Raw vs jpeg?

Aren't the cameras/lenses not capable of doing these things without pp? I was asked this a couple of months back and tbh I couldn't answer, he said he'd joined a forum (no idea which) to ask about upgrading a camera and people kept going on about pp
 
Phil V said:
Well it is up to the individual...

But I'd have thought major PP is much more common in 'static subjects', when I'm shooting moving subjects it makes it easy to ensure the subject takes precedence. So if there's a blown highlight in the background I'm hardly likely to care, and I certainly wouldn't have been in a position to shoot at a different EV to merge exposures.

Whereas with a static scene, ensuring that a dynamic range beyond what the camera is capable of, well PP can do that for us.

Oh, and I can afford Lightroom and Photoshop, because people buy my pictures ;)
Click to expand...
I was referring to a moment in time you can't recapture rather than a moving subject, that's when I use it if/when I might have the exposure etc wrong though that's with my dslr, doesn't happen with fuji with live view
 
Robintaylor said:
Aren't the cameras/lenses not capable of doing these things without pp? I was asked this a couple of months back and tbh I couldn't answer, he said he'd joined a forum (no idea which) to ask about upgrading a camera and people kept going on about pp
Click to expand...
No, they're not, I'd have thought you'd have realised that?
 
Robintaylor said:
I was referring to a moment in time you can't recapture rather than a moving subject, that's when I use it if/when I might have the exposure etc wrong though that's with my dslr, doesn't happen with fuji with live view
Click to expand...
It's nothing to do with getting the exposure wrong. You can do everything perfectly and still need to tweak in post, especially with landscape photography.

And don't fool yourself into thinking you're "getting it right in camera" shooting JPEGs every time as you haven't had to post process. The camera has done it for you and you don't know how the camera software has compensated.
 
Last edited:
Robintaylor said:
So every photo ever taken needs pp? :-D what happened before photoshop????
Click to expand...
Every raw yes. Otherwise you can't see it.

Every JPEG, yes, but your cameras done it for you.

And before photoshop people used to process in dark rooms, nothing has changed. You've heard of Ansel Adams?

You're trolling now surely??

(And my quote referred to accurate dynamic range, not that every shot needs PP).
 
Last edited:
Robintaylor said:
So every photo ever taken needs pp? :-D what happened before photoshop????
Click to expand...

Before Photoshop we'd dodge, burn, mask, use filters in the darkroom, push, pull, adjust contrast and do nearly all the shenanigans that's possible with digital processing, only much slower and with less precision. Seriously now, you don't think all those famous B&W images are anything like straight prints?

A jpeg file is just like the old 6X4 enprint that you'd get back - a machine-created approximation of what's on the negative, printed to an overall 18% grey and average neutral(ish) colour.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
It's nothing to do with getting the exposure wrong. You can do everything perfectly and still need to tweak in post, especially with landscape photography.

And don't fool yourself into thinking you're "getting it right in camera" shooting JPEGs every time as you haven't had to post process. The camera has done it for you and you don't know how the camera software has compensated.
Click to expand...
I normally go by my eyes, that normally tells me if I want to keep, tweak or delete
 
ancient_mariner said:
Before Photoshop we'd dodge, burn, mask, use filters in the darkroom, push, pull, adjust contrast and do nearly all the shenanigans that's possible with digital processing, only much slower and with less precision. Seriously now, you don't think all those famous B&W images are anything like straight prints?

A jpeg file is just like the old 6X4 enprint that you'd get back - a machine-created approximation of what's on the negative, printed to an overall 18% grey and average neutral(ish) colour.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of that, a friend of mine did all that and still does, that's why few people had any interest in photography till the digital age
 
Robintaylor said:
So every photo ever taken needs pp? :-D what happened before photoshop????
Click to expand...
Film had:
A greater dynamic range
B greater exposure latitude

And if you weren't aware of both those things, you might ask yourself why you've got a superior attitude without the knowledge to back it up. :)
 
Robintaylor said:
I was referring to a moment in time you can't recapture rather than a moving subject, that's when I use it if/when I might have the exposure etc wrong though that's with my dslr, doesn't happen with fuji with live view
Click to expand...
I'm afraid you're suffering from a misconception...

PP isn't to put things right that you got wrong because you didn't have time to get it right. :(
 
Robintaylor said:
I'm well aware of that, a friend of mine did all that and still does, that's why few people had any interest in photography till the digital age
Click to expand...
Compared to how many people there are that use digital cameras, there still aren't that many actually interested in 'photography'.
 
Phil V said:
I'm afraid you're suffering from a misconception...

PP isn't to put things right that you got wrong because you didn't have time to get it right. :(
Click to expand...

This, really. PP is about getting the best out of your image, like hand printing. EVERY photo will benefit from careful processing, just like it always did.
 
Phil V said:
Film had:
A greater dynamic range
B greater exposure latitude

And if you weren't aware of both those things, you might ask yourself why you've got a superior attitude without the knowledge to back it up. :)
Click to expand...
I've no superior knowledge, like you obviously have, I asked a question you failed to answer
 
Last edited:
Children why are you getting so defensive?? I'm not slating or criticising pp, simply suggesting it's not the b all and end all and not always necessary, they're photographs not life saving equipment
 
Last edited:
Robintaylor said:
Children why are you getting so defensive?? I'm not slating or criticising pp, simply suggesting it's not the b all and end all and not always necessary.
Click to expand...

No, it's just that your arrogant superior attitude wasn't backed up with any knowledge of the subject.

And your posting style is unnecessarily patronising.
 
Last edited:
Agree time to leave the easily upset brigade :-(
 
Robintaylor said:
Agree time to leave the easily upset brigade :-(
Click to expand...
Who's upset?

Trying to teach people is what a lot of us do (some people for real money). It's a straightforward process, and lots of people are grateful for the increased knowledge. Whereas others:...?

Well believe it or not... Some people just spout complete [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] with no understanding of a subject, and when people try to help them out with actual knowledge, they then start behaving like spoilt kids.
 
Robintaylor said:
I've no superior knowledge, like you obviously have, I asked a question you failed to answer
Click to expand...
I answered your question, before photoshop we had film (they overlapped by a long way but that's irrelevant), so I explained why in those days we didn't need photoshop. :)

My only mistake was not realising you'd need me to tell you we used film in the days before photoshop, I assumed someone arguing about PP would understand that.
 
Last edited:
I can never believe what I'm reading when grown adults can't have a reasonable conversation without it getting out of hand!

In answer to the original question, I shoot raw because it gives me the most editable version of the file I can get. If I want to edit extensively I can, if not I don't have to. Say I'm photographing a black and white bird like an oystercatcher. It's near impossible to expose correctly for the subtle feather detail in both blacks and whites in one shot, without doing anything in PP.
 
Phil V said:
Who's upset?

Trying to teach people is what a lot of us do (some people for real money). It's a straightforward process, and lots of people are grateful for the increased knowledge. Whereas others:...?

Well believe it or not... Some people just spout complete b****x with no understanding of a subject, and when people try to help them out with actual knowledge, they then start behaving like spoilt kids.
Click to expand...
Phil I've been asked to drop the attitude and you have to have the last word? Be a good boy and go to to bed
 
Phil V said:
And that's what kind of attitude?
Click to expand...


mug-yorkshireman.jpg
 
Robintaylor said:
Yorkies brown and thick ee by gum :-D
Click to expand...
I was under the impression you'd left the thread. :)

But feel free to keep digging, you're clearly entertaining many, I'm sure your stay here will be short but spectacular.
 
Ah, Robin, haven't we seen you here before? Possibly with a different name?
 
Robintaylor said:
So every photo ever taken needs pp? :-D what happened before photoshop????
Click to expand...
Well - to over-simplify, people either spent time in a darkroom, or took their films to Boots. The modern, digital equivalent to that is obvious. Except that nowadays a good camera's internal processing (especially Fuji's, if you like), along with its onboard controls, are overall more accomplished than a machine-print lab used to be - if used well (there's always scope for error, & it helps to know when to intervene).

But many possible things conspire to make a photograph that 'works' - and some of those can be accidental! I've seen many a snapshot that had more aesthetic merit and more human meaning than a lot of the over-engineered stuff that some equipment-freaks earnestly & laboriously pump out. Art welcomes accidents! Being in control should be partnered with knowing when to let go ...

And, as it happens, I detest the synthetically wimpy term 'pp' - what's the first 'p' for? Come on. What? I could make a couple of suggestions ...

But the base-line is that if you want to do the best you can generally, and almost certainly if you might want to print big for a show, then you ain't going to be piddling with jpg's ex camera, unless ... you've considered everything about what you do & what you need.

What's appropriate is personal, but do an exhaustive appraisal first.

Or just wing it.
 
Last edited:
oh dear,

As has been said many times... before we processed our shots on the pc some of us (not me) did it in the darkroom and here's a question for Mr Robin... is there anything that's done on the pc today that wasn't done in the darkroom? Even the choice of film had a pretty significant effect on the final image, didn't it? The look was decided by the film manufacturer but these days we decide it by moving the sliders so what's new? To me what's new is that I have more control and I don't have to rely on a chemist at Kodak or a technician at Canon. I don't see how relying on either of those guys is right and me deciding what my own pictures should look like is wrong.
 
Robintaylor said:
Fuji probably do the best jpeg images. get to know the camera and how to get the best out of it and you'll find there's no need for pp, I do very little pp, I really can't be bothered spending time on computer doing pp. For amateur use its not necessary unless you need to or enjoy doing it
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Most if not all images benefit from PP even if you got it 'right' in camera.
I must say you cannot be any type of serious or passionate photographer to overlook such an important part of the process because you 'can't be bothered'.
 
The difference Between 'Data' & Information
The Whether forecast For Birmingham, tomorrow (10am);
Data:
Temperature =10 Degrees
Wind-Speed 11mph North-North-West
Visibility 'good'
Humindity 76%
UV Index 1
Probability of Precipitation 5%​
Information:
It'll be cold & dry and a bit cloudy.​

Do we need to know the exact temperature or UV index? Do we WANT to know these 'facts', OR do we just want to know whether to take a drolly with us when we go to catch the bus to work?

'Data' is not 'information', it is the unprocessed 'facts' from which you might 'infer' something 'useful' which is the 'information'.

Direct from camera RAW files, contain the 'raw' un-interpreted 'data' that might be used to describe a picture. It is not a 'picture'.

The JPeg 'standard' is a 'standard' for creating a set of 'paint by numbers' instructions for a computer device to paint the picture by numbers.

The 'Raw' snobbery abut the question of 'throwing away data' is some-what curious, as that 'data' unless its used to make a picture is pretty much irrelevant and useless.... what counts is what's in the data file that paints by numbers the picture you see... which means the 'throwing away data' issue isn't one.. its merely WHO throws away the data and decides what is or isn't thrown away....

Issue as to how much 'less' 'original' data is contained in a JPEG is then some-what mute, if you consider that's always what you are going to 'see', and the 'information' that's important is the data-file describing those display pixels, where, what the camera saw might not actually be all that important or relevant.

You can make a JPeg 'picture' file in 'Paint'; you don't need ANY 'original data' from a camera, and having more data wont make your display picture any more 'accurate' or 'faithful', to what you saw.

It offers some small additional chance in PP to make some pretty limited adjustment to you might use to add correction you couldn't if the camera has encoded straight to JPEG, interpreting the capture data as the cameras programmers have pre-determined, rather than how you might choose, but it IS a pretty limited amount of adjustment.

And ultimately you are goig to end up looking at a paint by numbers 'display' image, so does it really matter whether any 'Post-Processing' to effect a look or style, comes from original captured data, or from data recorded in Post-Process, from moving a slider, adding a 'one touch filter effect' or even painting in individual pixels to spot-out or clone in, or even paint over what is there with what we want to be there in the displayed image.

That, the displayed image, is at the end of the day what we see, regardless of what relevant or irrelevant data might be the stored image file, surely?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top