JPEG Vs RAW
View Single Post
22-10-09, 08:37 AM
Join Date: Jul 2009
Originally Posted by
The time it takes a person to convert a Raw file to a 16 bit TIFF,i have finished checking my levels/curves and exposure and out shooting again =)
be true but it doesn't mean you should automatically dismiss RAW shooting. Personally I find it takes a few seconds to make any adjustments to a RAW file and it's then saved as a PSD. If it requires, or I feel like doing any further editing I can, just as if I'd shot in JPEG.
There are pros and cons to RAW and JPEG. JPEGs are smaller, written faster, processed with proprietary tone curves and adjustments and they're much easier to share. If you need to give your shots to someone quickly, then JPEG is always your friend.
But RAW files contain more dynamic range, are lossless, have a greater bit depth and, hence, colour and tonal range/rendition. But they are larger and require processing.
At weddings I shoot RAW + JPEG so I can give JPEGs to people straight away as they're often collecting them as people leave and you try explaining that they can't just copy your pictures because... well, they're in RAW and it's not really a picture file per se and it'll have to be developed... etc. etc.
Then I go home, edit the RAW files and send them DVDs of the finished product.
I don't see why you
to shoot one format exclusively. Shoot JPEG when you need to and RAW when you need to. One format is not right or wrong. They're different tools suited to different jobs.
View Forum Profile
Send a private message to chris-p
Find all posts by chris-p