Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Demophobe]

RAW format isn't about quality. Its a digital negative. With JPEG, the manipulations to compensate for the shortcomings in the photo (or just tweaks one can do) are minimal. With RAW, there are hundreds of ways to enhance the photo in one way without causing problems in other areas. RAW is ALL of the digital information, lossless, no compression.

[The Lemon]

[Demophobe]

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

This covers many of the advantages and disadvantages to RAW and Jpeg. Although it's Nikon (NEF), it's the same thing as RAW. Change the white balance, capture more color, lossless format, work in individual color layers independantly for post-processing...I think there are a total of 100+ manipulations in Photoshop for a JPEG, vs thousands for a RAW. There was a thread a while back where I put up a lot about it...

The bottom line is that it's a far superior format from a technical point of view.

[The Lemon]

Thanks Demo for the link. Interesting article, but seems to support rather than contradict my earlier statement: "RAW is best (at least in theory) for post-processing control. But a JPG with, say, quality set at 75% or more (set in Photoshop) will create a print that is (to my eyes) indistinguishable from one from a RAW image, and free of compression artifacts perceptable to most normal humans."

From the reading: "There is a gnawing fear that somehow because JPEG is a "lossy" compression algorithm you'll be throwing away that vital pixel. The truth is that modern JPEG compression--when used with the High quality settings found in modern D-SLRs or Photoshop--is essentially visually lossless if used only once or twice on an image...There is no question that by forcing the choice of exposure, tone curve, and white balance at the time of capture JPEGs limit your options to change your mind after the fact--just like slide film did. But that doesn't mean that slides aren't as good as negatives or that JPEGs aren't as good as Raw files."

In support of RAW images: "You can change the white balance to your heart's content and you can even alter the exposure by several stops without ruining the image. You can do some of that with JPEGs, but not as well or as extensively."

I spend a lot of time when I'm taking photos setting the white balance and choosing the correct exposure manually so I don't have to make severe and destructive adjustments in Photoshop. It's interesting that RAW images allow those sorts of changes after the fact without ruining the photo.

[bourquetheman]

Gosh seeing this thread makes me so pissed off at myself because about a month ago I lost this camera. Yup, somehow camera case and all got lost somewhere and obviously someone either grabbed it out of my car or somewhere else.

Anyway I picked this up last July at Incheon airport duty free and fell in love with it right away. I don't know about the rest of you but I HATE the tiny digital cameras that are the size of credit cards. My wife and I immediately fell in love with it and took a lot of pictures with it. The zoom was great as you could REALLy get close and the pixel quality was fine. We got them printed out for our daughter's one year birthday and they looked fine. Personally I'm in a dilemma now as do I go and buy the EXACT same camera that I lost or buy something else that is comparable? Hope this helps you.

[Demophobe]

I take many pictures in RAW to compensate for my own shortcomings as a photographer. When I shoot in JPEG, I don't have as many options to cover myself.

I have shot and worked in both formats quite a bit, and from personal experience, shooting in RAW has saved a few great shots that would have otherwise been mediocre in JPEG...perhaps over-exposed, no time for a white balance reading, color reflections (Canons do bring out reds like crazy), or just wanting to uber-tweak the photo. In this situation I am looking more for an artsy effect rather than a straight photo of a child or something.

It seems that this subject is riddled with subjective arguments, and mine are not much different. Yes, to the naked eye under certain conditions, there is little difference. With my camera creating some massive files, when at full-size, these differences become quite pronounced.

On an average printer making an 8x10, these idfferences again may be small....but there. I fix a photo at full size and when reduced, I can see the image difference between that and a JPEG shot. I have taken it upon myself to do many such comparative tests.

I would post the difference, but I have no way to store a RAW image. Converting it to a lossless format would nullify my point. Anyways, I am no pro (but my friend is) and in the hands of an experienced user, the Photoshop+RAW combo creates pictures that simply surpass JPEGs under any conditions.

Even in the link I provided, the writer posts comparative photos in a lossy format; hardly condusive to a good argument for or against RAW. The photo needs to be seen at full size to be appreciated. Doing so makes cropping photos far more rewarding in terms of the final product.

It's a hard format to work with and for some eyes, the end may not justify the means.

[panthermodern]

Many pocket cameras (digital) can take limited video ...

Some of the quality of video is actually pretty good.

Can any digital video cameras take quality still photos?

[The Lemon]

[panthermodern]

Keen.

I have a "good" not great DC that with the 1 Gig card can take 999 seconds of "poor" quality video ... most Video Cameras don't do much better in "civillian" hands ...

That's my opinion.

Who wants to watch anyone else's homemovies anyway?

My favorite medium is/are slides ... They bother and are the most annoying.

[Aleatory]

well lower mega pixels leaves you less room to edit your pictures. Personally i like the 5 mega pixel cameras.