Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Photography
RAW vs JPEG
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="J-see" data-source="post: 447679" data-attributes="member: 31330"><p>There might be little visual difference but RAW vs JPEG is akin to painting on canvas or painting on toilet paper.</p><p></p><p>When the paint is hardened, you don't really see what material was used and it can look as pretty on both. But once you want to do more than look at it, it becomes obvious why canvas is preferred.</p><p></p><p>Even the original JPEG that rolls out of the cam has compression artifacts. It's only a pixel here and there and barely noticeable but nevertheless. Once you edit and save the file, you'll introduce more artefacts. If you have to load it into another program to add watermarks or do editing the RAW editor lacks, you'll again introduce artifacts.</p><p></p><p>Then there's the problem of hard-drive deterioration. All our drives age and it'll result into an inevitable corruption of all our files. JPEG is especially vulnerable because of its "key" which results into worse corruption than TiFF. That's why I save everything as uncompressed TiFF files.</p><p></p><p>JPEG is toilet paper; you can't use it without staining.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-see, post: 447679, member: 31330"] There might be little visual difference but RAW vs JPEG is akin to painting on canvas or painting on toilet paper. When the paint is hardened, you don't really see what material was used and it can look as pretty on both. But once you want to do more than look at it, it becomes obvious why canvas is preferred. Even the original JPEG that rolls out of the cam has compression artifacts. It's only a pixel here and there and barely noticeable but nevertheless. Once you edit and save the file, you'll introduce more artefacts. If you have to load it into another program to add watermarks or do editing the RAW editor lacks, you'll again introduce artifacts. Then there's the problem of hard-drive deterioration. All our drives age and it'll result into an inevitable corruption of all our files. JPEG is especially vulnerable because of its "key" which results into worse corruption than TiFF. That's why I save everything as uncompressed TiFF files. JPEG is toilet paper; you can't use it without staining. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
RAW vs JPEG
Top