If anyone wants to discuss the virtues and drawbacks of each format, this is the place to do it.
If anyone wants to discuss the virtues and drawbacks of each format, this is the place to do it.
When I first starting shooting (August 2011), I was unsure about JPEG v. RAW. As a result, I took shots with both formats. A couple of things were really obvious to me. One, the RAW image almost invariably looked flat compared to the JPEG file. Two, the JPEG file (at 100%) almost invariably had artifacts in it. No matter how much you try, you are not going to turn jagged edges into sharp, crisp lines. The best I could do was smooth them out. But that merely gave it a softer look. (Additionally, I cannot undo sharpening that has been done in camera; the detail spectrum of the RAW file is simply not available to those who choose to have the camera generate a JPEG file.)
As for RAW, the flat look was easily dealt with in post. Not only did I have more control over color and white balance (which is especially useful in a location like Antelope Canyon), but the detail was preserved in the RAW file, even if it did start out with a flatter look.
I shoot, almost exclusively, landscapes. Most of my images will be printed big. I'm not willing to take a chance on starting out with a JPEG that the camera has already applied an algorithm to. That processing in camera throws out details that were not used in the JPEG conversion. Those details can NEVER be recovered. Were they details that I may have wanted? What could I have done with those details if I had left the image in RAW? These are all questions rendered moot by turning your files over to in-camera processing.
feel free to move my reply from the other thread here.
Call me Seth
CURRENT: 2016 Long Beach Blue BMW /// M2
RETIRED: ‘15 F22 M235i | '08 E90 M3 DCT "GoinHAM3" | '04 E46 M3 6MT "WEGOHAM"
'04 330i ZHP | '11 E82 135i | '08 E90 328xi | 07 E91 328xi SportWagon
Can we expand this into general file formats for photography? I think a more interesting discussion is the file options once you transfer to your computer.
DNG vs CR2 / NEF and other camera RAW formats
Embedding a copy of the original file in DNG
PSD vs TIFF for PhotoShop processed files.
At what point in your process do you make your first backup?
2006 CiC 6MT
ZHP, Cold Weather, Xenon
Sapphire Black / Black Leather / Black Cube
From the other thread:
Again, plenty of good points but they don't apply to everyone in every condition. At work we shoot JPG small because of a file size issue. Much like an action shooter or someone just snapping a few pics of their cars (like Joop) who isn't going to process them much, it can very much work out in their favor. The algorithm you (and I) don't want to mess up the RAW images for further processing is actually doing these people a favor and essentially very lightly processing the image for them. Correct?
I can appreciate where you are coming from as you have said many times, you shoot landscapes but not everyone does and that isn't the full range of photography that everyone uses day to day. You shoot exclusively in natural light, so I understand that condition is forever changing... but a huge majority also shoot with strobes in both changing and constant lighting conditions (such as what Casey and I do) as well as in natural light that is constant such as mid day sun (like Jon). By setting your WB to "Flash" you are doing a good majority of the work right there in securing the images color balance in camera when shooting with strobes, as the same when you shoot "sunny" or "shade" or "florescent" when in those conditions. With jpg, you can still adjust these settings manually, just not with the preset functions that appear when working with RAW. If you set them before hand and shoot jpg, and us a custom with a grey card and histogram, that's about as close to perfect as you can get and in controlled lighting probably the optimal way to shoot.
Again I understand your mentality but I also see it coming from someone who shoots something very specific with very specific requirements. I've read your write ups about how to catch a flare at the right minute you might only have 10-15 sec windows. That totally understandable why you would want to do most of the work after the fact so you don't screw up something you can't go back and fix with the actual scene because you were distracted. But again that isn't how or what everyone requires to shoot, especially just a hobbyist who wants to shoot his car as in Jon's case.
Jon has a lot to learn, but he has time. He has time to line up his images scenery by moving the car around, moving the tripod around and refining images by doing it over and over changing things till it looks right. Jon will have time to decide that it's a cloudy day instead of a bright sunny one so he can set his white balance accordingly. Jon will have time to learn how to look through the lens and start seeing the smaller details of his shots (like trees coming out of sunroofs and such) and get better at the basics. He will also have time to learn LR/PS and how to get more out of his images. My point was that while he is learning, his results might look just as good if he shot in jpg and learned how to work his images in camera more so that just relying on PS as so many people do and end up using it as a crutch.
With that being said, once Jon begins to master those skills, he will undoubtedly benefit from shooting in RAW to then take his photos to the next level.
And FYI, I know you (Mark) won't take any of this discussion as mean or in the wrong way but just wanted to let everyone else know its not meant in that fashion. It's just a debate from 2 photographers with different points of view and reference.
- Goin' H.A.M. Mobile
Call me Seth
CURRENT: 2016 Long Beach Blue BMW /// M2
RETIRED: ‘15 F22 M235i | '08 E90 M3 DCT "GoinHAM3" | '04 E46 M3 6MT "WEGOHAM"
'04 330i ZHP | '11 E82 135i | '08 E90 328xi | 07 E91 328xi SportWagon
I'm here soaking up knowledge. I am a sponge
I shoot RAW which means I am uploading .NEF files. I am often metering light by feel or in my head and not on the camera. If I am a little off either direction, I prefer the flexibility of being able to easily correct a file without losing compressed data from the decisions the camera made.
There is no right or wrong in this debate.
and the bottom line is and always will be. If you photograph a turd in RAW or in JPEG, its still just a turd. Even if you wrap it in gold foil by using photoshop, it's still a turd.
Composition, Framing, and how you use the light is what is going to set your image apart regardless of saving format.
Well said
- Goin' H.A.M. Mobile
Call me Seth
CURRENT: 2016 Long Beach Blue BMW /// M2
RETIRED: ‘15 F22 M235i | '08 E90 M3 DCT "GoinHAM3" | '04 E46 M3 6MT "WEGOHAM"
'04 330i ZHP | '11 E82 135i | '08 E90 328xi | 07 E91 328xi SportWagon
True, a bad photo is a bad photo regardless. But most of the debates are about the abilities and "needs" of fine tuning pictures in certain formats.
I'm an exclusive RAW shooter. To me if you're a point and shooter (your average vacationer snapping family pics) just stick with the Jpegs. If you see it more serious and as a hobby, the benefits from RAW are amazing. Before I had a DSLR I took thousands of pictures (strictly hobby) and edited tons of photos, but was always left wanting.
The first time I edited a raw photo in light room and saw what control I had I was floored. A photo that I took that looked good, once "edited" looked amazing. I tried the same thing in Jpeg files and couldn't get anywhere near the level of enhancement.