# JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss



## Heather Koch (Nov 22, 2014)

Found this article and for me I always thought RAW was best...  

Thoughts? 


JPEG vs. RAW


----------



## astroNikon (Nov 22, 2014)

It did say that too
Even the article stated
"Don’t let anyone tell you that JPEGs are just as good as RAWs because the bottom line is that they are not."

But there are instances where jpegs are handy


----------



## Josh66 (Nov 22, 2014)

He assumes that pictures will not be edited, in which case JPG wins.


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 22, 2014)

Thoughts about what? The article? Full of false assumptions and faulty thinking. The author knows enough to think he/she can write and internet article and not enough to have skipped having the article edited by someone who understands the topic. More misleading internet drivel.

Raw vs JPEG? I like raw.

Joe


----------



## Rick50 (Nov 22, 2014)

If you do an on line search of "JPEG vs RAW" an array of interesting articles will pop up. In simplicity a RAW file is not really
an image and requires processing on your computer and the advantage is you get all the information from the Camera sensor. A JPEG
file is an image and has been processed by your camera and it has thrown away plenty of information in the process of creating the image
before giving it to you.
If at all possible it is best to shoot RAW and process later. As you learn you can always go back and re-process yourself as you don't lose
the original info.


----------



## Overread (Nov 22, 2014)

Generally there is no best - there are variables that are more viable for some situations over others.

JPEG offers:
1) Smaller file size - this means more shots on the card; less storage space needed for shots on the computer; larger burst of shots on the DSLR before the buffer is full; easier/quicker to transfer online.

2) Print/display ready - no editing, no corrections. You can take the JPEG and make full use of it right from the get go. 

3) Lossy file format - not really an offering as such, but this file format will degrade the more times you save the JPEG. Chances are you won't see any degradation for the first few saves; so you can edit and save a good couple of times before you'd see any potential loss of quality.

RAW offers:
1) No fixed white balance - you can adjust it easily with the sliders, more so than with JPEG (apparent in more tricky situations).

2) As full a picture of data from the sensor as possible. This means that you've more information, more data to work with in the shot. This is most evident when you edit more heavily - or when the dynamic range was greater (sometimes you can process twice and get one for the darks and one for the whites and then blend them - where-as on a single JPEG it wouldn't be possible). 

3) Loss-less save format - this means that you can save as many times as you want and no data is lost between saves (technically you never edit a RAW file, RAW processing software makes a file up which details the changes you set with that software and applies them to the original RAW each time - you then save that out-put in a format of your choosing  so the RAW itself is never altered) 



JPEGs are often used in situations where you want shots fast from the camera. Often journalists and sports photographers will use them since they can quickly get print-ready files to be sent to the printers with the least amount of lag-time. Plus the nature of journalism means that editing is restricted so there is less need for the benefits of RAW. 

JPEG are also great when you just want print-ready shots right from the camera. No editing - no fussing - no fiddling - just print/display ready.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 22, 2014)

I like raw+jpeg.  I really don't have the urge to edit every single family snapshot anymore but when they're is one I really like I have the RAW file to work with.  Also If I want to adjust wb, exposure, DL lighting,  vignetting,  etc I can do that,  in-camera,  with the raw file as well.


----------



## KmH (Nov 22, 2014)

With Raw ". . . you get all the information from the Camera sensor. . . " is not really accurate.

Information is lost at the A/D converter where the analog voltage a pixel develops is converted into a digital number before those numbers are written to the memory card. The A/D converter in entry-level cameras can usually output 12-bit numbers, and higher tier digital cameras can output 12 or 14-bit numbers.

12-bits can represent 4096 (212)  values. 16-bits can represent 16,384 (214) values.

The JPEG file type is limited to an 8-bit color depth or 256 (28) values per each of the 3 color channels or RGB.
So JPEG is often called a 24 bit file type (8 bits x 3 color channels = 24 bits)
Note: The pixels on the image sensor in a digital camera cannot see or record color. Color has to be interpolated (Demosaicing) by a software Raw converter.
Cameras that can produce JPEG image files have an on-board Raw Converter software application in their Image Processor chip.


----------



## JustJazzie (Nov 23, 2014)

I didn't read the article, but I've always thought of it like this. (I'm sure it was someone else's wisdom, but I'm not sure who told me)

In the film days you either
 a)shot film and brought it to a store for printing. In this case you were entrusting someone else to finish your artistic vision.
Or
B) shot a roll of film and you invested in your own darkroom setup and devoloped the final image yourself. Being in control of the process from start to finish ensured the photo turned out exactly how you wanted it. 

Same with jpeg and raw. Jpg is choosing the editing on your final photo based on an "arbitrary" algorithm. 
Raw is taking your own digital negative and manipulating it to your intended artistic vision.


----------



## Overread (Nov 23, 2014)

Jazzi that is a good way of putting it. The difference though is that the different types also affect how you shoot sometimes. RAW files are bigger so the camera will fill its buffer quick, if you really need a  longer burst of shots then JPEG is the way to go. 

It also affects storage space which can be important. I know people who go on holiday or who end up running out of space will shift to JPEG mode (you can't always just buy more cards or afford more cards).


----------



## bribrius (Nov 23, 2014)

JustJazzie said:


> I didn't read the article, but I've always thought of it like this. (I'm sure it was someone else's wisdom, but I'm not sure who told me)
> 
> In the film days you either
> a)shot film and brought it to a store for printing. In this case you were entrusting someone else to finish your artistic vision.
> ...


could be. I never had my own dark room when I shot film I sent it out.


----------



## photoguy99 (Nov 23, 2014)

JPEG  is processed by camera algorithms which may do a better job at certain things than you can. RAW+JPEG is a good choice when you'd like to use the camera algorithms for this or that.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 23, 2014)

when I shoot jpeg + raw it is because I am relying on the jpeg first and the raw if that ends up screwed. Also with jpeg I know how to revert back to the original with a click if I don't like something I did. With the raw I don't know how to revert back that easily so end up playing with the sliders until it looks like it might have originally. seems soon as I save the raw the original is gone. People say it isn't but I don't know how to get it back? I don't know how to get around that. jpeg, right click revert original and seems quicker, also quicker on transfer if I am not tweaking it much. But I can load up just jpegs look through, if there is something I know I need the raw for then I go pull the raw for that one.
if I look at the jpeg and it looks about where I want it I can ignore the raws. If I screw up the jpeg either in camera or in post I have that option of reverting back to the original or just pulling the raw. if any of that makes sense.. Just because you shoot raw +jpeg you don't have to pull the raw file. And if you are transferring for some reason you can keep the raws but only transfer all the jpegs without having to convert them.


----------



## KmH (Nov 23, 2014)

No caps and no paragraphs is harder to read than using the appropriate caps and some white space between paragraphs.

JPEG is processed according to algorithms a group of camera software engineers decided was the middle of the road for photo finishing.

To make a JPEG file the camera software has to first convert the Raw file. So DSLR cameras have an on-board Raw converter in the image processor chip.
Since the image sensor cannot 'see' or record colors and doesn't work like human eyes the Raw converter, at a minimum, has to - interpolate the colors in the scene photographed (demosaicing), and apply a gamma curve. Tone mapping, sharpening, and noise reduction may also be done.

With menu options a DSLR has, the photographer can make some crude, limited adjustments to the JPEG algorithms making the road wider and the JPEG editing to one side or the other of the road..
The photographer has no direct access to the on-board Raw converter.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 23, 2014)

KmH said:


> No caps and no paragraphs is harder to read than using the appropriate caps and some white space between paragraphs.
> 
> JPEG is processed according to algorithms a group of camera software engineers decided was the middle of the road for photo finishing.
> 
> ...


you can make some pretty extreme in camera adjustments. And one of my cameras only shoots jpeg raw isn't even a option. And they are quick. I wont pretend I know all involved in the in camera processing of a jpeg. But I know it is quick you make it seem like a drawn out process. it would almost seem like the natural development of the camera is to process in camera and shoot jpeg, and shooting raw is the extra component. why else would cameras come with shooting jpeg only and be able to hammer down on continuous high with jpegs? I understand what you are saying, but it seems the cameras are developed to shoot jpeg first and process that way, and the shooting raw is a secondary component available on some.


----------



## bribrius (Nov 23, 2014)

"The move to digital formats was helped by the formation of the first JPEG and MPEG standards in 1988, which allowed image and video files to be compressed for storage."
History of the camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bingo. because that is how digital imaging was developed and digital cameras.
Pretty much what I figured but I had to look it up. When you shoot raw you are actually circumventing the development of digital by pulling the primitive file. But they weren't developed that way. The digital camera development was centered around in camera processing to a file image format.



makes sense.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 23, 2014)

Shooting RAW + JPEG, with the camera set to Monochrome capture mode can create some nice in-camera B&W images. I shot this way on my Canon 20D and 5D, using the *Color Toning>Sepia* option, with the *Filter Effect>Yellow*, and the contrast set appropriately for the subject matter and lighting, and the in-camera processing engine produced beautiful in-camera B&W JPEGs. The advantage? Being able to literally SEE, and evaluate the images as B&W images, but with the RAW images possessing full RGB color data.

When you want to make good B&W images, you almost always want to LIGHT things very differently than you would for color images. B&W images are often more focused on line, shape, mass,texture, and tonal value; lacking color information means higher lighting ratios, and greater specularity in the light sources (smaller umbrellas, parabolic reflectors,etc) are better choices most of the time. It's a matter of deciding you want to end up with B&W images, so you set the camera to SHOW you B&W, right there, in the field or studio; it's a matter of having the courage of your convictions, rather than shooting and lighting for RGB color, and then,later at the computer, hoping to salvage shots by converting failed color images into B&W shots.


----------



## Fred Berg (Nov 23, 2014)

I like to use JPEG, and, depending on camera options, prefer to shoot B&W as in-camera B&W.


----------



## Heather Koch (Nov 23, 2014)

I always use RAW, I was just surprised something shared that on Facebook and wrote something along the lines of, "JPEG already edits the images for you, why use RAW?"  SO I was baffled and had to share...

I also believe the JPEG image used as an example in the article isn't a good file... It looks highly processed...IMO


----------



## Ysarex (Nov 23, 2014)

Heather Koch said:


> I always use RAW, I was just surprised something shared that on Facebook and wrote something along the lines of, "JPEG already edits the images for you, why use RAW?"  SO I was baffled and had to share...
> 
> I also believe the JPEG image used as an example in the article isn't a good file... It looks highly processed...IMO



All JPEG images are highly processed. All digital photos are highly processed.

Joe


----------



## runnah (Nov 23, 2014)

I shoot raw and JPEG depending on the situation and intended purpose.

Landscapes - raw
Sports - JPEG
Snapshots - JPEG
Press events - JPEG
Birds - both
Portraits - raw

If you learn enough about each format and the pros/cons it becomes easy to decide which to use when.


----------



## jake337 (Nov 23, 2014)

runnah said:


> I shoot raw and JPEG depending on the situation and intended purpose.
> 
> Landscapes - raw
> Sports - JPEG
> ...



^^^this but I also shoot raw+jpeg for candids as you never know when you might get something real nice you want to work on later.


----------



## Benjo255 (Mar 4, 2015)

I put my coin in this discussion.
Next week I'm shooting some photographs for a cat breeder. She needs them for her website. It's a promotion service and she's a friend, but if she were an ordinary custom let's say she would pay me around 300$.
I'm going there around 7.00 p.m. 
She has 8 cats and probably will want 10 photos for each cat.
I have to go there, set the lights and the background, make some tries to find the correct light placement and settings and...there we go (but it's already 7.45 p.m.).
8 cats. won't you shoot at least, let's say, 50 shots for each cat? May be even more. What if you miss the focus on the eyes in some of them or may be the cat turns the head away from the camera just a fraction of second before you shoot? And what if the breeder don't like the angle 'cause it doesn't show the correct profile or doesn't enphatize the standard perfectio of the subject?
Ok. 8x50=400 photographs. Suppose now that you are really fast and shot a photograph every 10 seconds (!). It would take 400x10= 4000 seconds=66 min. (And it's 8.51 p.m.).
Oh, of course between a cat and the other you have to change the background according to cat colors. Let's say 5 minutes for each one. 7x5=35 more minutes. (and it's 9.26 p.m.).
At 9.50 p.m. I have all my stuff put away.

Now...we are at an hypothetical crossroads.

Case A.
Let's say I shoot jpg. I load them in my Mac in 5 minutes (time: 9.55 p.m.).
I show them to the breeder and invite her to choose 10 photos from each cat take.
She's fast and she employs 5 seconds to evaluate a photo. 400x3=1200 seconds=20 minutes. (It's 10.15 p.m.).
I fast check if the chosen photos are all right, may be adjust a little bit of contrast here and there, let's say 10 seconds for each photo.  10x80=800 seconds=13minutes (10.28 p.m.). Two minutes to copy the photos in her pc and I finished. She's happy, and at 10.30 p.m. I'm out her house.

Case B.
Let's say I shoot raw. I load them in my mac in (I hope) 1 hour (time: 10.50 p.m.).
I show them to the breeder and invite her to choose 10 photos from each cat take.
She's fast and she employs 5 seconds to evaluate a photo. 400x3=1200 seconds=20 minutes. (It's 11.10 p.m.). Problem is...the raw file won't visualize on the screen as fast as the jpg. It will take, let's say, 5 seconds more for each photo to visualize. Other  20 minutes. (it's 11.30 p.m.).
I have to process every single photo. Since I shoot them from different angles to different cats with different backgrounds...I have to process them one by one. Here I cannot just "adjust a little bit of contrast here and there". I have to make a flat and dark raw look a brilliant and stunning image. Sometimes I spend even 1 hour on a single raw...trying different solution...but isn't possible. So...I can stay max 10 minutes for each photo. 10x80=800 minutes=13 hours and more. (so...guessing the breeder hasn't killed me in the meanwhile)...the day after at lunch time I finished. 2 minutes to export the raw in jpg and I'm out.

What's happened?
Case A: I worked 3 hours 30 minutes and earned 300$. Average 85$ x hour.
Case B: I worked 17 hours and earned 300$. Average 17,64$ x hour.


So? Does that mean I only and always shot JPG? NO. But in a case like this, having studio lights (so less and less chances to get wrong light) and a lot of work to do...JPG is the only realistic way. I'm not in a time hurry, I'm not shooting extra fast multiple shots like in sports...but I thought as a pro.
JPG works, they're beautiful, they reach the goal...and...overall...final destination will be always a JPG.

Of course...If I'm working on a single shot (i.e.: my 365 project, in which I process only a photograph each day) like in a portrait or in a landscape...I love to process the raw.
But who says "always raw" has never tried to process a set of 300 or more photos without the chance to throw away any of them (weddings, commercial still life, etc etc).


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 5, 2015)

Of the two, I prefer JPEG. For me, the disadvantages of raw files outweigh their advantages. Not that I never make use of my cameras' raw settings, but generally speaking I tend to select the largest and finest JPEG option when using digital. It may be that when using film, getting as much right in-camera is the essence of a good end result, and I keep to this principal with digital. Perhaps changing white balance in PP is very convenient with raw, for instance, but setting the appropriate Kelvin value at the time of exposure makes more sense in my book.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Mar 5, 2015)

Basically it`s whether you want to have negatives=raw  or are just happy with an Instamatic=jpeg

It`s raw all the way for me, or raw and jpeg if i know i need people to see photo`s straight away, I use the free "instant jpeg from raw" app that extracts the embedded jpeg from a raw file and can do hundreds in seconds it`s that fast and if you have a Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution, other brands can have smaller embedded jpegs.

John.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 5, 2015)

Tinderbox (UK) said:


> Basically it`s whether you want to have negatives=raw  or are just happy with an Instamatic=jpeg
> 
> It`s raw all the way for me, or raw and jpeg if i know i need people to see photo`s straight away, I use the free "instant jpeg from raw" app that extracts the embedded jpeg from a raw file and can do hundreds in seconds it`s that fast and if you have a Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution, other brands can have smaller embedded jpegs.
> 
> John.



For me, the common idea that raw files are like negatives is misleading. Raw files are more like an undeveloped film, in my view, which have a latent image. Decisions about processing need to be taken in order to produce a format which can be printed, if that is the ultimate goal, or which can be displayed electronically: there are no raw files on display in this forum, for instance. This process is comparable to the decisions made on how best to develop film to produce negatives for printing/scanning.

So a better way of looking at this might be JPEG = photo lab / raw = home development.


----------



## Benjo255 (Mar 5, 2015)

I don't want to start a flame, but really...if you take a photograph...Any photograph...it's just impossibile to understand if it come from a human raw processing or if it is a jpg straight out the camera. 
Of course if we make the opposite and start from the same raw... Jpg camera could be worse than a good human raw processing...but could be better than a bad human raw processing.

I personally like life and I dont like the idea of spending tons of hours on lightroom processing raw files.

Not that i mever shoot raw. I do it everyday for my project. But when the number of shots i'm planning to take and processo is above 10...i set the camera on Fine (NOT raw + fine, just fine), trust myself...and go.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 5, 2015)

Benjo255 said:


> I don't want to start a flame, but really...if you take a photograph...Any photograph...it's just impossibile to understand if it come from a human raw processing or if it is a jpg straight out the camera.
> Of course if we make the opposite and start from the same raw... Jpg camera could be worse than a good human raw processing...but could be better than a bad human raw processing.
> 
> I personally like life and I dont like the idea of spending tons of hours on lightroom processing raw files.
> ...



You trust your camera when you use JPEG, just like you trust the lab if you send your film off to be developed. If it's a good lab and you don't want or like to do it yourself, why not?


----------



## Benjo255 (Mar 5, 2015)

Yep. Also. I give precise instructions to my camera/lab (i like the comparison). And these instruction may change. So if i usually keep nr at -2 at daylight, i.e., i can raise it to 0 or +1 when comes the evening and high ISO.

Out of this...i must confess that fuji xe2's jpg are just...awesome. Simply great.


----------



## Benjo255 (Mar 5, 2015)

As I repeat I'm not against raw. I'm against the concept that raw must be always used.
Suppose I go on vacation one month in thailand (one of my dreams). And...suppose I'm shooting 30 good shots a day. In the end I have 900 shots. Since the 30 shots a day were already a selection of the bests, all the 900 shots are to process. It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. That means 900x10 minutes=9000 minutes. That means 150 hours. Suppose I dedicate 1 hour everyday to process the raw, you'll take 150 days. That means...5 monthes....to have your vacation JPG ready. It sounds just crazy to me.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2015)

I used to prefer raw, when I was younger. Now I usually go with a medium rare.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 5, 2015)

Raw has advantage over Jpeg if you want the most out of your sensor.Raw has an advantage of recovering images that you may not be able to do from Jpegs.You can reprocess the Raw file down the road and unlike Jpeg losing data each time you save the jpeg file you compress the image degrading the IQ a little each time,even if no editing is performed.

I shoot Both but prefer raw for complete control of my contrast,Color,sharpening etc and can go back to it at any time and re-process it. Learning How to process well is also very important to me and go hand and hand with good photography. I also like to squeeze the most detail out of my sensor I can and Raw does just that.

That being said,they are both great and generally jpegs look great.Now a days the Cameras do a fantastic job in camera processing. I think I see more Photos borked from people processing the images more so then in camera.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 5, 2015)

I shoot JPEG Fine + RAW.  Most of the time my JPEGs are good enough. If I under/overexpose or if the light is difficult, I process RAW. But most of the time I just delete it. I only keep RAW files of my best shots. But then, I am just a street shooter.


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 5, 2015)

sashbar said:


> I shoot JPEG Fine + RAW.  Most of the time my JPEGs are good enough. If I under/overexpose or if the light is difficult, I process RAW. But most of the time I just delete it. I only keep RAW files of my best shots. But then, I am just a street shooter.



No your a dam fine street shooter and not just a street shooter.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Tinderbox (UK) said:
> 
> 
> > Basically it`s whether you want to have negatives=raw  or are just happy with an Instamatic=jpeg
> ...



I post raw files on the internet and this forum all the time so people can see what they look like. Normally because of size I post a JPEG of the unprocessed raw file like this:




 

But it's possible to make the full-res uncompressed image available like this: unprocessed_raw.png
You can download that file and zoom in to verify that the Bayer array is still in place and the file has not been demosaiced.

Raw converters will not typically show you a raw file in this form but there are a couple of ways to extract only the image data without processing it and then save it in a raster as a TIFF file for viewing -- basically just extracing it from it's proprietary format. DCraw for example has an option that will do this.

With the Bayer array in place the image is very dark and because there are two green filters for each red/blue pair the image is very green, but you can see the image content.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

i think what shocks me about all these repetitive threads is they assume that there is even a choice. I could not rely on raw totally. As not all the cameras i shoot with even shoot RAW. So it really isn't always even a option. How can you rely on RAW if a lot of what you shoot with only shoots jpegs? And now shooting film, there is no RAW.  So in my case, the preferable mindset is just to NOT count on raw, as that isn't a viable option much of the time anyway. If i am doing a certain shot, with a dslr well then now RAW is a viable option. But the idea of everything shooting RAW isn't that realistic. I can assure my 5mp point and shoot, cellphones, 18mp point and shoot, 20mp bridge camera, film cameras has no RAW setting. If you find yourself reliant on RAW, you find yourself only able to take shots with a digital camera capable of RAW files. 

In practice, lets say you are out and about and see a shot you want to take. What do you do, just say "hey wait a minute, i need to go get a camera that shoots RAW. "


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> ...... And now shooting film, there is no RAW..........



You're shooting transparency film?


----------



## Life (Mar 5, 2015)

I used to be a Jpeg only person. Jpegs are faster, easier, but the end results are a lot less pleasing. IMO, jpegs are good for people who generally just want to take a picture and say " good enough ". But matter of fact is Raw can deliver much more than Jpeg. The end result can be 100x more pleasing with a raw edit than a jpeg, but that also depends on what you are doing. I enjoy sitting on the computer trying out different settings and tweaking until I like it most. I just started shooting raw late 2014, all the time before that I was shooting Jpegs, and seeing the 1000's of Jpegs I have, I fully regret not shooting raw much much sooner.  And you can forget Astrophotography on jpeg xD.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i think what shocks me about all these repetitive threads is they assume that there is even a choice. I could not rely on raw totally. As not all the cameras i shoot with even shoot RAW. So it really isn't always even a option. How can you rely on RAW if a lot of what you shoot with only shoots jpegs? And now shooting film, there is no RAW.  So in my case, the preferable mindset is just to NOT count on raw, as that isn't a viable option much of the time anyway. If i am doing a certain shot, with a dslr well then now RAW is a viable option. But the idea of everything shooting RAW isn't that realistic. I can assure my 5mp point and shoot, cellphones, 18mp point and shoot, 20mp bridge camera, film cameras has no RAW setting. If you find yourself reliant on RAW, you find yourself only able to take shots with a digital camera capable of RAW files.
> 
> In practice, lets say you are out and about and see a shot you want to take. What do you do, just say "hey wait a minute, i need to go get a camera that shoots RAW. "



I never leave the house without my pocket camera that's about the size of an iphone (little smaller width and height but thicker). So if I see a shot and want to take it I take it. Most people always have a phone with them; I always have a camera with me.

I was recently walking in the park with my wife and took this photo:





I posted it here already, but in this context it's worth posting again because a phone camera or any camera shooting only JPEG would have crashed and burned on the lighting in this scene.

Joe


----------



## Life (Mar 5, 2015)

Benjo255 said:


> I put my coin in this discussion.
> Next week I'm shooting some photographs for a cat breeder. She needs them for her website. It's a promotion service and she's a friend, but if she were an ordinary custom let's say she would pay me around 300$.
> I'm going there around 7.00 p.m.
> She has 8 cats and probably will want 10 photos for each cat.
> ...


I actually stopped reading after you say you worked 17 hours. If it takes to 1 hour to load 400 photos, you seriously need a new computer. I load on a typical 600 shot day in under 5 minutes. That's gigabytes of pictures. That's also USB 3 which helps a bit . If it takes 2 minutes to save a Raw file to Jpeg after processing, I suggest dumping the mac in the trash and getting a real machine, on windows. 10 seconds to save tops, and that's Max res, no matter how I processed it. And for photoshop you can have presets all set up and ready for certain types of work. Yes, Jpegs are faster still, There is hardly any processing time needed, however for clients you often don't get the wow factor raw brings.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i think what shocks me about all these repetitive threads is they assume that there is even a choice. I could not rely on raw totally. As not all the cameras i shoot with even shoot RAW. So it really isn't always even a option. How can you rely on RAW if a lot of what you shoot with only shoots jpegs? And now shooting film, there is no RAW.  So in my case, the preferable mindset is just to NOT count on raw, as that isn't a viable option much of the time anyway. If i am doing a certain shot, with a dslr well then now RAW is a viable option. But the idea of everything shooting RAW isn't that realistic. I can assure my 5mp point and shoot, cellphones, 18mp point and shoot, 20mp bridge camera, film cameras has no RAW setting. If you find yourself reliant on RAW, you find yourself only able to take shots with a digital camera capable of RAW files.
> ...


i wouldn't have processed that in raw anyway. Portraits now to a extent, certain landscapes. Depends on the image. That i would have stopped, snapped, and kept walking without thinking about it. Nice photo just not something i personally would put a lot of time, thought or work into. I do like it though.


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 5, 2015)

I kinda didn't read that completely either.
When I shoot sports it's in RAW.  uploading to my computer doens't take too long - I insert the memory card into the computer and away it goes. Then I zoom through the pics doing adjustments.  Lightroom's workflow is so fast for adjustments for me now that I use it for JPEG adjustments too (iPhone or my POS/P&S).

I used to shoot in JPEG, then RAW+JPEG now just RAW.
I do use JPEG from time to time when I'm testing a ton of shoots that are going to be throwaways anyways, or just to document stuff for insurance (quick and easy).

but to each their own on how they shoot and process. For quick stuff one may save time with JPEGs. For me, I'd still use LR.


----------



## Benjo255 (Mar 5, 2015)

Life said:


> And for photoshop you can have presets all set up and ready for certain types of work.


Why using a preset for a group of photo if the camera does the same thing?
Ok, put away one hour my old mac requires for downloading images. Put away to minutes to save them. Ok. The time needed for the "wow factor" is still there.
And, btw, I don't think the wow factor comes straight from a human raw processing. Sometimes would be better if the human didn't even open lightroom. Some pictures (mine included) are just...overprocessed.
Anyway, I'm not in a fight for this. I use raw too.
Only I don't think raw is "better always anytime anywhere". It's just an instrument. A tool. Sometimes helpful, other times just an obstacle.


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 5, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Tinderbox (UK) said:
> ...



Yes, but a PNG or GIF is a compressed format, albeit without loss of info, it isn't the raw data as captured. I may be wrong and stand corrected if so, but this is splitting hairs, surely. The image you have here is latent and processing would be required before you could print or display it in an electronic frame, etc.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



PNG compression is lossless but the format is 8 bit. I can upload a 16 bit TIFF for you if you like which really would be the raw data without any processing. It would appear the same as the PNG -- point is we can look at it so I wouldn't call it latent. I don't see demosaicing the CFA as quite analogous to film development. You can't see a latent image but you can see a raw image albeit it is pretty useless (but instructive).

I could print it as is though and probably make some kind of post-Dada art project out of it!

Joe


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 5, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



You wouldn't believe it but in my original post on this I was going to add _*except for those horribly dark green things you sometimes see uploaded purely for instructional/technical purposes.
*_
Always cover the pedantic angle....always! 

Standing in the corner, corrected  and having learned something.

However, Peter Parker ain't  till he changes into his _JWEB_ cossie...


----------



## sashbar (Mar 5, 2015)

DarkShadow said:


> No your a dam fine street shooter and not just a street shooter.



That if why I shoot Fine JPEGs


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

Fred Berg said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



I use them in the classroom. There's no better way to get across the concept of demosaicing a color filter array than just showing them one. They also help convey just how much has to be done in processing to create the final photo. If I don't show them a raw file they really believe the JPEGs they get from the camera come directly off the sensor just like they are.

Joe


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 5, 2015)

All very interesting. I went to RAW as it just makes my workflow easier. All files go into an Archive directory where the date was added to the file name, add tags, and then after processing any images in the usual output formats they go to a Developed directory. 

I found that shooting JPG did not reduce my turnaround by an amount that made any difference to me. The JPG files from the camera are certainly nice enough, but I found it is just one less thing to adjust on the camera for a shoot by leaving it in RAW.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2015)

I shoot raw because I run every picture I  take through LR.  Yup. Every. Single. Picture.
Even pics for stuff I'm throwing on ebay.
Don't know why, I just have to. It's some weird OCD thing or something.
So I figured, if in going to process every file in LR or PS anyway, might as well just shoot raw.


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2015)

Do we have to discuss this again?


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2015)

runnah said:


> Do we have to discuss this again?


You don't if you don't want to


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> I shoot raw because I run every picture I  take through LR.  Yup. Every. Single. Picture.
> Even pics for stuff I'm throwing on ebay.
> Don't know why, I just have to. It's some weird OCD thing or something.
> So I figured, if in going to process every file in LR or PS anyway, might as well just shoot raw.


interesting.  Never occurred to me someone would automatically just do that. Use nikon transfer but sometimes will just  open file/select all/ copy/paste.


----------



## Boxhawk (Mar 5, 2015)

Benjo255 said:


> As I repeat I'm not against raw. I'm against the concept that raw must be always used.
> Suppose I go on vacation one month in thailand (one of my dreams). And...suppose I'm shooting 30 good shots a day. In the end I have 900 shots. Since the 30 shots a day were already a selection of the bests, all the 900 shots are to process. It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. That means 900x10 minutes=9000 minutes. That means 150 hours. Suppose I dedicate 1 hour everyday to process the raw, you'll take 150 days. That means...5 monthes....to have your vacation JPG ready. It sounds just crazy to me.



You are just being silly now.  Most of the settings in Lightroom can be synced where you do everything in seconds.  I totally get your point about when you want to shoot jpeg, but you are spinning a sophistry with the 5 months thing.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 5, 2015)

Benjo255 said:


> .......It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. .........



You spend *way too much time* working on an image. 

I rarely take more than 2 minutes per image.  1 minute or less is normal.


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Do we have to discuss this again?
> ...



Oh good.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 5, 2015)

runnah said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...


I mean, I thoroughly enjoy your input, but if you don't want to....it's ok I guess


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

480sparky said:


> Benjo255 said:
> 
> 
> > .......It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. .........
> ...


i spent forty minutes on one last night and i still don't like it. Too many options for edits. If i just shot it jpeg i would have saved forty minutes of my life.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> i spent forty minutes on one last night and i still don't like it. Too many options for edits. If i just shot it jpeg i would have saved forty minutes of my life.



Um, it's not a requirement to apply _every_ option.

But I gotta ask.... what options are you trying to do that the camera somehow magically does better?

Also, are you using custom presets?


----------



## runnah (Mar 5, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



Ok.

Learn enough about each format so you can decide when it's best to use one over the other. Neither is best, nor is either right or wrong.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

oh, and i will probably never print it either. So both shooting raw and that forty minutes is truly a waste of time. I gotta stop doing that....Especially if i don't think i will print it. No point in editing a photo you aren't going to print anyway. WTH am i even thinking...  Forty minutes gone......... i could have been jerking off or something... (oh wait, i guess that pretty much was


480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > i spent forty minutes on one last night and i still don't like it. Too many options for edits. If i just shot it jpeg i would have saved forty minutes of my life.
> ...


i have a couple custom presets in nikon capture. i also, admittedly, have mentioned many times i have serious workflow and processing ignorance. It was just a portrait. uploaded in n2 bw conversion. Transferred to nikon capture. Played iwth the curves. Didnt like the skin and eyes, uploaded again in elements. didnt work it ruined it. Transferred to nik collection. By then i about had it. Looked worse when i finished then when i started.. Was playing with the artistic side too. So kind of wanted something "different". shot it with a standard two light setup 30mm dialed down flash 400 iso with the idea of a soft nice color. Think it went down hill when i decided i wanted to see what i could do with it in bw for something other than a normal portait shot. so really my own fault. i shot it one way suddenly i thought "hey i wonder if...." and it went down hill from there...


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> ...............i have a couple custom presets in nikon capture. i also, admittedly, have mentioned many times i have serious workflow and processing ignorance. It was just a portrait. uploaded in n2 bw conversion. Transferred to nikon capture. Played iwth the curves. Didnt like the skin and eyes, uploaded again in elements. didnt work it ruined it. Transferred to nik collection. By then i about had it. Looked worse when i finished then when i started.. Was playing with the artistic side too. So kind of wanted something "different". shot it with a standard two light setup 30mm dialed down flash 400 iso with the idea of a soft nice color. Think it went down hill when i decided i wanted to see what i could do with it in bw for something other than a normal portait shot. so really my own fault. i shot it one way suddenly i thought "hey i wonder if...." and it went down hill from there...



Looks like you need to learn what each option in the software you choose can actually do.

Instead of taking a shot, then spending 40 minutes trying to 'fix' whatever is wrong with it, it's better to know in advance what the software is capable of before you push the shutter button.

Post-processing is part of my 'vision' of the image.  Not only am I concerned with focal length, shutter speed, aperture, ISO, composition, lighting, etc that is available at the scene/on the subject, I also project the image all the way through PP steps needed to a finished image.

I see no need to take an image and start 'playing' with sliders and settings and options and presets just to see if the outcome is something I 'like'.  PP steps are already chosen when the shutter closes.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

480sparky said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > ...............i have a couple custom presets in nikon capture. i also, admittedly, have mentioned many times i have serious workflow and processing ignorance. It was just a portrait. uploaded in n2 bw conversion. Transferred to nikon capture. Played iwth the curves. Didnt like the skin and eyes, uploaded again in elements. didnt work it ruined it. Transferred to nik collection. By then i about had it. Looked worse when i finished then when i started.. Was playing with the artistic side too. So kind of wanted something "different". shot it with a standard two light setup 30mm dialed down flash 400 iso with the idea of a soft nice color. Think it went down hill when i decided i wanted to see what i could do with it in bw for something other than a normal portait shot. so really my own fault. i shot it one way suddenly i thought "hey i wonder if...." and it went down hill from there...
> ...


No way to know what the options are without trying them first..and yep. I was totally playing.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> No way to know what the options are without trying them first..and yep. I was totally playing.



That's no reason to condemn shooting raw files, however.  One can spend just as much time trying out settings and options and sliders and presets on .JPGs as well.


----------



## Benjo255 (Mar 5, 2015)

If you end up using a lightroom preset, I see no difference in using an in camera JPG preset, beside the fact I dont' have to open the raw files in lightroom.

JPG from camera aren't "magical" or superior to LR ones. they're just faster and easier. That's it.

That said, I repeat: I'm not against shooting in raw and I shoot raw everyday for my project. But I don't process the image in 2 minutes. I usually spend may be 30-40 minutes on each image, creating copies, trying different solutions and comparing them, processing the image through niksoft and similar. until I'm really happy (and I'm hard to please).

I see it's splitting between the main stream "RAW ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE" and the minority report "I shoot only JPG".

I think both of them are useful, depending from the context. A serie of pictures of a landscape? A serie of street photography where I'll think I'm going to keep only the decisive one? Ok. I'll shoot raw and process it until the final image will be as I want. Not because I must. But because I CAN.

A reportage? A travel diary? A commercial of a great numbers of shot? A wedding? I set the camera ONLY JPG. I don't want any raw. I don't want even the temptation of starting to process. And if I have to...I'll be content of the jpg processing range. In this case it's better for me to work on the number of shots than to saving a single wrong shot. They're just photographs and time will never be given back.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 5, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> I never leave the house without my pocket camera that's about the size of an iphone (little smaller width and height but thicker). So if I see a shot and want to take it I take it. Most people always have a phone with them; I always have a camera with me.
> I was recently walking in the park with my wife and took this photo:
> View attachment 96502
> I posted it here already, but in this context it's worth posting again because a phone camera or any camera shooting only JPEG would have crashed and burned on the lighting in this scene.
> Joe



Same here, I often carry a poket camera and can not resist taking some silly photos, just because something caught my eye. Something like bright spot or color or shape. Somethind like this.  This is SOO(pocket)C  JPEG btw.  Looks good enough to me. Why should I waste my time with the RAW file?


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 5, 2015)

sashbar said:


> ...  This is SOO(pocket)C  JPEG btw.  Looks good enough to me. *Why should I waste my time with the RAW file*?
> View attachment 96524


Because you know what you are doing for the result you want ...


----------



## DarkShadow (Mar 5, 2015)

[/QUOTE]
i spent forty minutes on one last night and i still don't like it. Too many options for edits. If i just shot it jpeg i would have saved forty minutes of my life.[/QUOTE]

Good god,40 minutes is extremely long.Like sparky said a minute or two for me.I will Crop it,maybe add a little contrast  then sharpen and save it Done.Thats on birds so maybe entirely different then what your doing but still 40 minutes is a long time.What takes longer is loading 200 hundred raw bird files on the put.Even at that it don't take very long on a i7 processor with 16 gigs of ram.


----------



## weepete (Mar 5, 2015)

If you want to custom edit your shots shoot raw.

If you don't, shoot jpeg.


Simples.


----------



## Buckster (Mar 5, 2015)

Benjo255 said:


> If you end up using a lightroom preset, I see no difference in using an in camera JPG preset, beside the fact I dont' have to open the raw files in lightroom.


...and the fact that IF one of those files turns out to be something you REALLY want to tweak and NEED a RAW to do it, you have it.

I shoot RAW personally, because I don't believe in throwing away data unless and until *I'VE* determined I don't need it anymore.  I don't let the camera manufacturer make that decision for me.

If I really want to punch out a thousand JPGs, I can still do that with a few clicks from LR in an automated process.  I can even let it pick "auto" everything, just like the camera, if I really want to, or I can do a whole lot more with just a few more adjustment clicks before I punch them out in bulk - no problem.  It doesn't take that long, and it runs in the background while I do something else.  It's not like I have nothing else to do, and have to sit there staring at the LR screen while it works.

And when it's all said and done, if there's that *one shot* that really jumps up and lights my fire, and I want the full ability to edit it the way I want, I can open up that RAW file and have my way with it to my heart's content.

But that's just me.  To each his/her own.  Go shoot Polaroids and live with whatever pops out, if that's what floats your boat.  It's no skin off my nose what anyone else does or how they do it.  If it's working for them, why should I care?  And vice-versa.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

I miss my old polaroids.  something about that instant gratification of having it spit the photo out right then......


----------



## Buckster (Mar 5, 2015)

bribrius said:


> I miss my old polaroids.  something about that instant gratification of having it spit the photo out right then......


So go shoot them.  Nobody's stopping you.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > I miss my old polaroids.  something about that instant gratification of having it spit the photo out right then......
> ...


i was fine until you brought it up. 
Why did you have to bring it up?
But now that you mention it...


----------



## astroNikon (Mar 5, 2015)

Get polaroid with one of those replacement 5 flash light bars  on them. Those were cool.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 5, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> Get polaroid with one of those replacement 5 flash light bars  on them. Those were cool.


can you still get replacement flashes? I think the only one making the film is  "the impossible project".


----------



## luckychucky (Mar 5, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Fred Berg said:
> 
> 
> > Tinderbox (UK) said:
> ...


Is that STL?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## malibushooter (Mar 5, 2015)

You would be surprised how much a good polaroid camera cost now.  The LAND cameras not the instant ones. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

Dave442 said:


> All very interesting. I went to RAW as it just makes my workflow easier. All files go into an Archive directory where the date was added to the file name, add tags, and then after processing any images in the usual output formats they go to a Developed directory.
> 
> I found that shooting JPG did not reduce my turnaround by an amount that made any difference to me. The JPG files from the camera are certainly nice enough, but I found it is just one less thing to adjust on the camera for a shoot by leaving it in RAW.





luckychucky said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Fred Berg said:
> ...



Yep, Trophy Room, Brannon and Arsenal.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 5, 2015)

sashbar said:


> Why should I waste my time with the RAW file?



Well if it's not an important photo you shouldn't. But if it were important you'd maybe process a raw file so the color was more accurate. That color in the sky for example has a magenta stain that isn't natural here on earth -- maybe in China if the right factory is spewing something. 

Joe



sashbar said:


> View attachment 96524


----------



## sashbar (Mar 6, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> sashbar said:
> 
> 
> > Why should I waste my time with the RAW file?
> ...




I am not always looking for an "accurate" color, and no one should. Here the colors are uniformly warm, I like the dominating color here (warm yellow) and trying to correct the sky warm color tint locally just makes no sense to me.  I like it as it is. I have seen so many images with local color correction that do not look right even though local colors are "correct". We do not perceive colors in isolation, we embrace the color scheme as a whole, and if it is coherent then it looks right, even though some secondary colors are actually not correct. There is a concept of a "slave tint" which basically says "do not mess with local tints".  Therefore trying to "improve" this particular image fiddling with the RAW file makes no sense to me. As  said, it is "good enough". This image is not about the color of the car, or the gates or something else, this image is about the warm sunny day that is reflected in the car, the gates, the grass etc.


----------



## luckychucky (Mar 6, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> Dave442 said:
> 
> 
> > All very interesting. I went to RAW as it just makes my workflow easier. All files go into an Archive directory where the date was added to the file name, add tags, and then after processing any images in the usual output formats they go to a Developed directory.
> ...


I haven't lived there since the early 90s.  I guess it's just ingrained in memory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 6, 2015)

I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've shot in raw. I just don't see the need for me to do it.

I understand why people use it, though, and I understand what it allows. I just rarely find that I need that level of flexibility. In fact, two clients I shoot for specifically require me to _not _shoot in raw.

I might mess around with it from time to time, but it's not a thing for me.


----------



## sashbar (Mar 6, 2015)

in the meantime, some eye opening (pun not intended) reading about the blue sky, how to tell green from green and about other colors.  

What is blue and how do we see color - Business Insider


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 6, 2015)

sashbar said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > sashbar said:
> ...



You can chose to not look for or be concerned with accurate color. But you don't get to chose for me and others and tell us we shouldn't. Tell that to X-Rite.

Inaccurate color is not a big deal breaker for this photo. It's not off by much but it's obvious and I couldn't look at the photo without noticing it. Did you either consciously chose to create it as such or did you notice it and chose to leave it alone? I doubt both. I suspect you unthinkingly accepted the color that you got from your camera's GR processor and auto WB setting. You can do that, but you can't tell me that I should.



sashbar said:


> Here the colors are uniformly warm, I like the dominating color here (warm yellow) and trying to correct the sky warm color tint locally just makes no sense to me.  I like it as it is. I have seen so many images with local color correction that do not look right even though local colors are "correct". We do not perceive colors in isolation, we embrace the color scheme as a whole, and if it is coherent then it looks right, even though some secondary colors are actually not correct. There is a concept of a "slave tint" which basically says "do not mess with local tints".  Therefore trying to "improve" this particular image fiddling with the RAW file makes no sense to me. As  said, it is "good enough". This image is not about the color of the car, or the gates or something else, this image is about the warm sunny day that is reflected in the car, the gates, the grass etc.



There is no such concept as a "slave tint" -- that's a bunch of BS there. There are color phenomena such as simultaneous and successive contrast which I understand -- "slave tint" isn't one of them. There is a concept of "good enough" and I do understand that.

Joe


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 6, 2015)

sashbar said:


> in the meantime, some eye opening (pun not intended) reading about the blue sky, how to tell green from green and about other colors.
> 
> What is blue and how do we see color - Business Insider



Color, color theory, and color perception has long been a hotly debated topic; you can start back with Newton and Goethe. Business Insider as a source however is not where I'd start looking. The topic is overrun with pseudoscience and pop culture rubbish.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Mar 6, 2015)

shoot everything bw problem solved


----------



## Buckster (Mar 6, 2015)

bribrius said:


> shoot everything bw problem solved


With which color filter, since you want it to pop out of the camera ready to go?


----------



## bribrius (Mar 6, 2015)

Buckster said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > shoot everything bw problem solved
> ...


good point.... you had a good reason for disagreeing this time....


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 6, 2015)

malibushooter said:


> You would be surprised how much a good polaroid camera cost now.  The LAND cameras not the instant ones.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



I have two! 
Land HO Photography Forum
i dont really think they are overly expensive though. I see them for sale all the time <$50


----------



## unpopular (Mar 6, 2015)

Six pages for a non-issue.

TPF at it's finest.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 6, 2015)

We all have our own way of working. As an enthusiastic amateur, (that context can be important), I typically prefer to work with JPEGs. Before editing I usually convert them to a layered format, or TIFFs, to avoid degrading the image by repeatedly saving the original JPEG. I then apply the non-destructive enhancements that are needed for prints. 

My cameras are usually set to record RAW and JPEG. For the last 12 years my tweaked JPEGs have been more than good enough for quality prints, and I'm not easy pleased. But having RAW versions available means I can make use of the extra data on those occasions when I actually need it. (Sometimes I experiment with in-camera RAW conversions.) 

A lot depends on the image itself, exposure choices, shooting conditions and what manipulation is envisioned. It helps me a lot to be very familiar with powerful image-editing software, in particular its fundamental set of tools.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 6, 2015)

Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.

There is positively no debate here. I don't know what the deal is with people like Ken Rockwell and others who promote JPEG.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 6, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.



or, you simply just want to. Because you can.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 6, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> or, you simply just want to. Because you can.



There's no excuse for bad photography.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 6, 2015)

unpopular said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > or, you simply just want to. Because you can.
> ...



your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?
'cause if  you can, then its still good photography even if they shot jpeg only. 
so....no excuses needed.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2015)

Can we perhaps get this thread back on track to more productive and meaningful discussion? You know, stuff that is at least at the level of classical discussion, like say, oh, I dunno... "Ford vs Chevy?", or "Coke vs. Pepsi?" 

"Yeah, that would be greaaaaat. Thanks."


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2015)

unpopular said:
			
		

> Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.
> 
> There is positively no debate here. I don't know what the deal is with people like Ken Rockwell and others who promote JPEG.








Sorry..._please don't blame meme!_ I could not resist.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 6, 2015)

Derrel said:


> ....., like say, oh, I dunno... "Ford vs Chevy?", or "Coke vs. Pepsi?".........



C'mon...... you can do better than that.


Like Nikon v. Canon, fer instance!


----------



## unpopular (Mar 6, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?



No. I am saying it is sloppy.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Mar 6, 2015)

Depends on what Polaroid camera you're talking about. You can use old flash bars with SX-70s, they still work (and the packaging has people with some funky clothes and fun hair dos). I've been using mine this week and a Colorpack. There's film made for some Polaroids but not all. 

My digital camera is DNG so it automatically produces a Raw image and a JPEG from that. So that pretty much takes care of that! lol although I can shoot in the Raw setting, or the JPEG setting and just get a JPEG. I just use a super duper Extreme card and shoot in the Raw setting most of the time and that works for me.

Bri maybe it would help to work on your exposures or framing or whatever so you don't have to do so much post processing. Of course if you're playing w/adjustment and learning in the process that's one thing but that sounds like an awful lot of time post processing.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 6, 2015)

Well, there are some cameras that can produce pretty good SOOC JPEG images, or JPEG images that can be edited in post to make pretty good images. The keys are several, I think, but first is familiarity with the camera and the setting options, and how well the settings match up to the shooting conditions. A LOT of users of the newer Fuji mirrorless cameras, including some pretty well-known and respected professionals, have mentioned how they are happy with the Fuji JPEG files. Me? I used to shoot the Fuji S2 Pro d-slr in JPEG capture mode a lot, as in most of the time; raw conversion s/w back then was not fully supported, and converting was painfully slow, and the **camera itself** had a very easy-to-use, 4-button setup on the back that made it easy to adjust color saturation, sharpening, and tone curve. Those three controls are pretty important if you're gonna shoot JPEG. Also, white balance is important.

SOOC JPEG used to mean crappy in-camera sharpening, substandard noise reduction, and for Nikon users, a very flat tone curve and an overall kinda' muddy, dim image; those days are gone. Now there are user-selectable color "looks", and much better sharpening, and Nikon deliberately eliminated that awful "Nikon look" that used to make their images look...dingy. Sharpening has also gotten better, less halo-prone. All these things allow users to shoot more toward a final look, rather than the old way of shooting for the least-modified, lowest tone-curve images that would absolutely necessitate being post-processed to be even remotely looking like a finished, usable image.

If a person wants to shoot SOOC JPEG, white balance bracketing, and also pre-set, custom WB are both good settings/controls to become familiar with. When shooting JPEG, the white balance becomes a very critical aspect of how the image turns out!


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Mar 7, 2015)

unpopular said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?
> ...



I sold a framed print once, which was originally shot in jpeg, for $1,500.00. The framed print cost me $37.00.

I'll take slop like that all day long.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 7, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography... There is positively no debate here.




There are plenty of amateurs and professionals who don't use RAW unless there is a specific reason to do so.

They will be gutted to learn they are "sloppy".

“Both formats are capable of the highest quality images… Unfortunately tech folks push Raw without consideration as to how photographers like to work…” (Rob Sheppard).


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 7, 2015)

unpopular said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?
> ...


Maybe its sloppy if you need to shoot raw because you can't get it right in camera.  [emoji8]


----------



## Fred Berg (Mar 7, 2015)

Shooting raw is the photographic equivalent of wearing a rubber johnny: it's safe and there's no spillage, but where's the fun?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 7, 2015)

If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting raw, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting raw+JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG in certain instances, and one gets the desired results shooting raw in other instances, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one understands the differences between shooting JPEG and shooting raw, and knows how to choose whether to shoot JPEG, raw + JPEG, or just raw based on their needs and the merits of both formats, one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

When one does not judge others adversely for their choices, one should be praised.




Now quit squabbling about the non-issue and go shoot something instead.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 7, 2015)

480sparky said:


> If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.
> 
> If one gets the desired results shooting raw, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.
> 
> ...


but... but......

but....


i just hate to see people get stuck on the RAW thing.  There is a time and a place for everything.

Be able to walk out of your house and take a photo with any camera you have, your cellphone, whatever is there. When you start relying on the tech too much it becomes the tech over the photographer. I would like to think (and personally want the ability myself) of picking up any camera and being able to accomplish a decent photo. That seems to be what i would consider  a good photographer. Ability to adapt to equipment and conditions.
Some things a jpeg can not do as well. A given. But reliance, seems limiting the photographers potential. Why for me personally, in continue to shoot with low quality cameras still sometimes. It adds a challenge. Knowing the capabilities of the camera and working around them. So if i take out one of my junk cameras shooting jpeg only and my shots come out well. I am tickled pink. Sure, it would be easier and might come out better on a dslr shooting RAW. But if i take it with for instance my free camera i got from a yard sale give away or one of my kids toys cameras, and it still came out well. I love that novelty.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 7, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Well, there are some cameras that can produce pretty good SOOC JPEG images, or JPEG images that can be edited in post to make pretty good images. The keys are several, I think, but first is familiarity with the camera and the setting options, and how well the settings match up to the shooting conditions. A LOT of users of the newer Fuji mirrorless cameras, including some pretty well-known and respected professionals, have mentioned how they are happy with the Fuji JPEG files. Me? I used to shoot the Fuji S2 Pro d-slr in JPEG capture mode a lot, as in most of the time; raw conversion s/w back then was not fully supported, and converting was painfully slow, and the **camera itself** had a very easy-to-use, 4-button setup on the back that made it easy to adjust color saturation, sharpening, and tone curve. Those three controls are pretty important if you're gonna shoot JPEG. Also, white balance is important.
> 
> SOOC JPEG used to mean crappy in-camera sharpening, substandard noise reduction, and for Nikon users, a very flat tone curve and an overall kinda' muddy, dim image; those days are gone. Now there are user-selectable color "looks", and much better sharpening, and Nikon deliberately eliminated that awful "Nikon look" that used to make their images look...dingy. Sharpening has also gotten better, less halo-prone. All these things allow users to shoot more toward a final look, rather than the old way of shooting for the least-modified, lowest tone-curve images that would absolutely necessitate being post-processed to be even remotely looking like a finished, usable image.
> 
> If a person wants to shoot SOOC JPEG, white balance bracketing, and also pre-set, custom WB are both good settings/controls to become familiar with. When shooting JPEG, the white balance becomes a very critical aspect of how the image turns out!


I am overdue for another self demotion back to cheap point and shoot, crap cellphone, something. since for the last year i have been getting more and more involved in equipment, lenses, now lighting, i am getting to far from the simplicity of it. Film will help me demote myself a little i think, not sure enough. Just getting too far "away" and stuck on other things beyond just taking the shot and paying attention to what i see. Catch 22 though. I self demote back to other "less superior" choices i might gain some character as a photographer (maybe?) but it pauses what i am learning in tech and skill in other areas.  what to do, what to do. Maybe i should keep learning lighting but make myself take portraits with the 4mp cellphone or something. I have that new point and shoot panasonic i mentioned in the off topic thread. i Had that out yesterday with a film camera. It almost works too good for this cause. I had to work to get the snow to blow out in the sun still. The newer cameras are quite astounding in some ways, even the point and shoots.

I think i am overdue for a demotion though. I should kick myself back to a 5mp point and shoot for a month. Starting to pay more attention to equipment than what i am looking at. Can't be good...


----------



## Dave442 (Mar 7, 2015)

I started with JPG when I received my D200. After a while I found the settings in the camera were very limited as to the output image. The SOOC JPG are generally good with the limited Optimize Image settings available and I had some different settings in each of the memory banks (although I never tried to make and load a custom Tone Curve using the Nikon software). This was about the same a shooting with my old Sony DSC-V1 P&S, perfectly good results but not always what I wanted (often too much saturation). Now with RAW I think I have left most of the Optimize Image settings in Auto. 

I did learn Custom White Balance and from that I still find I often set a custom white balance while shooting RAW.

What I had liked about B&W film was making the final prints. I had wanted to do that with color but never added that equipment to my darkroom. So now with RAW and software I have the ability to play in the darkroom in color. Of course, when I shot film the B&W was to make images I liked, I grabbed a roll of Kodacolor if it was for some family and friends and took Kodachrome for trips to give a slide show and make a print or two. 

So in the end I think if you use JPG or RAW or film sort of depends on what you want to do.


----------



## minicoop1985 (Mar 7, 2015)

I'm all raw all the time because I'm too terrible not to. Vacation pics are JPEG if I'm just taking snapshots.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 7, 2015)

My first DSLR was a  D100. Long time ago. There is a huge,  and I mean HUGE difference between the quality of jpeg the D100 produces compared to new cameras.  Even non dslr. 
For general purposes for most people, I just don't see anything inherently wrong with shooting jpeg.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 7, 2015)

Dave442 said:
			
		

> I started with JPG when I received my D200.>SNIP> (although I never tried to make and load a custom Tone Curve using the Nikon software).



Dave, I have a pretty useful custom tone curve for the D2x and D200, which can be loaded into the camera using older version of Nikon Capture software. If you would like to have it, I could e-mail or DropBox the file for you. It's very small, and it basically allows the camera to create a very snappy SOOC JPEG which has good DR and a nice hold over the highlights and shadows. Exposure is set to Minus 1.7 EV, and then the SOOC JPEGS look pretty much ready to go, and the same tone curve will be the As-Shot applied in software on the .NEF files.

As pixmedic mentioned, the D100's JPEGS were...well...AWFUL. Soft, kind of flat, dingy...ugly. What we get out of newer Nikons are pretty good, especially at high ISO values if in-camera High ISO noise reduction is set, and a person shoots RAW + JPEG and lets the camera do its thing. I shot a party a couple years ago, and the SOOC JPEGS at high ISO levels indoors were really,really nice. I thought the Nikon NR was about as good as I could do: I am not much on applying NR, preferring increased detail over smoothing, but the camera's NR routines seem pretty darned good, and I had my 375 frames done...as soon as I shot them. I'll admit it: I processed the NEF files by hand, then looked at the SOOC JPEG files and went...huh...these both look soooo close...the camera did a hell of a lot better than I thought. NEWER Nikons are making better and better SOOC JPEG files, especially if things like the in-camera vignette control is turned on, and the camera is set up to be at least close to the conditions. The tone curve (contrast) needs to be allowed to be set by the camera, I think, at least in run-n-gun, indoor flash situations and strong backlighting. Active D-Lighting can work pretty well.

I think honestly there's better automation and scene analysis in the newer Nikons, with the better sensors and wider DR, to the point that what we learned 7,8,9,10 years ago does not apply to the same degree it once did. I think some people try to out-think, out-analyze some settings, and end up doing worse than what Nikons SRS scene recognition system can do IF it is turned on, and not deliberately crippled. Again...why not at least try RAW + JPEG, and see for yourself what can be done by at least giving the system a chance. Worse case? Just ditch what you do not like of the SOOC jpeg files.

I personally LIKE the JPEG files as editing tools: slide show them, and see the files, big, and sharpened, and processed, and kill-file the crap. It's faster and easier than viewing RAW files by the hundreds.


----------



## jaomul (Mar 7, 2015)

There will be many opinions on this. For myself I find I cannot really do better than my Olympus camera if I get it completely right in camera, for my Nikon I think I can slightly improve the look.

I do find though that I don't always get it right and raw helps me then. I also am not great at editing but if I have to use the crazy iso ranges, scenes where a nikon df or d4s would be ok, but my d7100 or EM5 struggle, I can usually make it look better than the sooc jpegs. My vote is raw and jpeg just in case


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 7, 2015)

I always have a camera with me where ever I go and I take photos almost daily. My compact is about the size of a phone. Yesterday I walked to the grocery store and took this photo because I wanted to, and I could.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Mar 7, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> I always have a camera with me where ever I go and I take photos almost daily. My compact is about the size of a phone. Yesterday I walked to the grocery store and took this photo because I wanted to, and I could.
> 
> Joe


you have a compact point and shoot that shoot raw?


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 7, 2015)

bribrius said:


> you have a compact point and shoot that shoot raw?



Yes.

Check this one out -- saves raw files: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSh...TF8&qid=1425775254&sr=8-1&keywords=Canon+s110

I went through this years ago. First we go back 30 years. I always wanted a camera with me at all times. I used to try and carry mini 35mm film cameras -- like I had an Olympus XA. It never really worked out because the photos still weren't immediate enough. It would take days to finish a roll of film and then you had to develop it etc. etc. and I'd start leaving without the camera because I didn't have a roll of film and etc. etc.

When digital came along I revived my desire to always carry a camera and I started buying small shirt pocket cameras like the Sony WS or Panasonic FH series. I finally really got to carrying a camera at all times with those, and I went through a handful of them over the course of a couple years. But it was always the same story -- I'd get frustrated. I'd try to take some photos that the camera software just couldn't handle -- like backlit. I also got frustrated because shooting JPEGs in those cameras was too much work and took too much time. So I'd give the camera to a niece or nephew and soon enough I'd miss it and get another one.

Finally I decided I would have to compromise size and get the smallest compact I could find that still gave me control of the camera and saved a raw file. I got a Samsung EX-1 in 2011. Smaller width and height than a smart phone but considerably thicker. Fits easily in a jacket pocket and otherwise I've adjusted to it hanging from my wrist. I replaced it with the Samsung EX-2 when that was released. I have full manual exposure control, manual focus if needed and it saves 12 bit raw files so processing is faster and easier than saving JPEGs (for me). I consider the Samsung EX-2 my main camera. I have other cameras but the camera I use the most is the camera I have *with me everywhere*. I'm a lot like you in that regard in that I always have a camera with me and I take photos almost daily.

I had to hang 4 prints in a gallery last semester (faculty art show). One was a photo from my 5DmkII and three were from my EX-2 -- kinda says it. I took photos with my EX-2 yesterday, I took photos with it the day before, I took photos with it this morning, I'll probably use it tomorrow. I got rid of the 5DmkII last year and replaced it with a Fuji. The Fuji is a great camera and I use it more than I did the Canon, but it can still sit for weeks at a time in between uses.

For curiosity here's the camera JPEG of that above photo:

Joe


----------



## malibushooter (Mar 7, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> malibushooter said:
> 
> 
> > You would be surprised how much a good polaroid camera cost now.  The LAND cameras not the instant ones.i
> ...


----------



## malibushooter (Mar 7, 2015)

Littman 4x5 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## unpopular (Mar 7, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> Maybe its sloppy if you need to shoot raw because you can't get it right in camera.  [emoji8]



Nope, I shoot raw because I understand that photography doesn't stop at the camera. I am very intentional about exposure, and plan according to post exposure. Did the same sort of thing in the darkroom, too - as many photographers did and do.

Go read The Negative and use your imagination for yourself. I'm getting pretty sick of explaining how this all works.


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 7, 2015)

All I'm saying is that I like it RAW.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Mar 8, 2015)

I wish i could shoot only jpeg and they be perfect every time, but reality is i need all the help i can get so i shoot raw.

John.


----------



## Nettles (Mar 8, 2015)

unpopular said:


> I'm getting pretty sick of explaining how this all works.



Nobody's moronic here. What you're explaining is how it works for you. But the point is your opinions, preferences and methodology aren't shared by everyone. 

So if others differ they are guilty of sloppy photography! Oh boy...


----------



## sashbar (Mar 8, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.
> 
> There is positively no debate here. I don't know what the deal is with people like Ken Rockwell and others who promote JPEG.



When people make this kind of statement I really need to look at their own work before proceeding beyond the first sentence.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 8, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you have a compact point and shoot that shoot raw?
> ...


you got me here. I wish i had a compact that shot raw with manual options for when the occasional need arises.. I could have used it last night. Point and shoot photo....not much for manual options. As a jpeg i could still tweak this some. But it was pretty much d.o.a.. Garbage heap. Good thing it wasn't a important shot.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> you got me here. I wish i had a compact that shot raw with manual options for when the occasional need arises.. I could have used it last night. Point and shoot photo....not much for manual options. As a jpeg i could still tweak this some. But it was pretty much d.o.a.. Garbage heap. Good thing it wasn't a important shot.



Yep, I have thousands of good photos I took over the years when I was carrying the pocket point and shoots. And a couple of the Sony WS series did have a manual exposure option. They all had EC control. But the bottom line really is the JPEG processors. All those good photos are shots with easy light, or rather easy JPEG light. When you shoot camera JPEG you accept the limitations of the camera's image processor. There's a lot that they just can't do. It's not that the JPEGs from the cameras are inherently bad it's that the camera processing software is pretty limited. As noted further back in this thread JPEG engines have gotten a lot better over recent years such that in conditions where they can deliver a good result, the photos are fine. The problem remains those other conditions where the JPEG engines fall down; and I still want to take photos in those other conditions.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Mar 8, 2015)

Ysarex said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > you got me here. I wish i had a compact that shot raw with manual options for when the occasional need arises.. I could have used it last night. Point and shoot photo....not much for manual options. As a jpeg i could still tweak this some. But it was pretty much d.o.a.. Garbage heap. Good thing it wasn't a important shot.
> ...


i could see how that could sometimes come in handy. Right now i just shoot it anyway. If it doesn't work good enough to be desired i go back with a dslr. But obviously, that isn't always so easily done the moment is lost.


----------



## unpopular (Mar 8, 2015)

Nettles said:


> So if others differ they are guilty of sloppy photography! Oh boy...



Nobody has any conviction because some people are too damn sensitive. I'm not about to pander to insecurity. Sorry if my position offends people.

There is *no* good reason to shoot JPEG aside from file size and the misconception that SOOC is impressive, and plenty of reason not to (aside from mis-exposure).

But hey. If limiting your DSLR to the abilities of consumer-grade slide film makes you feel like a man, go for it. (ok, I'll admit that's a bit of an exaggeration)



sashbar said:


> When people make this kind of statement I really need to look at their own work before proceeding beyond the first sentence.



I don't feed fallacious arguments. Sorry.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 8, 2015)

unpopular said:


> Nettles said:
> 
> 
> > So if others differ they are guilty of sloppy photography! Oh boy...
> ...



so, just out of curiosity....and dont get me wrong, 'cause I only shoot raw...but I really do think this is a pretty legitimate question....
why, if in fact there is *no* good reason to shoot jpeg  (except for the reasons you mentioned in previous posts)
does every camera manufacturer that makes a digital camera have jpeg as an output option?
why not eliminate jpeg as a camera output format all together and force people to do it right?...why not only have jpeg as a format you can get after converting from a raw file?


----------



## Vtec44 (Mar 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> so, just out of curiosity....and dont get me wrong, 'cause I only shoot raw...but I really do think this is a pretty legitimate question....
> why, if in fact there is *no* good reason to shoot jpeg  (except for the reasons you mentioned in previous posts)



IMHO, those are pretty darn good reasons.  Most event, news, and sports photographers don't shoot RAW.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2015)

Here's a tip to speed up editing of images. Shoot raw + jpeg. Crank the in-camera sharpening up very high. Set the image size to one that your monitor can display without the need to down-size the images. Shoot your assignment, then do a slide show of the SOOC JPEG images to evaluate the focus/composition/artistic impact of the images. With the in-camera sharpening set very high and the images small enough that the OS does not need to re-sample each and every JPEG to display it, it's much easier to differentiate between dead-on focus and just so slightly soft images. I find this use of the SOOC jpegs makes my workflow a hell of a lot faster and overall, more effective than one-at-a-time clicking through huge raw files in a clumsy "interface". With the slide show I can INSTANTLY evaluate which images I want to either keep, or eliminate.


----------



## bribrius (Mar 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> unpopular said:
> 
> 
> > Nettles said:
> ...


because jpeg is the standard of the file formats and the vast majority shot jpegs at least some of the time.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 8, 2015)

I purchased a P7100 for the simple reason to have a compact (not P&S) that is capable of .NRW (Nikons raw format for compacts).  Although it's primary function is to be a jobsite documentation camera (in JPEG mode), I would have a small, light camera that is capable of raw files should I need one.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 8, 2015)

pixmedic said:


> so, just out of curiosity....and dont get me wrong, 'cause I only shoot raw...but I really do think this is a pretty legitimate question....
> why, if in fact there is *no* good reason to shoot jpeg  (except for the reasons you mentioned in previous posts)
> does every camera manufacturer that makes a digital camera have jpeg as an output option?
> why not eliminate jpeg as a camera output format all together and force people to do it right?...why not only have jpeg as a format you can get after converting from a raw file?



That one's easy: They don't design cameras to take better photos, they design cameras to sell more cameras. Nothing they won't do if they think it will sell.

Joe


----------



## bribrius (Mar 8, 2015)

480sparky said:


> I purchased a P7100 for the simple reason to have a compact (not P&S) that is capable of .NRW (Nikons raw format for compacts).  Although it's primary function is to be a jobsite documentation camera (in JPEG mode), I would have a small, light camera that is capable of raw files should I need one.


what am i the only one that hauls out a dslr just for raw files?????????????????????


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> because jpeg is the standard of the file formats and the vast majority shot jpegs at least some of the time.



It's not about JPEG per se -- it's about how you get the JPEG.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2015)

Thank the lord, there's now a software hack that can allow Android phone users to capture raw .DNG files from their phone camera! Praise be! Finally, NOW phone camera captures can be made in glorious raw format!  Camera FV-5 Lets Your Android Phone Shoot DNG Raw Files

This is wonderful, because as we know, it's not the picture that matters, it's whether it was "Made in RAW" or not!


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 8, 2015)

bribrius said:


> what am i the only one that hauls out a dslr just for raw files?????????????????????



No. I typically shoot .NEFs with all my DSLRs..... unless it's something small & simple like a shot to post on the forum to show something, or a family gathering for the holiday, or something I'm just going to email then delete.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Thank the lord, there's now a software hack that can allow Android phone users to capture raw .DNG files from their phone camera! Praise be! Finally, NOW phone camera captures can be made in glorious raw format!  Camera FV-5 Lets Your Android Phone Shoot DNG Raw Files
> 
> This is wonderful, because as we know, it's not the picture that matters, it's whether it was "Made in RAW" or not!



Can I get one with a Zeiss lens? Lenses take pictures -- cameras just hold the sensor.

Joe


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2015)

Ysarex said:
			
		

> Can I get one with a Zeiss lens? Lenses take pictures -- cameras just hold the sensor.
> 
> Joe



Sony does license a number of lens designs from Zeiss, and Sony does have the new NFC front attachment zoom lens dealios that attatch to phones...with a Carl Zeiss Lens
badge right there on the front of this one.... Smartphone Attachable Lens-style Camera - DSCQX100 B Review - Sony US

Speaking of phones and lenses and such, Sony does have the 20.7 MP Xperia phones with the Exmor sensor tech and the compact digitial camera-sized sensors, not the smart phone sized sensors...I've seen some pictures from these, and the image quality is really amazing for phone pics. One forum member here bought an Xperia Z2 smartphone last year, and I was blown away by the image quality it produced. I mean, really surprised at what it could do. For a phone it has a large, BSI CMOS sensor, a fast lens, and pretty good images. The Z2 has been updated to a Z3. The Z2 is listed as having a Sony G-lens, which is their premium lens series. The Xperia phones are waterproof, as in fully submersible  to a decent depth for hours on end if needed.

For people wondering what BSI or backside illuminated means, this page has a nifty diagram:
Buyers Guide to Digital Camera Sensor Technology


----------



## bribrius (Mar 8, 2015)

Derrel said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


geesh. sure beats the crap out of my 5mp cell phone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Derrel (Mar 8, 2015)

This Flickr pool has 1,003 photos made with last year's Sony Xperia Z2. There are some truly fine photographs in here. Some of the better shooters have been able to push this phone to show what it can do. Imagine, if the full sensor captures were accessible in raw capture mode, how much better this thing could bridge the lighting values in many scenes that have bright highlights and deep shadows.

Flickr The Sony Xperia Z2 Pool


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Mar 9, 2015)

No RAW support on my HTC M7 according to the app RAW is only working on the two phones below.

"Requires Android 5.0+ and a fully compliant Camera2 implementation. *Currently only LG Nexus 5 and Motorola Nexus 6*."

John.


----------

