1. Things you need to know about the new ‘Conversations’ PM system:

    a) DO NOT REPLY TO THE NOTIFICATION EMAIL! I get them, not the intended recipient. I get a lot of them and I do not want them! It is just a notification, log into the site and reply from there.

    b) To delete old conversations use the ‘Leave conversation’ option. This is just delete by another name.
    Dismiss Notice

Mulling over raw rather than jpeg

Discussion in 'photo' started by avole, Nov 26, 2017.

  1. Durmbo

    Durmbo Not French

    Huh? You made an analogy, I made one back in the vein of. I'm saying you don't need to shoot raw to make a great picture. Putting forward a defence of the lowly jpeg, which I feel can be likened to a film transparency.

    What do you think?
  2. Bananahead

    Bananahead pfm Member

    I understand what you mean and you are right that there are some fantastic pictures captured as jpegs and some boring pictures captured as RAW. But this conversation is about what is the best format to capture pictures in.

    Back in the day I used to shoot gigs with transparencies and get the lab to push them at least two stops. And Radio Luxembourg used to disturb my homework.
  3. James

    James Lord of the Erg\o/s

    Now there's an expression I rarely hear these days. I must brush up on my digital literacy as concepts such as curves, CA fringing, dynamic range and countless other manipulations are rather foreign to me.
  4. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    I found this little video quite interesting - he talks about RAW editors being just too complex

  5. Tony Lockhart

    Tony Lockhart pfm Member

    If I can use RAW editors, pretty much anyone can.
  6. gavreid

    gavreid pfm Member

    Same here and I've had a big stroke, but he's using the simplicity to adjust 'live' to get his jpegs just right and off he goes I think - so no need for post processing...
  7. Rockmeister

    Rockmeister pfm Member

    For a standard print up to A2 ish, I think that either is fine, but IF you want to do much post processing, JPEGs will quickly fall apart, lose detail etc, wheras a RAW file will allow almost infinite fiddling about with no degredation. It's amazing how much shadow detail, for example, lurks in a raw file.
    One small fact tho. Neither will recover a burnt highlight.
  8. Bananahead

    Bananahead pfm Member

    Maybe. You can recover detail from shadows in RAW where it would be crushed to black with a jpeg. And at the other end a jpeg will crush (??) to white detail that might be recoverable with a RAW.
  9. Rockmeister

    Rockmeister pfm Member

    Only if you don't understand the basics of exposure.
  10. Bananahead

    Bananahead pfm Member

    So if I understand the basics of exposure then there is no chance of recovering blown highlights from a RAW.

    So much to learn I have.
  11. Rockmeister

    Rockmeister pfm Member

    What I said was that no-one can regain a blown highlight. There is NO info on the file to retrieve. None. It's just gone to pure white.
    You said 'And at the other end a jpeg will crush (??) to white detail that might be recoverable with a RAW'. I am pointing out that the only way to get detail in a highlit area is to expose correctly (for highlights) in the first place.
    Ergo, IF you understand those basic exposure rules, there will be no blown highlights in the first place. RAW or JPEG, the discussion does not happen.
  12. Bananahead

    Bananahead pfm Member

    and what I said was that a jpeg would display a blown highlight as pure white when it might not really be blown and if captured as a RAW then there might be some detail there.
  13. Rockmeister

    Rockmeister pfm Member

    There clearly will be a border area, where a RAW file will have some highlight detail if the exposure did not in fact blow the detail totally...maybe if you were a half stop out, yes.
  14. gidders

    gidders hifi enthusiast, golfer & photographer

    RAW all the way. Why buy quality camera & lenses & then throw away a load of the information you've captured?
    Rico likes this.
  15. Rack Kit

    Rack Kit pfm Member

    I preferred the RAWs from the 5Dmk2 but been blown away with JPEGs from the 1Dx to the point where even use JPEGS for slower feature or portrait shoots.
  16. gidders

    gidders hifi enthusiast, golfer & photographer

    It works with RAW as well

    Focus stacking & exposure bracketing are both techniques that I use quite frequently. Far from taking away the creativity, they open up new possibilities but one does have to have the vision, creativity & imagination to take advantage of those possibilities. The software just facilitates what can be done in Lightroom or Photoshop. As for what it's called, a) who cares & b) I suspect its about having more tools in one's arsenal, not football!
  17. eternumviti

    eternumviti pfm Member

    Imagination and creativity nothwishstanding, I suspect that you and I will have to agree to disagree on this one.
    gidders likes this.
  18. DaddyDJ

    DaddyDJ pfm Member

    A lot of people learning photography I see on photogroups shoot in RAW, because that is the advice the more experienced group members give out.
    The results I see are unfortunately flat, dull and boring, because the Raw images require further editing. Shooting in RAW in my opinion is for those of us who like to play around in editing software.
    JPEG is more than good enough for everything else.
  19. DaddyDJ

    DaddyDJ pfm Member

    If the cameras picture setting are set how you like them, and your skill lets you get the shot correct in camera, then JPEG is perfect.
  20. Pete MB&D

    Pete MB&D Pete Maddex, the one and only!

    RAW = cooking from scratch JPG = ready meal

    gidders, Stunsworth and Mr Perceptive like this.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice