 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / General Topics / February 2007JPEG 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. Blair >Hi Folks: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Blair Not Found The requested URL /articles was not found on this server. Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request. Apache/1.3.37 Server at blairhoward.bcwhphoto.com Port 80 -Art- (not Art) >>Hi Folks: >> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >-Art- (not Art) Link should end .../articles.html HTH Brian > Hi Folks: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Blair RAW and JPG are 2 different beasts they don't have nothing to against each other, so use them both to enjoy the best of both worlds. RAW is tool with option to do some adjustment while JPG (or graphic program) is the one to make the changing, and do what RAW can't. >>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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > option to do some adjustment while JPG (or graphic program) is the one to > make the changing, and do what RAW can't. I would really like to hear some clarifications about what you mean by this --- because I have to confess that it sounds like nonsense; then again, I may be missing or misunderstanding something. Given the choice, one would *never* use JPEG as the "source" material to edit (as much as one would *never* use MP3 for audio edition --- you use the original/uncompressed material, do all the effects and editions needed, and if anything, render to MP3 at the end). Same thing for video --- you would never have your "source footage" in MPEG; you edit and add effects with the uncompressed version, and then the *final* rendering, you do in MPEG (that is, if you're authoring DVDs). What is it that JPEG can do that RAW can't? (other than saving storage space with respect to RAW?) Carlos -- > >>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 [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Carlos Well, if you can't tell what JPG can that RAW can't then I don't think it will be any good for me to tell you. Or if RAW does everything you need then you don't need to know anything about JPG. Just like I heard few people said they have RAW converter to replace Photoshop, and I'm just happy for them like I am happy for you <bg> >> > RAW and JPG are 2 different beasts they don't have nothing to against each >> > other, so use them both to enjoy the best of both worlds. RAW is tool with >> > option to do some adjustment while JPG (or graphic program) is the one to >> > make the changing, and do what RAW can't. I can't make out what the above is supposed to mean. One is a "tool" and the other is "to make the changing"? And what can JPG do that RAW cannot? >> I would really like to hear some clarifications about what you mean >> by this --- because I have to confess that it sounds like nonsense; >> then again, I may be missing or misunderstanding something. I thought that was a good point, and was interested in reading a different description, because it appears that it might be a language barrier rather than a problem with understanding. >> Given the choice, one would *never* use JPEG as the "source" material >> to edit (as much as one would *never* use MP3 for audio edition --- [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> Carlos What Carlos said makes sense to me (granted that it may take an extensive background to make sense out of it, so I'm not saying that everyone would see it as obviously well stated because it is just too brief a comment to have all the needed detail). > Well, if you can't tell what JPG can that RAW can't then I don't think it >will be any good for me to tell you. Or if RAW does everything you need >then you don't need to know anything about JPG. RAW is just one step on the way to JPG. You cannot get to JPG without using RAW first. The question is merely one of do you process the RAW data in the camera, and thus do it with a preset configuration that is the same for every image, or not. If you shoot JPG you cannot go back and process individual images differently from the raw data. If you shoot RAW format then you can process each image as needed. There is *nothing* that "JPG can that RAW can't". The statement is either poorly constructed, or you do not understand the process by which images are generated. > Just like I heard few people said they have RAW converter to replace >Photoshop, and I'm just happy for them like I am happy for you <bg> I don't think that makes much sense either... ;-)  SignatureFloyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson> Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com <snip> > >> Carlos > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > I don't think that makes much sense either... ;-) Like I said if you find RAW is all you need then I am happy for you and Carlos <bg> SignatureI really hate to eat on an empty stomach. Stan Beck > From New Orleans to Brandon MS To reply, remove 101 from address. *** floyd@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote: <snip> <trimmed> Like I said if you find RAW is all you need then I am happy for you and Carlos <bg> ". . . all you need . . ." ? ! ? You think there is something better? Something that gives you more? >>> Well, if you can't tell what JPG can that RAW can't then I don't think it >>>will be any good for me to tell you. Or if RAW does everything you need [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Like I said if you find RAW is all you need then I am happy for you and > Carlos <bg> So, basically, you're telling me that you have nothing to say in defense of your statement ... That makes sense, given that I am convinced that there is nothing that can be said in its defense (as I said, except for the argument that "JPEG saves storage space with respect to RAW", which RAW obviously can not --- RAW can not save storage space with respect to RAW, of course). Please make a habit of acknowledging when something you said was wrong --- there aren't many things that speak better of a person than the ability to acknowledge when they're wrong. Or, *by all means* do point out why your statement was not wrong! Simply saying "I won't tell you if you don't know" does not constitute in the least an argument in favor of your statement. Carlos -- > >>> Well, if you can't tell what JPG can that RAW can't then I don't think it > >>>will be any good for me to tell you. Or if RAW does everything you need [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > space with respect to RAW", which RAW obviously can not --- RAW > can not save storage space with respect to RAW, of course). Hahah I have nothing to defend, or if I have to exchange some information then I world rather spend my valuable time to gather the real information. > Please make a habit of acknowledging when something you said was > wrong --- there aren't many things that speak better of a person > than the ability to acknowledge when they're wrong. Or, *by all > means* do point out why your statement was not wrong! I's so simple but you just can't get it. And like I said I have no interest in telling other that s/he is right/wrong, and I am happy that you find RAW is all you need. And there is nothing better than getting all_we_need > Simply saying "I won't tell you if you don't know" does not > constitute in the least an argument in favor of your statement. I meant what I said. Or if you think you are way above then bring yourself down to my level then we can discuss or exchange the same information at the same level. Or *until* you can see the difference between "JPG" and "RAW", "Converter" and "Editor" etc.. I have no idea how to make you any happier. And I don't think that we can discuss much about "RAW" vs "JPG" that we have been reading quite afew for the past 2-3 years when RAW was born and become more popular, sometime it took weeks of talk to make the author of some RAW book/web to realize what s/he wrote ain't correct. IOW, you may have known RAW for months or 1-2 years, but many of us have been knowing RAW about same time you do, and JPG for ages. > Carlos >>Please make a habit of acknowledging when something you said was >>wrong --- there aren't many things that speak better of a person [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Or *until* you can see the difference between "JPG" and "RAW", "Converter" > and "Editor" etc.. I have no idea how to make you any happier. Explaining what you said (which, again, the way I understood it sounded like nonsense) would have made me very happy. But I see that your posts are simply another instance of trolling, so I'll be happy by withdrawing and flagging this sub-thread as "not interested" Carlos -- > >>Please make a habit of acknowledging when something you said was > >>wrong --- there aren't many things that speak better of a person [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Explaining what you said (which, again, the way I understood it > sounded like nonsense) would have made me very happy. Because it's non-sense to begin with, and that's one of the reasons I have no interest in discussing the non-sense. You in other hand want to know what you don't know > But I see that your posts are simply another instance of trolling, > so I'll be happy by withdrawing and flagging this sub-thread as > "not interested" Hahaha when I said I have no intest then it means off your limit, no need to continue, you don't need to use the word trolling *unless* you understand what trolling is. Or if you understand then it means STOP, no need to drag it any longer (or until you know more than what you now know). > Carlos On Feb 19, 10:16 am, Carlos Moreno <cm_clcppm_7b8f93f...@mochima.com> wrote: > >>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 [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Carlos > -- Oh Gawd, not another Raw v jpg thread. There are a few things the jpg can do that RAW can't but in general RAW is the more versital way to go for capture. In tricky light, RAW is better for capture because of its dynamic range. For most pictures, though, it really doesn't matter. Jpg saves space, that's for sure. It also saves time, since you have to convert RAW to jpg for many purposes. It doesn't matter if much if every exposure is the same and you are doing a batch conversion, but if every exposure is the same, you could probably shoot in jpg anyway. Jpg's other advantage is that's it's much more universal. If I'm sending things to the lab, they need to be in jpg since few labs take RAW images. So if I'm shooting an event and I have lots of control over lighting, I use jpg for the convenience and because there's no need for RAW. RAW is better because I am often shooting hundreds of images. But when the bride (in white) and the groom (in black) walk down the aisle, I switch over to RAW for the added latitude. There is a definate time and place for each format. RAW provides greater latitude. Jpg provides greater convenience and is required for most transfers and viewing. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.