Home Forums Gear Photography raw vs jpeg

Chris, that can easily be done with jpegs. I shoot jpegs and sometimes have to salvage photos that are much worse, using Photoshop Elements.

Very easy to [bleep] on the fly,if only for starters and everything that these Bozo's think is "neat" with the RAW's shown,could easily be duped ala JPEG.

Hint.................

Tis no secret jpegs can be manipulated in various forms. However, RAW is simply the way to get the most data for said manipulation. In comparison cards are cheap and so is storage. If'n you're at all serious RAW is simply the way to fly. Jus' makes mo sense. If you're the sensible type.

Tell yourself whatever works for you...just don't expect everyone to be as stupid as you.

Hint...............

I'll stick with the fact I have the luxury of not guessing.

The children's table is in some of the other forums, case yooz wonderin'

You are at the mercy of what you THINK you "know",which is ALWAYS very separate from what you actually know...thus the perpetual humor inherent in your doing your "best" and trying to talk about it.

Hint.................

If that makes you feel good, go with that. 'Cause as always you wrote the book long before it was written.

Hint...

I'm not much fun to try and keep pace with,but the attempts do humor me more than a little. Hint.

Your haste to reliably schlep Stupidity to places it's never been before,is as funny as it gets...if only because you are oblivious and doing your "best".

Congratulations?!?................

Yep, you're right. 'cept your reputation of having the ability to wake yourself from your own wet dream to run to a board to boast about how yours is the best wet dream 'cause you're the best to only realize you've yet again phooked it up, yet again... but you're doing "your" best... congratulations.

hint, much to that...

read it again, then read it again... it'll sink in. Good Luck.

You are at the mercy of your "means" ,"abilities" and "comprehension"...I know,I know...the bee's are going to ruin the World.(again)

You AMAZINGLY stupid boob................(wow)

The evidence that steered me away from JPG's came from past refereed journal publication experiences. My graphics drafting programs (Harvard Graphics:dates me, and SigmaPlot) could generate graphs with horizonatal and vertical lines that were razor sharp to the pixel. Regardless of the resolution viewed all the way down to 1 pixel per screen, they were dead straight edges.

The files were huge when saved as tif's less so but still large with bmp's, and uploading to publishers often over ran time limits. Jpg conversions reduced file size, but when brought back up all lines exhibited some bleeding (i.e. a thin band of gray along what used to be razor sharp black/white transitions). With large images and production reduction procedures, the end product was OK from jpg's, but not quite up to perfection. No amount of editing, short of erasing individual pixels could undo the jpg bleeding. I took to submitting CD's or DVD's to get around the upload issue.

In another note Cookie offered up some images to a state agency and a couple were choosen along with about 15 other submissions to enlage to poster size and decorate a big rig trailer. She saved her RAWS as TIF's (no file size reduction at all). The company doing the printing made special mention on delivery that her two images required absolutely no prep work or manipulations to get them up to specs. Every other image in a variety of formats cost them several hours of processing.

On the jpg's: I lost it in a unit crash a couple years ago, but a buddy gave me some software that could undo the building block effect often surfacing in over expanded (zoomed in) jpg images. The downside was it took my work station about 20 minutes to clean up a single 2,400 x 3,800 pixel image. It did a wonderful job, so jpg polishing can be done. In a production line, however, one could not afford the time.

Funny stuff!

Extoll some of this amazing RAWtitude.................

Another reason to shoot raw, is that after you learn more about post processing - and I am learning all the time - you may revisit your old pics and reprocesses them better than the original in camera or minimal post processed JPEG.

Still awaiting pics of the "splendors".

Again...VERY easy to [bleep] on the fly,knock it out of the park at inception and then of course still do as you please after the fact.

Hint..................

After you learn more about photography, you'll need less post-processing.

Every shot is a tracer,if you wish...................(grin)

I can say little that hasn't already been said about RAW but, I call it a "lossless" format in that it's like a 35mm negative that you always have regardless of how much it's been printed, color corrected, etc. I use to shoot just jpegs till I saw how terrible the final product was for printing after I did a bit of post processing. The image was not only less sharp but displayed artifacts and for me destroyed the reason for shooting jpegs...more shots per card.

When I got my Nikon D200 some years back I started using their Capture NX2 exclusively and never looked back. I'd make my changes in the RAW file, crop, color correct if necessary, sharpen, remove sticks or whatever from the background, etc. and then when I was happy with it would "Save As" a jpeg file which was usually between 1.5-5mb size rather than the 15.5mb RAW file, which I still had unmolested. With a 4Gig card I can still get 240 RAW images from this camera...more than I'd ever need.

That D200 is still quite a good camera. Bought mine, used, and it accepts all my Nikon film camera lenses.

I didn't know Raw took 3x the memory. I might try it though. Would it be a good idea to take the megapixels from 14.4 to 4? I have shot 4 mp. on my Nikon d3100 and thought it was ok.

Just depends on ones expected print size. Much like everything else I do in life, more is better. Never wished for a smaller truck, chain saw, or stereo.