do jpegs rule?

[ian p]

Re: do jpegs rule?

>Other types of PP
For example retouching, compositing, enhancing, stitching/HDR or whatever.

What I'm doing is breaking down the tasks into different disciplines. People have expressed differences of opinion. And it is quite likely that they cope well with some tasks, and less with others. Its a technique that helps me in my work. I am also curious about my own behaviour. There may be something to learn.

>Dull
A reply to SteveL. His choice of words. I wanted to clarify what I meant before.

[StephenL]

Re: do jpegs rule?

>Dull
A reply to SteveL. His choice of words.

My definition of "dull" in this context meant flat, unshiny, lacking contrast or pzazz, etc. I didn't mean "boring", which can be another interpretation of the word. Sorry for the confusion.

[ian p]

Re: do jpegs rule?

Yes, thanks. I know what you mean. A raw picture often appears to have less than optimal default settings next to it's jpeg.
I think I'm creating more confusion by trying to break it all down.

[DerekW]

Re: do jpegs rule?

But that is the whole point of RAW - it has not been adjusted either in camera or in the computer, it is a base image that can then be built upon with the adjustment that you want to make. An OOC Jpeg has been adjusted to get an averagely acceptable image. The amount of adjustment available in a JPEG is quite limited as a large amount of data is not accessible

In the same way an undeveloped film is the start of the image that can be adjusted in the film developing and the printing process. The variables being time, chemicals, temperature, type of paper, dodging and burning in, yet more variation of chemicals etc.

The RAW image is the equivalent of an exposed but undeveloped bit of film.

[ian p]

Re: do jpegs rule?

That's where I've been going wrong! I'd better draw the curtains the next time I develop a raw file.

Derek, my last post was just a point of communication with a previous post, not a criticism of anything.

[pdk42]

Re: do jpegs rule?

But that is the whole point of RAW - it has not been adjusted either in camera or in the computer, it is a base image that can then be built upon with the adjustment that you want to make. An OOC Jpeg has been adjusted to get an averagely acceptable image. The amount of adjustment available in a JPEG is quite limited as a large amount of data is not accessible

In the same way an undeveloped film is the start of the image that can be adjusted in the film developing and the printing process. The variables being time, chemicals, temperature, type of paper, dodging and burning in, yet more variation of chemicals etc.

The RAW image is the equivalent of an exposed but undeveloped bit of film.

Well technically speaking raw is ALWAYS processed. Raw on its own is incapable of being displayed. It needs demosaicing, have levels adjusted, sharpening added, curves applied, ... The question is whether you do this once in the camera or whether you do it (usually with user input) on a computer later. Doing it later means you can sweat over the result you want with the minimum of interference from the decisions made by the camera's jpeg engine.