If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG v RAW
Hi Folks:
I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can find the article, and others, at www.blairhoward.com/articles.html Blair |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
JPEG v RAW
On Feb 18, 7:29 pm, "Blair" wrote:
Hi Folks: I've just posted an article about the pros and cons of shooting JPEG versus RAW files. Everyone seems to know there are many different kinds of digital files, the two versions above included. Anyway, I've been getting a lot of questions lately asking me to define the difference and why should we use one instead of the other. You can find the article, and others, atwww.blairhoward.com/articles.html A few comments: The statement "The best programs for dealing with these files, though, are offered as plug-ins for such industry standards as Adobe Photoshop or Photoshop Elements" dismisses some major 3rd-party raw converters. (It also dismisses Adobe Lightroom!) It isn't true that "RAW files are created by your camera in a proprietary format unique to each camera manufacturer". Some cameras use DNG, which is a common raw format defined by Adobe. It isn't true that "All digital camera manufacturers provide special software for processing their own RAW files". They may provide more general software, for example the Leica DMR back ships with PS Elements. The statement "The reason most programs can read and load JPGs is that they have long been the publishing industry's standard format" strains credibility! What about TIFF? Whatever the merits of JPEG, being THE publishing industry's standard format isn't one of them. The statement "Another advantage of using the RAW file is that, other than deleting it, you can't corrupt it" is bizarre! Of course you can corrupt it! (Anyone who is aware of current problems with MS Photo Info, and NEF codecs for Vista, will be aware of that). This appears to buy into the myth that raw files don't get updated by software, whereas lots of products update raw files. The statement "A computer screen is set up to handle no more than 72 dots per inch" is another myth. For example my current computer screen is about 97 pixels (NOT dots) per inch, and others go much higher. The statement"And this is not necessarily a bad thing because you can still change all of those elements, be it to a somewhat limited degree, in Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, but when you do the quality of the image will deteriorate significantly" is a bit misleading. It is interesting to process a high quality JPEG from a camera in (say) Lightroom or ACR 4.0 and see just what factors can easily be changed with relatively little deterioration. I feel that the article dumbs-down, by distorting the facts rather than providing a simple explanation of them. -- Barry Pearson http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/photography/ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
jpeg and jpeg 2000 | Conrad | Digital Photography | 71 | February 3rd 07 11:04 PM |
Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation | Paul D. Sullivan | Digital Photography | 14 | January 30th 07 07:34 PM |
RAW vs. jpeg | Conrad | Digital Photography | 9 | September 30th 06 02:01 PM |
Nikon D70 RAW converted to JPEG - jpeg file size 3MB ? 5 MB? | Amit | Digital Photography | 1 | March 16th 06 06:50 PM |
RAW vs. RAW + JPEG | Floyd Davidson | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | February 22nd 06 03:39 PM |