.......correctly shot RAW ...........
Hart
forgot to mention that this is a very valid point too.
.......correctly shot RAW ...........
Hart
when I shoot time lapse, I realise only RAW is the best file format to work and deliver the best result.
and it is the same when I shoot panorama, I need 16bit tiff to do stitching
I am talking from a hobbyist point of view.
Are we degrading of image capturing skills with over reliance on the safety net provided?
For Pro photog, they need that safety net.
But for hobbyist, part of the enjoyment and "kick" is the challenge in "capturing" better image. I am talking about the capturing portion, not the post processing.
8 bit tiff will have banding after stitching, so 16bit is way to go.
I make timelapse for stock, the clip don't have to be that long, just between 6 seconds to 30 seconds, but it has to be in highest quality.but usually for time lapse, u will need to take near to thousands shots to have a longer video. u can view couple of time lapse video that i've done. watch 1080p/720p full screen. all taken in jpeg
'Raw' is to digital photography as 'negative' is to film photography.
Nobody prints a photo from a negative 'as is'. A lot of optimisations eg. like exposure level, colour correction, contrast correction, etc have to be carried out either automatically in a colour photo printer or manually by hand before a negative can be converted to a proper positive on paper. It is just that most people who shoot films don't need to do it themselves because they send the rolls of films they shot to developers for processing and printing. Professional printers might have to carry out a lot more processing through various developing and printing techniques to produce a print that is suitable for exhibition.
Shooting in just jpeg format in digital photography is therefore synonymous to shooting polaroids in film photography.
Also, there is more to a picture than just what you can do in Photoshop.
There is the composition. The effort put in to wait for the right light to convey the mood you want. The elation at the light captured. The memory of the time spent.
A photograph attempts to put all of the creator's feelings together. A JPG is the result of the camera telling the creator what he felt. Working with the image in RAW format to produce the vision that one had, to try to convey a little shard of that moment, because a photograph just never does sufficient justice to it.. Now that's thinking.
Of course, if the JPG suffices and matches with what the creator envisions, good for him, then just shoot JPG. It's your choice. No one cares about anything but the end result, really. Which is why I never, never, ever understand when people go off on tirades about how they spent 8 hours, 12 lifetimes and 27 milleniums processing the photograph. At the end of the day, if you spent that much time and your result is crap, it's crap. The photograph speaks for itself.
raw is nothing but the maximum data you can get from your camera. jpeg is just a compressed version. ever wondered why raw files are significantly larger than jpegs?
because they contain image data, which otherwise saved as raw, will be discarded in jpeg.
anyways, just like tomcat mentioned, shooting in jpeg is like shooting with polaroids. shooting with raw is more like with negatives. darkroom processes is now adobe lightroom/photoshop.
anyways, rubbish in rubbish out. raw isn't able to save crappy shots anyways
I use raw files mainly to retrieve details in my highlights and shadows, which jpeg normally dumps out. also to correct white balance issues and stuff. Usually the extra effort goes in for exhibition prints.
I also do shoot in Jpeg format for events, when raw is just too large and too long to write into camera, and when i hand over photos the other party also don't know how to use raw.
So long as the end result is what i need, i don't really mind raw and jpeg. i use them for specific reasons.