Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Browncoat" data-source="post: 7676" data-attributes="member: 1061">JPG vs. RAW is a matter of personal preference.&nbsp; I see a lot of &quot;old school&quot; photographers who used to shoot film simply stick w/ JPG.&nbsp; Instead of using software to convert their images, they're doing it in-camera.&nbsp; RAW files are digital negatives.&nbsp; They're just data files until converted into an image by software, either in-camera or on a PC (or Mac for the tree-hugging hippie types <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" />).Working pros just don't have time to fiddle with a lot of image tweaking.&nbsp; The reality is, they're better photographers in most cases and don't need to do a lot of post-processing work anyway.&nbsp; They're better at camera settings, and frankly, get it right the first time.&nbsp; For these guys, shooting JPG is a better option because it's a faster workflow.Yes, RAW is 12-bit...but there's a catch.&nbsp; They're linear data files.&nbsp; JPG is 8-bit non-linear format.&nbsp; Without going into a bunch of technical jargon, it should suffice to say there is virtually no difference between the two.&nbsp; To say 12-bit vs. 8-bit is not an accurate comparison.&nbsp; They are not &quot;shooting in 8-bit&quot;.&nbsp; They are shooting in 12-bit and the camera is converting it into an 8-bit format.All that said...software that processes RAW files are much more powerful than any digital camera firmware.&nbsp; The options available in ACR, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. are almost endless.&nbsp; On an image-by-image basis, shooting RAW and doing post-processing work gives the photographer far more options.&nbsp; But for 'togs who actually do this to put food on the table, time is money.&nbsp; Shooting JPG is just fine.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Browncoat, post: 7676, member: 1061"] JPG vs. RAW is a matter of personal preference. I see a lot of "old school" photographers who used to shoot film simply stick w/ JPG. Instead of using software to convert their images, they're doing it in-camera. RAW files are digital negatives. They're just data files until converted into an image by software, either in-camera or on a PC (or Mac for the tree-hugging hippie types :)). Working pros just don't have time to fiddle with a lot of image tweaking. The reality is, they're better photographers in most cases and don't need to do a lot of post-processing work anyway. They're better at camera settings, and frankly, get it right the first time. For these guys, shooting JPG is a better option because it's a faster workflow. Yes, RAW is 12-bit...but there's a catch. They're linear data files. JPG is 8-bit non-linear format. Without going into a bunch of technical jargon, it should suffice to say there is virtually no difference between the two. To say 12-bit vs. 8-bit is not an accurate comparison. They are not "shooting in 8-bit". They are shooting in 12-bit and the camera is converting it into an 8-bit format. All that said...software that processes RAW files are [B]much[/B] more powerful than any digital camera firmware. The options available in ACR, Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. are almost endless. On an image-by-image basis, shooting RAW and doing post-processing work gives the photographer far more options. But for 'togs who actually do this to put food on the table, time is money. Shooting JPG is just fine. [/QUOTE]

Verification