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
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Do you shoot "Raw" or "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="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 377635" data-attributes="member: 13090"><p>And this, I think, gets to the heart of the issue...</p><p></p><p>No one is saying you can't get good shots shooting JPG. If shooting conditions are ideal, or close to it, JPG can really hold it's own and be a time saver because it won't require much processing. Sure you can tweak a JPG; exposure, color balance and so forth can all be adjusted, no problem. </p><p></p><p>The really big difference, the one thing that really matters, I think, is <strong>Latitude</strong>.</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=31330]J-see[/MENTION] points out, you can't tune a Fiat to compete in Formula 1 but *why* not? Because the Fiat simply doesn't have what it takes to begin with and you can't tweak what you don't have. What I get when I shoot RAW is a degree of latitude a JPG simply can't touch. For one thing, it's an 8-bit file. All JPG's are 8-bit and there's no getting around that. For those who don't already know, each color channel (Red, Green and Blue) in a JPG can use 256 shades for each of those channels; a a total of 16 million tonal values or colors (256 shades of Red x 256 shades of Green x 256 shades of Blue =16.2 million total color combinations). A twelve-bit RAW file, on the other hand, has 4,096 shades of color per channel for total of over 68 billion colors (and that "b" is not a typo). JPG is already starting to look a little woozy but we're not done because our Nikon cameras can produce <strong>14-bit</strong> RAW files and while those extra bits of color may not sound like much lets do the math anyway...</p><p></p><p>I had to do the math manually (meaning with a calculator) because I can't find figures online for tonal values of 14-bit RAW files. It's an easy thing to calculate, though, and anyone who wants to can check my figures. Here's what I get after crunching the numbers: A 14-bit RAW file equates to 16,383 colors <em>per channel</em> (even I'm a little surprised at this) for a total tonal range of 4.3 trillion color values. To kind of put these huge numbers into perspective, a 14-bit RAW file contains as many as 2.7 <em>thousand times</em> as many tonal values as JPG. Personally; I refuse to throw away that much <em>latitude</em>, that much sheer tonal information about my shots. It's a BIG reason why I shoot with a DSLR. </p><p></p><p>So yeah, if you need to go to the corner grocery, both your Fiat and your Formula 1 race car will get you there and back. The difference is the F1 will do things your Fiat can't begin to imagine doing and nothing you or anyone else can do to it will allow it to keep pace with the F1.</p><p></p><p><span style="color: #FFFFFF">....</span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 377635, member: 13090"] And this, I think, gets to the heart of the issue... No one is saying you can't get good shots shooting JPG. If shooting conditions are ideal, or close to it, JPG can really hold it's own and be a time saver because it won't require much processing. Sure you can tweak a JPG; exposure, color balance and so forth can all be adjusted, no problem. The really big difference, the one thing that really matters, I think, is [b]Latitude[/b]. As [MENTION=31330]J-see[/MENTION] points out, you can't tune a Fiat to compete in Formula 1 but *why* not? Because the Fiat simply doesn't have what it takes to begin with and you can't tweak what you don't have. What I get when I shoot RAW is a degree of latitude a JPG simply can't touch. For one thing, it's an 8-bit file. All JPG's are 8-bit and there's no getting around that. For those who don't already know, each color channel (Red, Green and Blue) in a JPG can use 256 shades for each of those channels; a a total of 16 million tonal values or colors (256 shades of Red x 256 shades of Green x 256 shades of Blue =16.2 million total color combinations). A twelve-bit RAW file, on the other hand, has 4,096 shades of color per channel for total of over 68 billion colors (and that "b" is not a typo). JPG is already starting to look a little woozy but we're not done because our Nikon cameras can produce [b]14-bit[/b] RAW files and while those extra bits of color may not sound like much lets do the math anyway... I had to do the math manually (meaning with a calculator) because I can't find figures online for tonal values of 14-bit RAW files. It's an easy thing to calculate, though, and anyone who wants to can check my figures. Here's what I get after crunching the numbers: A 14-bit RAW file equates to 16,383 colors [I]per channel[/I] (even I'm a little surprised at this) for a total tonal range of 4.3 trillion color values. To kind of put these huge numbers into perspective, a 14-bit RAW file contains as many as 2.7 [I]thousand times[/I] as many tonal values as JPG. Personally; I refuse to throw away that much [I]latitude[/I], that much sheer tonal information about my shots. It's a BIG reason why I shoot with a DSLR. So yeah, if you need to go to the corner grocery, both your Fiat and your Formula 1 race car will get you there and back. The difference is the F1 will do things your Fiat can't begin to imagine doing and nothing you or anyone else can do to it will allow it to keep pace with the F1. [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]....[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Do you shoot "Raw" or "Jpeg"
Top
