David Dyer-Bennet offered these thoughts for the group's
consideration of the matter at hand:

I used the exotic ultra-high performance in another analogy,
stating that it is likely the average driver couldn't even drive
one, and would likely kill themselves attempting to drive it to its
envelope.

To bring this back to cameras, even us who presumeably have at
least SOME understanding of photography and the theories behind
digital can produce lousy photos from simply not knowing how to
properly use a complicated EVF or DSLR, but virtually anyone can
pick of a $150 P & S and at least get pictures good enough to print
to 4 x 6 and be happy as clams.

I agree completely.

More than that -- *some* kinds of "superior" equipment is of the type
that is more controllable and flexible -- but requires more operator
expertise to get any results at all.  I've never driven a real race car,
but I understand they're like that in comparison to an "ordinary" car.

Robert Coe offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

Pretty simple point: simply having good equipment is not at all a
guarantee of success - in any endeavor. It has long been my
belief that being very skilled with "inferior" equipment is
better than being very unskilled with "superior" equipment. I can
cite lots of examples but I don't think I would convince you, so
let's just let it go.

I don't know if the OP did or didn't get anything out of this, or
even if they understood any of it. What we had, though, were lots
of discussion trying to convince people objectively about
something that is highly subjective - image quality, and it's
bigger brother, overall photographic quality.

Maybe you need to change photo editors. With a reasonably good one (even the
freebies they give you when you buy a Canon camera), I've found RAW mode
easier to work with than JPEG. White balance is easier to change, and the
pictures don't wash out when you turn the brightness up.

Well, yeah, but the assumption underlying my "sweeping generalization" was
that one has access to a computer with which to manipulate the captured image.
Without that, you're a P&S photographer, and you probably ought to stick to
JPEG.

I'm not entirely sure what point you're making. But in this newsgroup and
elsewhere there's a tendency to understate the effect of good equipment. A
good camera will make almost any photographer better; good clubs will make
almost any golfer better; etc. (How much better does depend, of course, on the
individual.) One thing I've noticed: most of those who berate others for not
getting good results with inferior equipment are themselves well equipped.

Oh, I don't know. I think the OP posed an interesting question, and the large
number of replies seems to show that others agree. For it to have been
worthwhile, the OP doesn't have to subscribe to, or even understand, any
conclusions that arise as a result of the discussion.

Bob

Robert Coe offered these thoughts for the group's consideration
of the matter at hand:

Let's clarify this a bit, and maybe dispel some myths. First, not
all cameras can shoot in RAW, but I would say that of those that
can, the users that know how are a really small percentage. I've
tried, but can't get high enough up the learning curve to do squat
with RAW, so I gave up. I am more than content with the JPEGs I
produce.

Anytime someone makes a sweeping generalization, it is at the same
time likely to be both right and wrong. e.g., your comment about
JPEG is certainly right, but the owner of any given camera cannot
control what it is doing, the best they can hope for is to
understand it enough to make a decision on what pixel size and what
compression they want to shoot at.

Lots of my retired friends are golfers, probably more hackers than
golfers. What gives me the ROTFLMAO is people who buy the most
expensive possible composite clubs but are incapable of hitting a
golf ball even 50 years down the fairway. So, it isn't the quality
of the input that counts, it is the quality of the output.

I think I've run the course on this thread. If the OP doesn't come
back and clarify some things, this is a pointless debate best left
for everyone to make their own decision about.

Some JPEG compression programs seem to do a better job than others. If you
shoot in RAW, you can always try other programs until you get a result you
like. Then (and only then) delete the RAW version if you don't have space to
save it indefinitely.

Bob

But your image becomes a jpeg at *some* point -- either when
printed or shrunk to fit on a monitor.

So I gather that what you are saying is that you are happier
when *you* control the compression rather than the camera.
I can agree with that.

On May 25, 8:55 am, Don Stauffer in Minnesota <stauf...@usfamily.net>
wrote:

While I agree with the first part, I can't agree that jpeg compression
only reduces color purity.  Jpeg  compression introduces image
artifacts as well, some of which I find more offensive than loss of
color depth/fidelity.

Austin

On May 25, 8:40 am, skark...@gmail.com wrote:

But many has been the time that I have ended up doing a lot with that
I did not intend when I originally made the shot.  Memory cards are
coming down so much in price that this shouldn't be too much of a
problem.

I set cameras for highest res and lowest step of compression (HQ on
most cameras).  I use RAW only for stuff I know I will do a lot with.
High res and moderate JPEG still results in a reasonable size file,
but with not-that-bad a loss of information.

Note that jpeg compression does NOT reduce the resolution of images,
only color purity.  Loss of resolution in my mind is a glaring factor
in image quality.  As long as you use JPEG only for the initial
storage, and not for the file type while processing, you do not lose
all that much. While you are working on a file, store it in the native
format for your image processor (PSD, PSP, etc.).

I print only 1% - 2% of the pictures I shoot. And, I only print in 4x6
most of the time. Even when I enlarge and print, it would only be
8x10. In only one instance I have enlarged the picture to 20x30.

I do crop my images often, but not by much.

In my situation, I should keep the camera set at a lower resolution by
default and use higher resolution setting when I know I will (1) crop
the image eventually or (2) print a blown up picture. That way I can
take more pictures (and video) before filling up the memory card and
don't lose anything in picture quality. (Technically speaking, picture
quality and picture resolution are not related.)

Am I right in my analysis or am I missing something?

If you keep your camera set at the highest resolution supported,
please tell me why do you do that.

Thank you for sharing your opinions.