Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780
Some truth in that, I'll grant you, but each one that can produce equally great results.
RAW:
Pro's
-uncompressed/lossless data from your camera's sensor
-higher dynamic range
Con's
-requires post processing 100% of the time
-can't print without post processing
-larger files size (around 8mb's for an 8 mp image)
-not as sharp & lower in contrast (without post processing)
JPEG:
Pro's
-image standard format
-sharper
-can print without post
-no correction needed most of the time (if shot correctly)
-low file size (1-3mb for an 8mp image)
Con's
-lower dynamic range
-compressed file (opposite of lossless. You could lose data when you manipulate) Basically, data the human eye can't percieve is thrown away much like an mp3 file is to music.
The good news is that most DSLR's in-camera software process jpeg's pretty well as oppose to inexpensive point & shoots. Shooting RAW is great because it lets you edit white balance, exposure all with lossless data. It means fixing a mistake made in the field is easier to correct. I personally shoot in jpeg+RAW 50% of the time.
A perfectly shot image will not need post processing. If you have to heavily edit every single image you shoot in post, you're doing something wrong in the field.
|
Yes, but you assume that everyone is capable of shooting a perfectly exposed image with perfect white balance, color, and saturation. It also assumes that every scene being shot has even light distribution and doesn't require any post processing. I use a Nikon D3 with professional lenses, been doing photography and darkroom work since the 70's and I am of the opinion that such an animal as a perfectly shot image rarely, if ever, exists in its ability to reflect the photographer's artistic vision. I rarely find any image that I shoot to be perfect even out of my $5000 camera with its $1700 lenses.
Show me somebody who doesn't post-process their photographs from their digital camera and I'll show you somebody who is just doing shapshots. It would be a very rare professional photography gallery indeed, whether shot in JPEG or RAW, that demonstrates images that are not post-processed. Ansel Adams photgraphic art was ALL about post-processing. Compared to the hours and money I used to spend in the darkroom cropping, exposing, dodging, burning, I rejoice in the ability to accomplish all of that and FAR more in front of my computer far cheaper and far quicker.
My point is that post-processing is desirable for virtually
every image if the photographer wants to achieve the artistic vision he had in his head when he pushed the button. If that's the case, then IMHO far better to start with digital data that is accurately and easily amenable to such manipulation.