Quote:
Originally Posted by Cmike2780
I think your logic is beyond the point of this thread. Geez it's just a file type. No need to get all worked up about it. I'm not arguing, in fact I completely agree. This isn't a jpeg vs RAW thread, so lets not turn it into one. Of course shooting RAW has it's benefits, but for someone who's just starting out like the OP's brother, it's more of a burden than an advantage.
Having a wealth of knowledge & experience with photography, You of all people should know $$$ equip doesn't always equal better pictures. I'm not a pro by any means, but the notion that every shot must be post processed to be any good mean is a bit of a reach. It's obviously more difficult to get it right in the field, but it's not some unicorn you'll never catch. Artistic vision aside, everyone I know does some sort of post processing, including myself. I guess my point is that people tend to rely on post as a crutch. Artistic vision starts in the field, not in front of the computer screen.
|
Of course. Artistic vision starts in the field but it doesn't end there for images that are important to the shooter. And if one is going to post-process in order to make the picture reflect what the shooter wants it to reflect, better to do it in RAW. Post-processing images shot in JPEG requires that you undo what the camera has decided about color, sharpness, white balance, and exposure, or even worse, try to overlay your own processing concepts on the decisions the camera has already made about those aspects.
Certainly I don't advocate post-processing every image one shoots. The majority of mine don't even get past the thumbnail stage. When I find an image that I like in my camera, I want to be the one who decides how it's going to print up, not my camera, or worse, KodakGallery (now Shutterfly, I guess) or Whitehouse Color.