for those who ask about RAW vs JPG. a good example

"YoYo" your.business.com wrote in message
...

I know I have heard you babies cry before
but edit away and stop crying
some dont have to and live well...

"Paul H." wrote in message
...

snip

Oh, excuse me: I hadn't realized you were a know-nothing, troll-wannabe.
My mistake, bunky.

yawn..
"Brian C. Baird" wrote in message
.. .
In article , says...
I know I have heard you babies cry before
but edit away and stop crying
some dont have to and live well...

#1: Stop top posting. It's more annoying than your attitude.

#2: I guess you shouldn't "edit" your photos at all. Turn off auto
white balance, don't sharpen and always meter properly. Good luck
making anything that looks good.

"Paul H." wrote in message
...
[]
That's a strange comment because sometimes post-processing or editing is
essential for anything other than simple snapshots.

Seems a peculiar way of putting it! The juxtaposition of "sometimes" and
"essential".

I must admit that regard post-processing as something with which to rescue
photographs that have somehow gone wrong, or where joining or geometric
correction was intended at taking time. It would would be nice to have
12-bit JPEG, though!

Cheers,
David

So even if the goal is a realistic-looking landscape, there is absolutely
nothing philosophically or artistically wrong about post-processing RAW
images from a digital camera. Post-processing doesn't always imply a lack
of skill and often it's the only way to get a print worth a second look.

Absolutely not, there's nothing wrong with whatever you want to do with your
images. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with choosing to shoot in JPEG and not
bothering with post-processing if that's someone's preference. Personally,
that's my preference; that's why I chose a DIMA 2004 camera, and that's why I
have a calibrated CRT monitor. I've been looking at the images and they've been
very pleasing.

It's also why i carefully chose that the camera have a praised automatic
exposure setting, yet have spot metering mode and up to -/+ 3 in exposure
compensation.

Do I want to shoot RAW?

Nope.

Finest JPEG all the way; award-winning realism and correctly-exposed.

People enjoy different things. I personally don't enjoy tweaking image software
sliders to get them to look right. If you do, do it to your heart's content.
Just don't tell me that your tweaking is "better" than what i do.

#2: I guess you shouldn't "edit" your photos at all. Turn off auto
white balance, don't sharpen and always meter properly. Good luck
making anything that looks good.

Dude, what's the point?

If your camera doesn't make "anything that looks good" without you tinkering on
the computer slavishly then you ought to replace it.

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

So even if the goal is a realistic-looking landscape, there is absolutely
nothing philosophically or artistically wrong about post-processing RAW
images from a digital camera. Post-processing doesn't always imply a
lack
of skill and often it's the only way to get a print worth a second look.

Absolutely not, there's nothing wrong with whatever you want to do with
your
images. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with choosing to shoot in JPEG and
not
bothering with post-processing if that's someone's preference. Personally,
that's my preference; that's why I chose a DIMA 2004 camera, and that's
why I
have a calibrated CRT monitor. I've been looking at the images and they've
been
very pleasing.

It's also why i carefully chose that the camera have a praised automatic
exposure setting, yet have spot metering mode and up to -/+ 3 in exposure
compensation.

Do I want to shoot RAW?

Nope.

Finest JPEG all the way; award-winning realism and correctly-exposed.

People enjoy different things. I personally don't enjoy tweaking image
software
sliders to get them to look right. If you do, do it to your heart's
content.
Just don't tell me that your tweaking is "better" than what i do.




This post was to show a worst case scenario and how powerful RAW is
regarding information that can be recovered VS JPEG. Obviously the optimal
method is to properly expose but there is more to it than just having
perfectly exposed images. My workflow is much faster using RAW vs JPG, I
always give each shot a quick lookover and batch them away its fast and
efficient. I have several custom workflow settings/modified camera profiles
etc.. for different uses, some people like the look of velvia others the
look of realia or portra some like neutral accurate colors etc... it is so
much faster to batch custom jobs for people VIA RAW. Maybe you never
experienced time in a darkroom but I consider the postprocess work darkroom
time and that is always just as important as taking the picture.

There is no better, it all depends on your requirements and your customers
requirements.

"Sabineellen" wrote in message
...

So even if the goal is a realistic-looking landscape, there is absolutely
nothing philosophically or artistically wrong about post-processing RAW
images from a digital camera. Post-processing doesn't always imply a
lack
of skill and often it's the only way to get a print worth a second look.

Absolutely not, there's nothing wrong with whatever you want to do with
your
images. Likewise, there's nothing wrong with choosing to shoot in JPEG and
not
bothering with post-processing if that's someone's preference. Personally,
that's my preference; that's why I chose a DIMA 2004 camera, and that's
why I
have a calibrated CRT monitor. I've been looking at the images and they've
been
very pleasing.

It's also why i carefully chose that the camera have a praised automatic
exposure setting, yet have spot metering mode and up to -/+ 3 in exposure
compensation.

Do I want to shoot RAW?

Nope.

Finest JPEG all the way; award-winning realism and correctly-exposed.

People enjoy different things. I personally don't enjoy tweaking image
software
sliders to get them to look right. If you do, do it to your heart's
content.
Just don't tell me that your tweaking is "better" than what i do.




This post was to show a worst case scenario and how powerful RAW is
regarding information that can be recovered VS JPEG. Obviously the optimal
method is to properly expose but there is more to it than just having
perfectly exposed images. My workflow is much faster using RAW vs JPG, I
always give each shot a quick lookover and batch them away its fast and
efficient. I have several custom workflow settings/modified camera profiles
etc.. for different uses, some people like the look of velvia others the
look of realia or portra some like neutral accurate colors etc... it is so
much faster to batch custom jobs for people VIA RAW. Maybe you never
experienced time in a darkroom but I consider the postprocess work darkroom
time and that is always just as important as taking the picture.

There is no better, it all depends on your requirements and your customers
requirements.

"David J Taylor"
wrote in message ...
"Paul H." wrote in message
...
[]
That's a strange comment because sometimes post-processing or editing is
essential for anything other than simple snapshots.

Seems a peculiar way of putting it! The juxtaposition of "sometimes" and
"essential".

I must admit that regard post-processing as something with which to rescue
photographs that have somehow gone wrong, or where joining or geometric
correction was intended at taking time. It would would be nice to have
12-bit JPEG, though!

Cheers,
David



but humans are not perfect so when an ooops occurs its always good to know
there is always a little extra help.
The main thing I use postprocess work is for custom color, sort of adding a
little sizzle or flavor to the steak

but humans are not perfect so when an ooops occurs its always good to know
there is always a little extra help.
The main thing I use postprocess work is for custom color, sort of adding a
little sizzle or flavor to the steak

Hi Hugo. I totally agree that if you're a person who "custom" tweaks images for
adding a "little sizzle or flavor", then RAW is the one to go for.

I have a problem though with people who say they shoot RAW because they want to
be sure they got what the eye saw. I think it's a little outlandish to say that
they can have the ability to determine that's how the scene looked while
they're away from it, sitting on their computer screen, and claiming that they
have the vision or memory to see or remember so accurately that that's how
things looked.

I'll challenge any one of them anytime, anywhere. Give me an Olympus 5060 or
8080 (or HP 945 or Leica digilux 2). I'll use it JPEG mode. Give them whatever
camera they want and let them shoot RAW and tweak it to their heart's content
at their computer after the fact, and we'll see who gets it right exactly like
the eye saw it.

but humans are not perfect so when an ooops occurs its always good to know
there is always a little extra help.
The main thing I use postprocess work is for custom color, sort of adding a
little sizzle or flavor to the steak

Hi Hugo. I totally agree that if you're a person who "custom" tweaks images for
adding a "little sizzle or flavor", then RAW is the one to go for.

I have a problem though with people who say they shoot RAW because they want to
be sure they got what the eye saw. I think it's a little outlandish to say that
they can have the ability to determine that's how the scene looked while
they're away from it, sitting on their computer screen, and claiming that they
have the vision or memory to see or remember so accurately that that's how
things looked.

I'll challenge any one of them anytime, anywhere. Give me an Olympus 5060 or
8080 (or HP 945 or Leica digilux 2). I'll use it JPEG mode. Give them whatever
camera they want and let them shoot RAW and tweak it to their heart's content
at their computer after the fact, and we'll see who gets it right exactly like
the eye saw it.