- Messages
- 6,914
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What in your opinion was the 'misinformation'?A quick read... not much there really. Plus some "misinformation"...
Not seen the mag myself.
What in your opinion was the 'misinformation'?A quick read... not much there really. Plus some "misinformation"...
Shooting RAW is just for people who can't be bothered to expose the scene correctly or even set the white balance, It's akin to pointing the gun in the general direction of the target and not evening putting the sights on the bullseye and putting all the rounds in the sandbank. You can always take them out later !
Amateur Pedantologist.
I'll get my coat..
You still need to take the best photo you can with RAW. It's not an excuse to fire off shots with any settings and worry about it later. RAW doesn't stop motion blur. RAW doesn't stop blown out skies/water etc. You still need to expose correctly in RAW. The file retains ALL of the data/detail, and it's up to you to capitalise on that.
A JPG, on the other hand, does not retain all of the data/detail. It holds very little compared to a RAW. Even if you expose 'correctly', that doesn't mean you won't lost detail in highlights and shadows. You are immediately on the back foot. I can't get my head around why you would think that's a good thing. It's just lazy.
I can't understand anybody who shoots in JPG. Processing my RAW files is 50% of the fun for me. Not to mention the number of times I simple NEED RAW to pull out details that you simply wouldn't get from a JPG without ruining it in any other areas.
To me, if you shoot in JPG, you simply don't really care about what and how you're shooting, let alone the results. Which leaves us with the question, why are you bothering?
Sounds good, though if you had used the word 'work' rather than 'play' it may has come across a bit better.Difference between an Amateur and a Professional is that an Amateur is happy if they get it right 1 in a hundred times whereas a professional is distraught if they get it wrong 1 in 100 times - many of us do not have the time to play with RAW and have to get a finished product straight out of camera - which means understanding the camera and not some piece of software, so for people like me we could say do not call yourself a photographer if you cant capture it with JPEG, - personally I see the case for both though and use both apropiately and do not make disparaging remarks about others that work differently from me, just saying
Mike
Your tongue is surely firmly in cheek?
Get it right in camera is all very well, as is raw+JPG. As long as the optimum raw exposure is the same at the perfect JPG exposure . But it's not unusual for them to be two stops apart.
Which kind of shoots down the "get it right in camera" argument.I would suggest that most people bracket the exposure ?
It certainly was, but I wanted to make people think. Personally, I prefer to get everything right in camera from the original crop and level composition to the exposure and also use filters if required. I shoot both JPEG and RAW for two reasons, my JPEG's are useable straight away and require no PP as all the work has already been done and checked after exposure in camera / iPad which is a massive time saving. However, I also shoot in RAW at the same time as I like to experiment with the 'original negative' which gives greater latitude for control and enhancement. Personally I believe shooting in both JPEG / RAW is the best creative option. Additionally, having your image recored in two separate mediums also offers a degree of protection should one card or slot fail at the time if the shoot. Although I use a second body it's sod's law that if something is going to go wrong then it will have happen before you've had time to bring the second back up into play !
One bit advising to always use the wide dynamic range setting. That's automatic underexposure with shadow recovery (ok when you need it).What in your opinion was the 'misinformation'?
Not seen the mag myself.
One bit advising to always use the wide dynamic range setting. That's automatic underexposure with shadow recovery (ok when you need it).
Another bit saying multiple saves of a jpeg while working in an editing program will cause massive degradation/artifacts. *Many* multiple open/save cycles causes notable jpeg degradation... many saves while open equals 1 open/save cycle.
This really isn't true... at least not in many situations.A JPG, on the other hand, does not retain all of the data/detail. It holds very little compared to a RAW.
They were pretty explicit in their wording...The second point seems to be someone who hasn't explained themselves correctly, or doesn't know what they are talking about.
The latter then by the sounds of it.They were pretty explicit in their wording...
Difference between an Amateur and a Professional is that an Amateur is happy if they get it right 1 in a hundred times whereas a professional is distraught if they get it wrong 1 in 100 times - many of us do not have the time to play with RAW and have to get a finished product straight out of camera - which means understanding the camera and not some piece of software, so for people like me we could say do not call yourself a photographer if you cant capture it with JPEG, - personally I see the case for both though and use both apropiately and do not make disparaging remarks about others that work differently from me, just saying
Mike
This really isn't true... at least not in many situations.
Just because your camera is using a 12 or 14 bit file system (raw) doesn't mean it is recording 12 or 14 bits of data in that file.
For example, the measures that my D5 records:
Tonal range is 8bit by ISO 1600, PDR is 8bit (8 EV) by ISO 1600, and Color is 8bit by ISO 400. Might as well just use an 8bit file (jpeg) to hold the data (≥ISO 1600)... the only issue there being that the built in processing settings might do things you'd rather it didn't (which can't be undone).
And that's Nikon's top of the line pro camera... there are many cameras that struggle to ever get above 8bit, especially in recording color information (but that's "ok" because 8 bit/color is more than humans can even see).
Like I said, shooting jpg and just going 'yep, that'll do' is lazy and the mark of an amateur.
You do understand that the camera itself is using its own software to process the jpg file yes? So your argument about understanding the camera and not software is moot.
The difference between an amateur and a professional is one is getting paid. Anything else is consequential. And sorry, but there's no such thing as 'getting it right' in the camera. A dedicated professional will dedicate the time and care on each photo that they feel is necessary. You do understand that the camera itself is using its own software to process the jpg file yes? So your argument about understanding the camera and not software is moot.
Where did i say I CAN'T get it right with jpg? I did not say that. I can absolutely get it 'right' with jpg, technically. But it doesn't suit my needs or workflow.
Like I said, shooting jpg and just going 'yep, that'll do' is lazy and the mark of an amateur.
danjama said:To me, if you shoot in JPG, you simply don't really care about what and how you're shooting, let alone the results. Which leaves us with the question, why are you bothering?
This week's AP should cause some people to froth at the mouth!!
8bit color can generate over 16M colors while the human eye is only good for ~ 10M.This is because of the hugely greater number of discrete steps available in 12 or 14 bits as opposed to the 8 bits of JPEG.
Of course, it's still 8bit data (accuracy) in a 16 bit file format, it doesn't add anything. Just like recording 8bit color accuracy to a raw file doesn't make it 14bit color.And even if you convert JPEGs to TIFF files before processing (as I sometimes do) you still cannot get over the problem of "banding".
.
There were some Photographers at the Olympics shooting in RAW as well as JPEG. And I would guess that some of the Getty Photographers were too, as now the cameras are just as fast shooting both formats, why limit oneself just in case. It will be JPEGS for speed like in the link above, but some of the Pros didn't need the speed.Getty didn't think that when shooting the millions of photos of the Olympics - they shot entirely In JPEG simply because of the time factor - and I didn't hear many people complaining about the fact that they didn't shoot in RAW:
http://www.popphoto.com/how-olympic-images-reach-your-eyes-in-two-minutes-flat
There were some Photographers at the Olympics shooting in RAW as well as JPEG. And I would guess that some of the Getty Photographers were too, as now the cameras are just as fast shooting both formats, why limit oneself just in case. It will be JPEGS for speed like in the link above, but some of the Pros didn't need the speed.
Does it really matter, as long as the person taking the picture is happy ?
Does it really matter, as long as the person taking the picture is happy ?
I open my egg from the little end. Is that a bad thing?
I enjoy the processing phaseNot having to do the processing work!