Pictures shot in raw vs. Jpg

[Alan Chan]

now i got a question, so let say i edited the raw file using nikon software and save it, will the changes be shown if i open again this time using lightroom3 ?

 

[Alan Chan]

I am using the canon software. I adjusted the raw files and convert to jgp. When I exit, it said the files are edited and if I want to save the changes. I clicked yes and I noticed that those files are updated with the new edited dates.. Lucky I still have the raw shots in my cam. Now what I do is save the raw in a folder 'raw' and duplicate this folder, while having another jpg folder for the converted formats..

not sure about canon software, but i believe you can still revert those raw to its original camera state.

 

[brapodam]

now i got a question, so let say i edited the raw file using nikon software and save it, will the changes be shown if i open again this time using lightroom3 ?

idk, but why would you do that?

 

[Alan Chan]

idk, but why would you do that?

not that i want to do that, but this will answer the question if the changes to raw is saved in raw file itself or only to the software that edited it. if its the latter, does it mean that uninstalling that software will lose all the changes done?

 

[Etna-sama]

Personally prefer shooting JPEGs because it offers the closest feeling to actual film in that you don't have much room to save the pic if it stinks due to various reasons. Unlike RAW where you have almost total control over how you want the end prouct to be, in JPEG you take it and that's pretty much it, since there is limitted PP to be done on it.

Besides, with the amount of time spent on attempting to correct a RAW in PP, the JPEG user would have already fired off a ton more shots and has a better chance of finding something almost usable right out of the camera with minimal touching up required. And when you are doing reportage or journalism, RAW is essentially a no-no unless you can be sure that your single RAW shot is the perfect shot you need.

 

[brapodam]

Personally prefer shooting JPEGs because it offers the closest feeling to actual film in that you don't have much room to save the pic if it stinks due to various reasons. Unlike RAW where you have almost total control over how you want the end prouct to be, in JPEG you take it and that's pretty much it, since there is limitted PP to be done on it.

Besides, with the amount of time spent on attempting to correct a RAW in PP, the JPEG user would have already fired off a ton more shots and has a better chance of finding something almost usable right out of the camera with minimal touching up required. And when you are doing reportage or journalism, RAW is essentially a no-no unless you can be sure that your single RAW shot is the perfect shot you need.

Actually, RAW files offer the closest feeling to actual film, because it works like unprocessed film. JPEGs are essentially processed and printed film, which you can edit from there by painting over stuff (not the best way to do things). Also, I don't see how firing a ton of shots off helps if you time your shots well. You'll end up sifting through millions of JPEGs.

Shooting RAW allows you to capture the full dynamic range that your camera can produce. JPEGs compress the dynamic range, leaving little room for you to pull out details - a film negative has much more dynamic range than any digital camera's JPEG output. White balance correction is also much easier with RAW files. On a JPEG where the white balance is off, it's very hard to correct, and sometimes cannot even be saved.

I agree with shooting JPEGs for reportage or journalism where you have to submit the shots immediately - especially when shooting sports for the press. But for normal events, I'd still shoot RAW, as it gives me much more to work with.