Jpegs Better Than Raw?

[Henk]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

I'm sure you are right, Henk, but that's gone right over my head! No doubt, if I really tried, I could get to grips with the differences between 8 (?) and 16 bit, how to convert them and the software needed to process them. However, more sophisticated software means more expense (as would swapping the PC for a Mac as suggested in an earlier post) which I simply cannot afford.

You don't have to buy PS4, Paint Shop Pro XI is my main PP program which does more in 16bit than PSE.

It's starting to look like I need to acknowledge that my photographic skills lay in a previous age and go back to film (where the cost of procesing will be an issue) or simply call it a day.

That would be a waste of talent, looking at your website. You do not have to work from raw, if you're happy with in-camera JPG then shoot JPG. We won't hate you for that!

It's just not true that you can not gain more from raw than from in-camera JPG.

Keep shooting and posting.

[Jim Ford]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

Raw conversion within CS2 is not posible anyway.

Convert to DNG using Adobe's free converter, then you can open the DNG file in CS2. It's what I do.

That will have to wait untill I get CS4.

No it won't!
;^)

Jim

[Mrs T]

[MarkVarley]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

When you convert raw to jpeg you do lose that extra data, but during the conversion you push, pull, alter as you wish with the data and save the result, not possible when starting with raw.

we do save at tiffs ready-to-use in the archive, we also keep all used raws. jpegs are (usually) used as final outputs to client or to print etc.

[photo_owl]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

When you convert raw to jpeg you do lose that extra data, but during the conversion you push, pull, alter as you wish with the data and save the result, not possible when starting with raw.

we do save at tiffs ready-to-use in the archive, we also keep all used raws. jpegs are (usually) used as final outputs to client or to print etc.

I think you mean not possible when starting with jpegs....as in not done as easily or effectively.

Mrs T

the raw file is 12 bit so has more data - this is one aspect

equally the process of creating a jpeg is 'one way' and destructive ie if you want to reduce contrast or brightness or sharpness you don't get back the file pre adding these things you get (taking sharpness) a sharpened file that is then blurred/unsharpened - not the same thing at all which is part of Mark's point.

if you apply a load of settings to a raw file to create a tiff or jpeg then the raw can always be recreated to original spec.

this thread actually stimulated me to shoot raw + jpeg this weekend and I was pleasantly surprised at the jpeg output from the E3. I didn't save any time from the jpegs, and had to use the raw files where I wanted to bring up shadows at higher iso, or see if any highlights were really really blown.... but overall the output could be sent straight to gallery in most cases (for what I was shooting)

[MarkVarley]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

I think you mean not possible when starting with jpegs....as in not done as easily or effectively.

Indeed, I wrote that while ordering a curry, multi-tasking isn't my strong point.

[Wreckdiver]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

The only other 16 bit non jpeg format I have read about are Tiff files. Is this what Raw users save their conversions to in order to preserve all the original data.
Amanda

The original data only resides in the raw file. From the raw converter I save as PSD (Photoshop 16 bit) and add adjustment layers as required. The only down side is the huge file sizes generated, but I can go back and tweak adjustments or turn them off at will. When finished I save master copies as TIFF and the working files as JPEGs. The raw and TIFF files are archived.

As mentioned above, Olympus cameras (well my E-1 and E-3) produce 12 bit images, the extra 4 bits are padded out to make up 16 bits.

Steve