OK, I shot two images simultaneously, a RAW and a JPEG. I used a routine exposure, nothing too demanding. I wanted to see what they looked like side by side. Here they are.
From RAW - no processing
From RAW - no processing
From JPEG no processing other than onboard.
Now, I ask you folks, is RAW worth the effort and memory card and disc space?
I don't see it.
Here are two more:
From RAW, no processing
From JPEG no processing other than onboard
I'm not messing with RAW anymore other than when I might run into some unique lighting situation.
Lossy is an issue. To deal with that problem, as soon as I open and manipulate a file, I convert it to TIF. If nothing is done to the file, I leave it as a JPEG.
Well, you might ask, is not TIF not 3x the size of a RAW file? Well, yes it is. But at that point when done I burn the files to a DVD and the disc space issue is mooted. The memory card with JPEGS goes much further.
Can someone point out to me the error of my ways here?
5 comments:
The images look considerably different in my browser (especially the leaves and ball).
FYI, not all browsers support image color profiles correctly (afaik, only Safari correctly supports them) so viewing them in a browser isn't really a good way to present them. Here's a reference about it: http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6191815.html
The images look considerably different in my browser (especially the leaves and ball).
FYI, not all browsers support image color profiles correctly (afaik, only Safari correctly supports them) so viewing them in a browser isn't really a good way to present them. Here's a reference about it: http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6191815.html
That's always been my point. The little gain, if you can see it, is not worth the time, effort, and disk space; however, it's a matter of personal preference. I've decided that neither is right nor wrong, they're just different and perhaps suited for different situations.
I would probably consider shooting RAW at a wedding. Not because of better image quality, but just in case I screwed up the white balance or auto didn't work so well. That said, though, I love my Expodisc and it does a fantastic job at getting accurate colors ... So, I would probably use JPG anyway. :-)
In the end, for me, without going the pixel-peeping route (100% crop), there is no difference. Can't tell a difference on the screen or on the print, then the rest is math! :-)
BTW, on my calibrated monitor, they look identical.
They look pretty close to me. I don't see a need for the extra effort for such a small gain if any.
Post a Comment