Steve, this is not a dig at you, but just something to show you why I prefer raw over jpg. Maybe some people will find it useful. So here we go. The following is a series of photos with a range of colors, shot under crap lighting in both raw, and jpg. I then did three things with them. The first set is the photos straight out of camera. One picture is at ideal exposure, one is 1 stop over, and the other, one stop under. The second set is pushed one stop. Third set is pulled one stop. Color adjustments have been made to balance the color cast to a neutral balance in terms of white balance.
Normal RAW:
One stop under RAW:
One stop over RAW:
Normal JPG:
One stop under JPG:
One stop over JPG:
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by agentoblivious
You know what I don't get? Why someone would name a brand of condoms Trojan. Because to me trojan reminds me of the trojan horse....and who wants a condom with a trap door where *suprise!* its not a real condom its an invasion!
Hmm Jpegs one under didnt do too bad, but pushing one stop on the one over Jpeg is pretty obvious.
Thanks for the informative thread. Once again i agree that Raw photos are much better to play with all around and are always a safe bet. If i didnt have a wimpy laptop then i would do more, but i dont and i get lazy with the extra steps involved with RAW. I like to fool myself as well into thinking that im teaching myself to take better pics from the start and not rely as much on PP.
Hmm Jpegs one under didnt do too bad, but pushing one stop on the one over Jpeg is pretty obvious.
Thanks for the informative thread. Once again i agree that Raw photos are much better to play with all around and are always a safe bet. If i didnt have a wimpy laptop then i would do more, but i dont and i get lazy with the extra steps involved with RAW. I like to fool myself as well into thinking that im teaching myself to take better pics from the start and not rely as much on PP.
Got that example of Raw vs. Jpeg HDR?
Actually, let me find a Mac version of Photomatix, and I'll do a raw vs. jpg HDR comparison. I was actually surprised at the results of this experiment. I will say that if you are shooting jpg, you need to get the white balance/ color cast right in camera. It's damn near impossible to correct in post without messing up the image. Surprisingly, pulling the jpgs wasn't too terrible, and i could see me doing that if needed in a pinch.
Interesting. but couldnt all of this been fixed with just a little better light or just picking the best light setting on the camera? Forgive my camera noobness, I just bought a Nikon D100 and have been playing around with settings.
Interesting. but couldnt all of this been fixed with just a little better light or just picking the best light setting on the camera? Forgive my camera noobness, I just bought a Nikon D100 and have been playing around with settings.
Coop
Yes, but.....you can't always control the light, or rely on the camera to choose the right settings to get the image that you want. Noobness aside lol, don't apologize, ask away. You'll learn more if you ask more questions. My point with this is that if you have a tricky situation, raw may get you out of it, jpg may not.
Yeah I don't think anyone can argue, with a straight face, that JPG retains quality after manipulation. It isn't even opinion, it's simple fact. I wasn't aware there was even a debate about this.
Still, I see the other side, with JPG definitely being more convenient. If you're a 20 year pro photographer with controlled studio lighting and know your equipment, I doubt you'd need to shoot RAW unless you had some post-processing in mind that would require it.
Actually, let me find a Mac version of Photomatix, and I'll do a raw vs. jpg HDR comparison. I was actually surprised at the results of this experiment. I will say that if you are shooting jpg, you need to get the white balance/ color cast right in camera. It's damn near impossible to correct in post without messing up the image. Surprisingly, pulling the jpgs wasn't too terrible, and i could see me doing that if needed in a pinch.
I agree that you need to get it either real close or spot on with Jpeg. If not then you pretty much need to do a B&W conversion to save yourself. Ive actually got a photo shoot tonight and im going to do it....in Jpeg because im a risk taker . Ha ha... ok maybe ill squeeze off a few Raws as well just for your names sake.
yea, let me see your comparo on the HDR's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeettao
Yeah I don't think anyone can argue, with a straight face, that JPG retains quality after manipulation. It isn't even opinion, it's simple fact. I wasn't aware there was even a debate about this.
Still, I see the other side, with JPG definitely being more convenient. If you're a 20 year pro photographer with controlled studio lighting and know your equipment, I doubt you'd need to shoot RAW unless you had some post-processing in mind that would require it.
It was more of a position of preference on HDR's. We all know Raw is better. Yes, it is much easier to use Jpeg once you get used to your cameras abilities and are in certain situations where you know how it will perform. After much trial and error ive started to get the hang of my camera and can predict how it will perform under certain lighting conditions with certain lenses, but it isnt always perfect science.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
RAW Vs JPG manipulation.
1967 Dodge Charger (440)... 
. Ha ha... ok maybe ill squeeze off a few Raws as well just for your names sake.
