Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ThePhotoLegend" data-source="post: 29643" data-attributes="member: 6611"><p>Agreed. To the untrained eye both are acceptable. However,&nbsp; 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&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="ThePhotoLegend, post: 29643, member: 6611"] 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. [/QUOTE]

Verification