Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 167574" data-attributes="member: 13090">Here's my take on the RAW vs. JPG thing... An eight-bit JPG (and all JPG's are eight-bit) can address 256 levels of luminance per color-channel, or 16.7 million&nbsp; colors total. A &quot;low-end&quot; twelve-bit RAW file can address 4,096 levels of&nbsp; luminance per color-channel, or 68.7 billion colors in total. That's sixteen times the numbers of available colors than you can get with a JPG. Now, I used the&nbsp; phrase &quot;low end&quot; because even my D5100 shot fourteen-bit color which registers four times as many values as twelve-bit&nbsp; color does (or, about 275 billion), or sixty-four times as many colors as the eight-bit JPG file. Now, if someone thinks a format&nbsp; that&nbsp; irrevocably tosses away that much color rendition and tonality (easily 4,000&nbsp; times as much tonality) is just the greatest&nbsp; thing to come along since the invention of the lens pen, then we'll&nbsp; simply have to agree to disagree (sorry Ken). I do think .jpg's are just fine for a lot of things, but to say they equate with RAW files in any way is just short of delusional in my opinion. Once you start learning how to do post processing you'll wish every shot you had ever taken was available in RAW. I've never understood the concept of buying an expensive DSLR and then&nbsp; cutting it's proverbial balls off and turning into an over-priced&nbsp; point-and-shoot by doing nothing but taking JPG's in full Auto, yet it's&nbsp; something I see all the time. You paid for the processing power and&nbsp; image quality only RAW files can provide, why not use what you've paid&nbsp; for?...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 167574, member: 13090"] Here's my take on the RAW vs. JPG thing... An eight-bit JPG (and all JPG's are eight-bit) can address 256 levels of luminance per color-channel, or 16.7 million colors total. A "low-end" twelve-bit RAW file can address 4,096 levels of luminance per color-channel, or 68.7 billion colors in total. That's sixteen times the numbers of available colors than you can get with a JPG. Now, I used the phrase "low end" because even my D5100 shot fourteen-bit color which registers four times as many values as twelve-bit color does (or, about 275 billion), or sixty-four times as many colors as the eight-bit JPG file. Now, if someone thinks a format that irrevocably tosses away that much color rendition and tonality (easily 4,000 times as much tonality) is just the greatest thing to come along since the invention of the lens pen, then we'll simply have to agree to disagree (sorry Ken). I do think .jpg's are just fine for a lot of things, but to say they equate with RAW files in any way is just short of delusional in my opinion. Once you start learning how to do post processing you'll wish every shot you had ever taken was available in RAW. I've never understood the concept of buying an expensive DSLR and then cutting it's proverbial balls off and turning into an over-priced point-and-shoot by doing nothing but taking JPG's in full Auto, yet it's something I see all the time. You paid for the processing power and image quality only RAW files can provide, why not use what you've paid for? [COLOR=#ffffff]...[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification