For visual learners, this should make the RAW versus JPG discussion clearer.
Original source: Why you should take photos in RAW | Pixiq
Original source: Why you should take photos in RAW | Pixiq
Take one shot in RAW, take another shot in jpg. See if you can see a difference. Straight out of the camera....no post processing. I'm betting you can't tell.
Agreed. To the untrained eye both are acceptable. However, no owner with an slr/dslr in their hands should have an eye so untrained as to accept unprocessed raw and jpeg results as equal. A raw file is very much like a digital negative. The point of raw is the potential it offers in giving the photographer precise control over the final outcome of the photo. For point and shoot or trigger happy snappers this unprocessed result is fine and in fact, they might as well shoot jpeg as they are not going to bother with the creative post processing process. However for even moderately serious photographers, be it enthusiast or professional, raw files lend to so much more creative/accurate results. Its not simply about what you capture straight out of the camera but what you captured in your imagination at the time when utilizing the camera to capture the picture in the first place.My point is..to the untrained eye, both of these shots are good.
Absolutely. Why destroy pixels before you even get the photo out of the camera.I know our cameras are "smart", but I'd like to think I'm still smarter and can post process better than my camera.However for even moderately serious photographers, be it enthusiast or professional, raw files lend to so much more creative/accurate results. Its not simply about what you capture straight out of the camera but what you captured in your imagination at the time when utilizing the camera to capture the picture in the first place.
Eduard, thank you for posting this
My personal opinion about shooting RAW: if you're making money with your pictures, such as a portrait photographer, wedding photographer, food, architecture, etc.,....anything along those lines, then yes, absolutely shoot RAW. For anything else....honestly.....it's just not necessary. Do your own experiment; mount your camera on a tripod. Take one shot in RAW, take another shot in jpg. See if you can see a difference. Straight out of the camera....no post processing. I'm betting you can't tell.
I can attest to that first hand. I recently opened a jpeg (that I had exported from LR about a year ago) and discovered "destroyed pixels" --the picture was worthless.totally unusable and unfixable. Because I have my raw files (in duplicate), I simply re-exported the photo and had a nice clean copy.This entire discussion has ignored the fact that jpegs degrade every time they are opened.