Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 61 to 73 of 73

Thread: .RAW vs .JPG

  1. #61
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    NTU and Wdls
    Posts
    2,622

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by xunjas View Post
    No prophoto, i use bridge to convert from RAW to jpeg, leaving the sRGB profile unchecked, i din select other options. However, the color space of my cam is sRGB.
    Hmmmm if you'd like to shoot raw,how can you leave such impt things to chance?

    chanjyj => If i'm not wrong, if you leave it unchecked, there's simply no profile attached to the photo. If you open it up in photoshop or somewhere else with a different colour space, the colours maybe mapped wrongly, resulting in colour inaccuracies.

  2. #62

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by unseen View Post
    Hmmmm if you'd like to shoot raw,how can you leave such impt things to chance?

    chanjyj => If i'm not wrong, if you leave it unchecked, there's simply no profile attached to the photo. If you open it up in photoshop or somewhere else with a different colour space, the colours maybe mapped wrongly, resulting in colour inaccuracies.

    That was why I was asking him why he shoots RAW when he doesn't bother with the colour space.

    Anyway personal, commercial, whatever, all goes through JPEG for me. I find that RAW does not make fine tuning for WB or whatever any easier - No difference to me at all.

  3. #63
    Senior Member xunjas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapura
    Posts
    6,490

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by unseen View Post
    Hmmmm if you'd like to shoot raw,how can you leave such impt things to chance?

    chanjyj => If i'm not wrong, if you leave it unchecked, there's simply no profile attached to the photo. If you open it up in photoshop or somewhere else with a different colour space, the colours maybe mapped wrongly, resulting in colour inaccuracies.
    i find the sRGB colors look sort of dull, after conversion, the photos look richer and vibrant. hence i accepted the unchecked profile.

  4. #64

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by xunjas View Post
    i find the sRGB colors look sort of dull, after conversion, the photos look richer and vibrant. hence i accepted the unchecked profile.
    Somehow I got the feeling you don't really know what you are doing. Or maybe you don't know how to use in camera settings to ensure the JPEG comes out the way you want.

    RAW may come out more vibrant for you simply because no in camera optimization was done - instead Adobe Bridge is doing the job for you.

  5. #65
    Senior Member xunjas's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Singapura
    Posts
    6,490

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    i shoot raw for the purpose of doing special effects to the photos. Change color toning or enhancing the colors to be richer than jpg. The other raw photos being converted to jpg for the customers for easy viewing.

  6. #66

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by xunjas View Post
    i shoot raw for the purpose of doing special effects to the photos. Change color toning or enhancing the colors to be richer than jpg. The other raw photos being converted to jpg for the customers for easy viewing.

    Okay... JPEG can also do that actually (Hue/Saturation in Photoshop CS3, CS2, CS)

    You live in Tampines? Maybe one day I can pop by and see how you do it.. maybe RAW has some advantage over JPEG in this area that I have not seen before.. can learn from you

  7. #67
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Boon Lay
    Posts
    896

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    For me heres the equation
    JPEG = PNS
    RAW = DSLR


    Jpeg for Continus Shots
    RAW for Detailed Shots
    Canon 5D2, 1dmk2n, 24-70 L, 70-200 L, 50 1.8

  8. #68

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    shooting RAW requires an investment in time... time to process and time to learn how to process... if not, shoot in jpg... let the camera companies (who aren't all that bad at photography and processing, you would think) do the processing... but for those who like to experiment and have more control, the option is there with RAW...
    Last edited by theRBK; 28th December 2007 at 12:30 AM.

  9. #69
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by theRBK View Post
    shooting RAW requires an investment in time... time to process and time to learn how to process... if not, shoot in jpg... let the camera companies (who aren't all that bad at photography and processing, you would think) do the processing... but for those who like to experiment and have more control, the option is there with RAW...
    Isn't photography already taking up time? It's only 1 more step in the post-processing work.

    Unless of course, YOU DUN EVEN bother to post-process... might as well shoot with a PnS.
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  10. #70

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by zac08 View Post
    Isn't photography already taking up time? It's only 1 more step in the post-processing work.

    Unless of course, YOU DUN EVEN bother to post-process... might as well shoot with a PnS.


    but learning and applying workflow does require an investment in time and effort...

  11. #71

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Well, there are two sides oif the coin really. Even within the camera there are certain parameters you can apply to JPEG, and out of the camera post processing that you can apply to JPEG.

    It may not be correct to equate shooting JPEG straight out of a camera the same as shooting JPEG out of a PNS.

  12. #72
    Senior Member zac08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    East
    Posts
    11,755

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    Quote Originally Posted by chanjyj View Post
    Well, there are two sides oif the coin really. Even within the camera there are certain parameters you can apply to JPEG, and out of the camera post processing that you can apply to JPEG.

    It may not be correct to equate shooting JPEG straight out of a camera the same as shooting JPEG out of a PNS.
    My apologies... but there are some people who seem to think so and expect crisp colour and super sharp images straight from the camera. Just look at those who put up pics in this forum.

    There are shots which can be used straight from the camera (if you know what you're doing and do it right)

    But for the majority, a lil work in front of the PC can do wonders to make the picture look much better.
    Michael Lim
    My Flickr Site

  13. #73

    Default Re: .RAW vs .JPG

    proper exposure, white balance, setting sharpness, contrast, colour controls, etc. can get an experienced photog great shots most of the time... but there is no denying that if dynamic range is to be maximised, RAW captures which are the readouts off the sensor, hold more information than jpgs and would allow for greater exposure latitude and differences in contrast levels... camera jpgs can produce great images, even from some of the older cameras (my 6 yr old E10 can do a pretty decent job of it), and the workflow with proper settings done is undoubtably fast, but they do throw out a good deal of info when it is developed in-camera...

    in the end, it depends on whether the advantages of RAW or JPGs are predominant for the shoot in question... in this day and age, memory cost should not be too limiting a factor (I shot jpgs with my E10 cause in those days, 256MB of CF cost like ~$130... but as a consequence became pretty good with spot metering...) but if you need really fast turn around, jpgs from a properly configured camera and refined workflow can produce the goods most of the time...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •