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="WayneF" data-source="post: 377798" data-attributes="member: 12496"><p>And lossless editing is another very big advantage of Raw, assuming you might edit.</p><p></p><p>Say you edit the JPG and it is only 8 bits, but say it comes out good. But suppose later on, you decide it needs to be done a different way. But you probably wiped out your original by overwriting the JPG, so now your change has to shift the already shifted data, back and forth, 8 bits. That's not good. If you did save your original JPG, you still have to start over from scratch. That's not convenient.</p><p></p><p>The Raw concept is the the pristine original Raw is always kept, and is always the starting point. When you "edit" what is saved is the LIST of the changes you specify. The data is not affected. This is invisible to us, but then when you view it or output a JPG, the change list is applied to the original data, to output the new RGB file. Then later, you want something else, maybe Vivid or whatever, so you do it. But then all you change is the LIST of specified edits. You simply discard the previous JPG, and output a new JPG, starting from the original Raw file, with the modified list - always shifted only this one time, at final output (as 12 bits, and NOT back and forth due to repeated edits). This is Lossless Edit, the original data is always the starting point. For example, you can even Uncrop, and get all the pixels back.</p><p></p><p>I think this process was necessary, not a planned advantage, because we have no tools to actually edit a Raw file. But it works out great.</p><p></p><p>It is true that Adobe Raw software allows using the Raw editor on JPG and TIF files, and is then lossless edits too, saving the list, and always starting from the original JPG. Lossless edits too. You still have to output a new JPG for other software to see the changes. But if you are using the Raw software, why not use a Raw file, and skip the 8 bits and JPG artifacts?</p><p></p><p>I do edit my wifes little compact camera JPG that way. There are a few that cannot be saved, but she thinks it takes great pictures. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>Anyway, if a little simple edit is accepted to improve your images, then Raw is the way to go.</p><p></p><p>If you won't consider any edit, then trust your camera JPG.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="WayneF, post: 377798, member: 12496"] And lossless editing is another very big advantage of Raw, assuming you might edit. Say you edit the JPG and it is only 8 bits, but say it comes out good. But suppose later on, you decide it needs to be done a different way. But you probably wiped out your original by overwriting the JPG, so now your change has to shift the already shifted data, back and forth, 8 bits. That's not good. If you did save your original JPG, you still have to start over from scratch. That's not convenient. The Raw concept is the the pristine original Raw is always kept, and is always the starting point. When you "edit" what is saved is the LIST of the changes you specify. The data is not affected. This is invisible to us, but then when you view it or output a JPG, the change list is applied to the original data, to output the new RGB file. Then later, you want something else, maybe Vivid or whatever, so you do it. But then all you change is the LIST of specified edits. You simply discard the previous JPG, and output a new JPG, starting from the original Raw file, with the modified list - always shifted only this one time, at final output (as 12 bits, and NOT back and forth due to repeated edits). This is Lossless Edit, the original data is always the starting point. For example, you can even Uncrop, and get all the pixels back. I think this process was necessary, not a planned advantage, because we have no tools to actually edit a Raw file. But it works out great. It is true that Adobe Raw software allows using the Raw editor on JPG and TIF files, and is then lossless edits too, saving the list, and always starting from the original JPG. Lossless edits too. You still have to output a new JPG for other software to see the changes. But if you are using the Raw software, why not use a Raw file, and skip the 8 bits and JPG artifacts? I do edit my wifes little compact camera JPG that way. There are a few that cannot be saved, but she thinks it takes great pictures. :) Anyway, if a little simple edit is accepted to improve your images, then Raw is the way to go. If you won't consider any edit, then trust your camera JPG. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
Off Topic
Do you shoot "Raw" or "Jpeg"
Top
