If not printing photos, is there any reason for shooting in raw? I know it captures more detail than jpeg, but ignoring editing, if i shoot in raw then convert to jpeg, will it be the same as shooting directly in jpeg?
Thanks
Thanks
If not printing photos, is there any reason for shooting in raw? I know it captures more detail than jpeg, but ignoring editing, if i shoot in raw then convert to jpeg, will it be the same as shooting directly in jpeg?
Thanks
If not printing photos, is there any reason for shooting in raw? I know it captures more detail than jpeg, but ignoring editing, if i shoot in raw then convert to jpeg, will it be the same as shooting directly in jpeg?
Thanks
no.
just think of raw as a piece of raw meat. compared to jpg, which has been cooked for you by the camera. with raw, you can cook it with more creativity, there is more potential to be unlocked.. and you can produce different styles of cooking.
but for the jpg file, it has been cooked thoroughly, it is limited what you can do to it. maybe add some sauce, some toppings, but it's done.
of course, there is nothing wrong with shooting in jpg - especially if you know how to instruct the camera to cook the picture the way you want it.. but of course not many people are able to do that, so raw is safe.
The rest have given u the input. There are reasons for taking either. If you are not doing heavy post exposure editing, taken well, Jpegs are very usable and printable too.
Ryan
however, even batch conversion of RAW to jpg with apply setting, it will also take a few hours for automation processing for few hundreds files, you have to think is this justify for you to do so.
catchlights said:if you apply the same setting as in the "in camera jpg conversion" to the RAW file, you will have more fine details on the jpg out from the Raw file compare to the camera jpg.[/B]
however, even batch conversion of RAW to jpg with apply setting, it will also take a few hours for automation processing for few hundreds files, you have to think is this justify for you to do so.
sorry for what I have not made clear earlier..That boils down to the approach one takes to photography.
If one machine-guns everything that one encounters, obviously one will have a problem. Similar with film: if you take a few hundred frames a day you won't have the time to make quality prints, but have to resort to canned automated machine printing.
On the other hand, many people are entirely happy if they come home with half a dozen exposures after a day out. If you carefully deliberate over each exposure, it would be foolish to waste potential by committing to canned in-camera processing and lossy compression.
yes, the trade off is your time and the computer time.This is what I have observed as well, a jpeg conversion using in-camera settings in dpp yields more details compared to a camera jpeg.
I'm referring to shots from my assignments, plus minus 1k images for a wedding, few hundreds for a ROM, after wiping off unable image, about 5%...
this is very common amount of shots from a typical local Chinese customary wedding plus dinner celebration. if it goes into a 4R album, it will be choose 1 from 3. those shots wedding before, should know this is very moderate amount of images.No offence, but if this is not machine gunning, what would you consider machine gunning?
would you call a nat geo photographer a good one?That boils down to the approach one takes to photography.
If one machine-guns everything that one encounters, obviously one will have a problem. Similar with film: if you take a few hundred frames a day you won't have the time to make quality prints, but have to resort to canned automated machine printing.
On the other hand, many people are entirely happy if they come home with half a dozen exposures after a day out. If you carefully deliberate over each exposure, it would be foolish to waste potential by committing to canned in-camera processing and lossy compression.
No offence, but if this is not machine gunning, what would you consider machine gunning?