The 'RAW vs JPEG' Depot

mick / Lumix

Guest
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
169
"Photography" means painting with light. So get it right in camera.

"Photography" does not mean knocking it up in a computer.
 

BrianK

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 20, 2011
Messages
309
Location
Lansing MI
"Photography" means painting with light. So get it right in camera.

"Photography" does not mean knocking it up in a computer.
( saying this in my most pleasing voice :smile: )

I think thats simply not true anymore of modern photography, may never have been true of film either.

The idea of there is only one way to do anything, let alone something so subjective as photography is, to me unsatisfactory.

My two cents

BK
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
drawing not painting, from Greek coined by a German

"As far as can be ascertained, it was Sir John Herschel in a lecture before the Royal Society of London, on March 14, 1839 who made the word "photography" known to the whole world. But in an article published on February 25 of the same year in a German newspaper called the Vossische Zeitung, Johann von Maedler, a Berlin astronomer, had used the word photography already.[2] The word photography is based on the Greek φῶς (photos) "light" and γραφή (graphé) "representation by means of lines" or "drawing", together meaning "drawing with light".[3]"


K
 

nickthetasmaniac

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
1,589
Well I loaded Silkypix 3.0 and the difference is quite amazing :eek: MUCH better default results than Aperture, especially in terms of colour.

But wow, the interface... Now I remember why I avoid computer products not designed by Apple. It's like headbutting a cactus :/


The GH2 works well with JPEG so there is the answer !
Spending time and money on software and RAW seems to be pointless. At best you end up with nothing more than a JPEG will give.
I was a dedicated jpeg user when I shot with a K20D and E-3, until I actually tried RAW and realised how much you really lose with in-camera jpeg, especially in terms of dynamic range.

I'm a little stumped that you think you'll get 'at best' nothing more out of a RAW file than a jpeg. Have you shot RAW extensively? Are you familiar with RAW processing software and techniques?
 

mick / Lumix

Guest
Joined
Oct 3, 2010
Messages
169
Well I loaded Silkypix 3.0 and the difference is quite amazing :eek: MUCH better default results than Aperture, especially in terms of colour.

But wow, the interface... Now I remember why I avoid computer products not designed by Apple. It's like headbutting a cactus :/




I was a dedicated jpeg user when I shot with a K20D and E-3, until I actually tried RAW and realised how much you really lose with in-camera jpeg, especially in terms of dynamic range.

I'm a little stumped that you think you'll get 'at best' nothing more out of a RAW file than a jpeg. Have you shot RAW extensively? Are you familiar with RAW processing software and techniques?
I have of course used RAW otherwise I would not know !
 

nickthetasmaniac

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 11, 2011
Messages
1,589
And you're getting as good or better results from jpeg? How were/are you processing raws?

I'm not having a go, just curious as my experience with GH2 jpegs hasn't been very positive so far...
 

kevinparis

Cantankerous Scotsman
Joined
Feb 12, 2010
Messages
3,912
Location
Gent, Belgium
mauves comments may have been injudicious... but there is obviously something wrong with either your software or the way you are using it as your experience isn't reflected by the majority.

however your response is completely and utterly unacceptable

K
 

broadway

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 27, 2011
Messages
109
Location
UK
"Photography" means painting with light. So get it right in camera.

"Photography" does not mean knocking it up in a computer.
Digiatl camears by definition knock it up in a computer, you can do the correction using the incamera computer or in post-production on your computer.

Going back to analogue that would mean the only valid print that you would allow is one that mirrors the actal recorded image on film. I don't think many analoque users would argue that viewpoint.
 

Howi

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Feb 23, 2011
Messages
210
Location
Sheffield
Real Name
Howard
"Photography" means painting with light. So get it right in camera.

"Photography" does not mean knocking it up in a computer.
What a complete and utter nonsense, The only true output from a digital camera is the raw file, straight off the sensor - though strictly speaking, that has to go through some sort of process because of the bayer filter.
To produce an 'in camera ' jpg there is hardware and firmware built into the camera, that acts as the 'processing computer' with very little input (in real terms compared to what you can do in LR).
What, pray tell, is the difference between producing a jpg 'in camera' or 'in computer' - NONE! unless you take into consideration the greater processing power and range of adjustments available in the average PC.

The phrase 'Get it right in camera' applies no matter what you shoot raw OR jpg.
 

mauve

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 9, 2010
Messages
1,454
Location
Paris, France
mauves comments may have been injudicious... but there is obviously something wrong with either your software or the way you are using it as your experience isn't reflected by the majority.
You are certainly right. I deleted my answers as the initial message was removed.

Cheers,
 

Amin Sabet

Administrator
Joined
Apr 10, 2009
Messages
10,905
Location
Boston, MA (USA)
We had a discussion in the mod forum to clarify the use of this "depot" thread. We're going to use it as a place to move RAW vs JPEG discussion when it is "off topic" in another thread. It doesn't mean that all RAW vs JPEG discussion must take place in this one disjointed depot thread. Ie, if someone starts another thread with that as the topic, that is fine. I moved the recent discussion back to it's own thread here: https://www.mu-43.com/f42/e-pl2-really-worth-shooting-raw-13217/
 

addieleman

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 5, 2010
Messages
1,043
Location
The Netherlands
Real Name
Ad
One often overlooked advantage of raw is the option to process it later again, starting from all the data the camera has produced for you. I always shoot raw and even after a few years I am still learning post-processing. This gives me the option to redo the processing, starting from something containing as many original data as possible. Raw acts as an insurance this way.

I'd say: Shoot JPEG if you really know what you're doing or if you don't care about wrenching the very best result out of your pics. In other cases, shoot raw, that way you create room for future improvements of your processing skills, better programs (IMHO LR4's raw processor is a BIG improvement over the previous versions of ACR :smile:) etc.
 

vsiddhartha

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 24, 2011
Messages
32
Location
New Jersey
"Photography" means painting with light. So get it right in camera.

"Photography" does not mean knocking it up in a computer.
This pithy one-liner makes a great sound bite, but under scrutiny it seems arbitrary and oversimplified.

What is the source of your reverence for the line of 1's and 0's that streams from your camera? Is its sanctity inherited from the device? Surely that cannot be the case, since the depth and breadth of the camera's digital processing capabilities (formerly relegated to the computer) grow every year, and the blurry line between the two devices is arbitrary at any moment in time.

Then, your disdain for digital manipulations on the computer must stem from the fact that they are performed after the light is captured, as opposed to your jpeg settings, which are decided before the light is captured. However, this would require the absurd belief that Picasso never used is thumb to smudge the paint after its application, or that van Gogh never repainted over a bad spot.

This cannot be a "digital vs. analog" debate, or you wouldn't be on a digital photography forum.

That leaves us with two explanations for your "purist's" viewpoint. 1) You simply prefer the older techniques (though you might call them "traditional", which is also arbitrary), or 2) You fear change and new methods.

Which is it?

I should add that I rarely edit my jpegs after they leave the camera, but that is just because I don't have the time and usually, they satisfy my needs as-is. After all, I'm typically more focused (no pun intended) on my daughter's smile or the twinkle in her eye than I am on the hue of the sky or the sharpness of her eyelashes at 100x magnification.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,397
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Nic
This thread was created as a result of continual off-topic raw vs jpeg arguments that kept occurring a year or so ago, and was used as a dumping ground for such posts. We probably should have come back and locked it or deleted it when M/L left and the arguments stopped happening.

We had a discussion in the mod forum to clarify the use of this "depot" thread. We're going to use it as a place to move RAW vs JPEG discussion when it is "off topic" in another thread. It doesn't mean that all RAW vs JPEG discussion must take place in this one disjointed depot thread. Ie, if someone starts another thread with that as the topic, that is fine. I moved the recent discussion back to it's own thread here: https://www.mu-43.com/f42/e-pl2-really-worth-shooting-raw-13217/
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom