Quick question ???

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

"Brian" wrote in message
...

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing, that is the catch though that you must do at least some PP,
tools like LightRoom can make it pretty easy though. Raw files will almost
always be larger though so expect to use up more of your storgae capacity on
both memory card and PC.

Cheers.

Pete

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:47:27 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
.. .

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing, that is the catch though that you must do at least some PP,
tools like LightRoom can make it pretty easy though. Raw files will almost
always be larger though so expect to use up more of your storgae capacity on
both memory card and PC.

Cheers.

Pete


What type of processing ???? Will Paint Shop Pro X2 process it ???

Thanks
Brian

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:47:27 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
.. .

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing,

In general terms, what Pete D typed is completely untrue. RAW data became
popularized because of really poor RAW to JPG algorithms in DSLR cameras. DSLR
camera owners wanted better than what the firmware of their camera was doing, so
they demanded to have access to the RAW sensor data that the camera was using
for its JPG image output. They wanted a way to try to fix their camera's errors.

In today's cameras, this is usually untrue. The JPG output from the camera
should be close to what you could do on your own when manipulating the RAW data.
If it is not then you are buying ****ty cameras. Since your printout or monitor
display is well below the 16-bit color-depth (8-bit and less), there will be no
difference if you don't retain that 16-bit RAW data. In most instances you will
see little to no gains in manipulating the RAW data if you bought a decent
camera to begin with. You might be able to tweak slightly little more dynamic
range, or slightly more details (pre-camera noise-reduction processes) to try to
correct your own photography errors, but for all intents and purposes if you
bought a good camera and know how to expose a scene properly in the first place
there should be little to no need to have access to the RAW data--unless you
want to try to improve on what your camera failed at providing in the first
place.

This is why so many P&S cameras today have no need to provide RAW data. They've
optimized the RAW - JPG process so completely that you will find little to no
improvement if you try to better the RAW output on your own. Example: While
people rave about the ability of CHDK to provide RAW sensor data from their
non-RAW Canon cameras (and it is nice to have access to that when needed), few
are finding a reason to use the RAW output regularly. The camera's themselves
are doing a better job at final output than any RAW editor can do.

RAW was mandatory at one time, in earlier DSLR environments where the conversion
to JPG was bad to worse. In better cameras today there's not a lot of need for
RAW data, especially if you are a halfway decent photographer to begin with. RAW
is the lame amateur snapshooter's crutch in today's cameras. If they say they
require RAW, you can be certain that they're just really bad at purchasing good
cameras, really bad at photography, or most likely both.

"Brian" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:47:27 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
. ..

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing, that is the catch though that you must do at least some PP,
tools like LightRoom can make it pretty easy though. Raw files will almost
always be larger though so expect to use up more of your storgae capacity
on
both memory card and PC.

Cheers.

Pete


What type of processing ???? Will Paint Shop Pro X2 process it ???

Thanks
Brian

As long as that software has a suitable plug in to do so, otherwise convert
with whatever software came with your camera.

"terrance-minitel" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:47:27 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
. ..

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing,

In general terms, what Pete D typed is completely untrue. RAW data became
popularized because of really poor RAW to JPG algorithms in DSLR cameras.

Not at all, wrong again.....

"terrance-minitel" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 16:47:27 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:


"Brian" wrote in message
. ..

What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

In general terms you will get a better result shooting raw and post
processing,


You should disregard completely the post from t-minitel, who is a well known
for being anti everything DSLR.

RAW is not exclusive to DSLRs, some of the other digital cameras can also
output it.

If you have some skill and are prepared to do some Post Processing you can
produce a better image than just relying on the Camera's built in
processing.

However you could also make a final result worse than the Camera.

Those who use RAW but then rely on the converter's default processing are
unlikely to get much more than leaving the Camera to do the processing.
Except that they still do have the untouched RAW data available for future
reprocessing.

Roy G

Ignore that post; it's totall BS from a well-known troll.

Brian wrote:
What are the advantages shooting in raw vs jpg files ????

Do raw pix look better, easier to edit ???

Thanks
Brian

The advantage is in the shades of color and their accuracy. The
resolution is usually unaffected. One of the mechanisms of the jpeg
compression is that it sort of "compresses" the number of colors. It
alters the colors of some pixels, so you lose color fidelity.

The only time resolution is affected is low contrast resolution where
the detail is due to color differences rather than luminence
differences, but the eye is not very sensitive to that kind of detail
anyway.

But many photographers are sticklers for color fidelity, and have
calibrated the color of their system. For those folks RAW is essential.
Also, for images with subtle color shading, like sunset pictures, the
JPEG can lose some of the subtlety. These shots can benefit from RAW
also, even if you warm the colors in processing.

On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 08:46:18 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:

Ignore that post; it's totall BS from a well-known troll.

And yet, why is it that it makes more sense than your reply. Touched a nerve,
did it? Can't refute it, right? I thought so.