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
General Photography
RAW vs 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="J-see" data-source="post: 447710" data-attributes="member: 31330"><p>I mentioned that the problem isn't the visual aspect of JPEG but the durability. It's a format not designed for optimal quality but to save space and that comes at a heavy price.</p><p></p><p>Most of us are investing loads of money to maximize quality; better cam, better lenses, better editors. Then why use a format that is subpar? It's illogical.</p><p></p><p>A 6*4k JPEG is about 1.8-3Mb, a 6*4k uncompressed TiFF close to 140Mb. That information loss starts to surface the moment we have to manipulate the file. There's so much loss lifting shadows or manipulating highlights is close to impossible.</p><p></p><p>In the end we all save to JPEG to show the shots online. But it's not as if we prefer the format. It's that we have no other choice. The moment they allow a better format, I'll never use JPEG again.</p><p></p><p>But to each their own.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="J-see, post: 447710, member: 31330"] I mentioned that the problem isn't the visual aspect of JPEG but the durability. It's a format not designed for optimal quality but to save space and that comes at a heavy price. Most of us are investing loads of money to maximize quality; better cam, better lenses, better editors. Then why use a format that is subpar? It's illogical. A 6*4k JPEG is about 1.8-3Mb, a 6*4k uncompressed TiFF close to 140Mb. That information loss starts to surface the moment we have to manipulate the file. There's so much loss lifting shadows or manipulating highlights is close to impossible. In the end we all save to JPEG to show the shots online. But it's not as if we prefer the format. It's that we have no other choice. The moment they allow a better format, I'll never use JPEG again. But to each their own. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Photography
RAW vs JPEG
Top