time lapse video that i've done. watch 1080p/720p full screen. all taken in jpeg
Last edited by Errz; 7th May 2013 at 10:42 PM.
Because so far I have not bothered to shoot in Raw. Only in Jpg.
Yes, I know how good Raw is and so on. It is not my requirement.
Also, there is more to a picture than just what you can do in Photoshop.
There is the composition. The effort put in to wait for the right light to convey the mood you want. The elation at the light captured. The memory of the time spent.
A photograph attempts to put all of the creator's feelings together. A JPG is the result of the camera telling the creator what he felt. Working with the image in RAW format to produce the vision that one had, to try to convey a little shard of that moment, because a photograph just never does sufficient justice to it.. Now that's thinking.
Of course, if the JPG suffices and matches with what the creator envisions, good for him, then just shoot JPG. It's your choice. No one cares about anything but the end result, really. Which is why I never, never, ever understand when people go off on tirades about how they spent 8 hours, 12 lifetimes and 27 milleniums processing the photograph. At the end of the day, if you spent that much time and your result is crap, it's crap. The photograph speaks for itself.
only raw format allow me the to have transition of different WB, and exposure in the clip and maintaining the quality.
other than this, I still have to remove all visible logos and human faces of all the images, it will take very long just to finish one clip.
had never own a darkroom.So in this digital age of photography the only format for me is jpeg and have yet to try to shoot in Raw.
I always try to get it right first time in jpeg as am still an infant learning to walk the 'photoshop' route. As someone mentioned try to get everything right
before you click and avoid the hassle of pp later. I am quite happy with jpeg at the moment as I usually have to print enlargements 20" x 30" posters
for my work and the results are more than satisfying for me. A sample image where all were shot with the 5D classic with minimum pp. So it's a matter
what suits you no hard and fast rules.
raw is nothing but the maximum data you can get from your camera. jpeg is just a compressed version. ever wondered why raw files are significantly larger than jpegs?
because they contain image data, which otherwise saved as raw, will be discarded in jpeg.
anyways, just like tomcat mentioned, shooting in jpeg is like shooting with polaroids. shooting with raw is more like with negatives. darkroom processes is now adobe lightroom/photoshop.
anyways, rubbish in rubbish out. raw isn't able to save crappy shots anyways
I use raw files mainly to retrieve details in my highlights and shadows, which jpeg normally dumps out. also to correct white balance issues and stuff. Usually the extra effort goes in for exhibition prints.
I also do shoot in Jpeg format for events, when raw is just too large and too long to write into camera, and when i hand over photos the other party also don't know how to use raw.
So long as the end result is what i need, i don't really mind raw and jpeg. i use them for specific reasons.
Last edited by allenleonhart; 8th May 2013 at 01:34 AM.
raw is the reason why professional use digital.
if not just develop from film.
most amateur do not understand the potential of raw.
Shooting jpeg is like shooting with film. The film brand and type has unique colour and contrast attributes that distinguish one film from another. Shooting jpeg is the same, you can set your camera up with different colour, sharpness, contrast etc and the camera will process the file to that specification. There is nothing wrong with that, you get a digital print essentially.
RAW, on the other hand, is almost like a pre-negative. You get a very neutral file in terms of tones, colours, contrasts, very bland in some respects. Post processing is then what you apply to give you a specific look to your photo, you have more control over the modification of the image as it's RAW file, but you produce a digital print after your processing.
If you are happy with your colour, contrast, sharpness settings etc in camera, then all you really need to worry about is exposure.
I regretted many of my favourite images didn't shot in RAW in early years, as my digital darkroom skills progress over the years, I could have pull out more data from the RAW files and reprocess them differently.
nevertheless, will not make the same mistake again.
actually, it depends alot on what genre the photographer shoot and what purpose the pictures are for.
doesn't mean all pros use RAW. infact, there are many working photographers who shoot jpgs and that had served them well over the years.
i mean, if they are pro enough, they should be able to net stuff like right exposure / wb etc, right?
It's a valid point. But I don't think RAW offers a dramatically safe range of options in post-processing. You still need to be within a stop or two, and that's not considering focus and shutter speed for motion. But I guess I would view it as shoes instead of crutches haha