other responses, if you're truly a beginner, stay away from RAW for a while. If you're learning how to drive, you don't want to learn how to use a nav system at the same time. After you get comfortable with understanding camera basics, such as shutter speed, aperture, ASA/ISO, then you might try RAW and see if you like it. Many of us don't bother with it.

I actually really like this advice. I shoot RAW exclusively because the power it gives me in post prossess, but I have noticed that I don't AS much attention to the exposure, white balance, and even compisition because I have been spoiled with the abilities of RAW. I would advise starting in JPEG to get used how to compose and expose shots because there is less room for error shooting JPEG. What this will teach, I think, is if you take a shot and the highlights are blown they are blown... forcing you to rethink the shot or from it in the future (keep in mind that RAW doesn't fix all mistakes just gives you a little room the work with if you did).

JerryPH · Apr 10, 2008

I advocate RAW for all the reasons that the hundreds of posts here suggest and prove. Learning to compose or expose is not an excuse to not get the most you can from them. Sooner or later, one will go to RAW. Why not sooner and be ahead of the game?

It's like saying, don't buy a dSLR becuase they are more complex, use s P&S until you know how to take pictures. Not the best advice, at least not for me.

Lack of knowledge is no reason to use a more effective solution.

Some say "we need it now, and do not have time for PPing". Fine, take that SAME knowledge that you use to get good RAWs and get good JPGs. Just realize that final quality will not be equal. The sharpening, saturation, contrast, cropping, tone mapping abilities of even the BEST cameras on the market, are no match for a person that knows what they are doing with photoshop and a RAW file that is properly exposed and composed.

Is this an anti-purist's way of seeing things? No, it is the modern way of seeing things. As has been said before, there is no such thing as an unprocessed pic. Either you leave it to some foreign engineer's taste to finalize your pics for you by doing it all in camera, or you take control of the results yourself. A file that has 6MB cannot have the same resolution and data as a file that has 18mb. Choose the format that suites your own needs and if you are not satisfied... LEARN how to improve it.

The nice thing about this all is... you have the choice to do either.

I choose to take the most control possible to assure me of the best results I can get.

Village Idiot · Apr 10, 2008

mrodgers said:
So, is the sliders in, for example, Lightroom harder to move if it is a jpeg? I don't have RAW capabilities with my camera and the sliders for exposure, WB, and others still seemed pretty easy to move around to me. I can't really see how you "have" to be shooting RAW to do all this stuff.

Oh wait, I shouldn't even comment, nor even be on this forum. I don't have a dSLR, thus I'm not even a real photographer. I do believe I saw that comment coming from quoted poster in another thread as well.

Can't always go by what some people say. After all, they have to justify the reason they shoot RAW or spent big money on a dSLR. These are the ways they justify it. For the RAW stuff, "you can't" and "it's not as good" are two different things. You certainly can fix/change exposure or whitebalance issues with a jpeg.

You're thinking of the wrong person. I don't care if you're shooting with a camera made from a shoe box.

You should really learn the difference between RAW files and JPG files. JPG files are compressed. What you see is what you get. Take a blown out JPG and try and recover any of the blown out area. You can't. It's already been processed and saved. If you read the last post of mine about being able to acheive a greater tonal range in the photo by shooting to the right, then maybe you'll start to understand a little bit of the differences.

And I can be an ass too. Some people feel inadequate with their P&S's. I guess not everyone has the money to play with the pros.