Depending on what you will do with the files, shooting RAW can actually have a major disadvantage. It does take a bit of effort to work with and, should you choose not to do so, the image will not be as vibrant as the jpg created by your camera.

"major disadvantage"!!! What screwed up part of the world are you from?

"It does take a bit of effort to work"!!! Are you that lazy? A little work never hurts anyone. Especially if a little extra work gets you a nice image... I do find that this new generation of photographers are a bunch of lazy a$$es.

Can you imagine what this person would have said before the days of digital…

"Developing your film can have a major disadvantage. It does take a bit of effort to work in a dark room, and should you choose not to do so, shoot with a Polaroid camera."

Dirk Williams wrote:

 

 

Can you imagine what this person would have said before the days of digital…

 

"Developing your film can have a major disadvantage. It does take a bit of effort to work in a dark room, and should you choose not to do so, shoot with a Polaroid camera."

 

Developing your own film can cause exposure to (GASP!) chemicals! And what happens when all the dark leaks out?

Sounds like you are enjoying yourself. I am shooting a D700,if thats what you were asking. I am soon headed to new england for fall foliage.

eothailand, JPEG has only a 8-bit color depth (RAW up to 16 bit), so editing of a JPEG will destroy image quality. Look at a histogram after color corrections :-) It is the most important cause for me.

There are several pros and cons for JPEG and for RAW format. Here is list of some:

JPEG format

+ smaller file size

+ great portfolio of software to manage this format

-- just 8-bit (8 stops) dynamic range

-- lossy compression format

RAW format

-- larger file size

-- just a few programs to manage this format

+ usually 12-bit (12 stops) and larger dynamic range

+ lossless compression format

Generaly speaking if you don't care then JPEG format is enough for you. Just shoot and you have a photo. But having JPEG photography is almost like having the print of a photo, digitaly speaking You have lost the original so you are able to make just minimal adjustments, otherwise you will see what posterization and noise gain means and you will not like it

You are content with the JPEG photo unless you enter the RAW world Much larger dynamic range allow you to make photo-corrections like white balance, exposure, contrast adjustment, etc. in large scale. You are working with virginal data from the camera sensor not affected with lossy compression of the JPEG format. It is just aperture, lens, light and you. No digital filters usually used when camera is making JPEG from the same data.

http://www.nama5.com

I have been suppling my clients with digital images for nearly 10 years now. I have always supplied them with high res jpegs. I supply designers and direct to business clients and have never had any negative feedback over the quality of my images as jpegs. Recently I have occasionally been asked if I can supply raw files, and when I say I can, and ask what they will do with them, clients say that they have heard they are better, but then go on to admit that they would be more comfortable with jpegs as that is what they will end up sending them out as and would prefer not to have to convert them all. This is only my experience supplying fairly unedited jpegs as a corporate photographer in London, so not a lot of photoshop work. I cant really comment on the editing of raw files as I dont use them in my workflow, but understand they have lots of benefits, but like I say this is only my setup.

Roger Colclough, <shakka.161@bigpond.com>

Dude thats Rude. I have no idea what you are talking about. I asked a 

question regarding CS4 on the forum months ago. Since then I have 

received in the vicinity of 30-40 requests for advice myself and I 

know bugger all. If I could find out how to deregister from the forum 

I would be eternally greatful.  As for embedding websites and spamming 

- I do not have a website and have never given advice of any nature 

whatsoever.

Ah I don't see any of your posts in this thread, so why are you upset? It obviously was not aimed at you.

Hey Thats OK But why was your message and all the others sent to me? 

Seems I must be on some bulk mailing list. It's driving me crazy

I wouldn't have any idea as to why you received any emails from this thread. Possibly a bug in the forum software. You could go into your prefrences and disable some of the email settings.

sound advise thanks for your help with my early days

shakka161 wrote:

 

Hey Thats OK But why was your message and all the others sent to me?

Because you've subscribed to the thread or to the forum, by having your forum preferences set that way.  You can undo that at any time by editing your preferences.

Your back yard or city park?

I have a Sony DSC H9, that only shoots in JPEG.

It's beem a while since I'm learning about Photography and the difference between JPEG and RAW.

In my search for a DSLR camera I noticed an "JPEG+RAW" type of recording, the quality of this shooting mode is a lot worse than the regular RAW mode??

p.s. Sorry about the poor english.

Alex

Ok, so the camera will save 2 files in stead of one, right?!

Thank you!!

Yes.

If your JPEG is good, you can use it.

If you need to work on the image RAW will give you more control over the

final image.

To me its a no-brainer, RAW all the way. With a RAW file you can do everything to it, its basicly a digital negative, so you xcan convert it to Jpeg, Tiff what eva you want. I used to shoot JPEG before i learnt about RAW. Now i', a full time photog i couldn't think of using anything else other than RAW, as a Corporate photographer in London I need to get the most info recoreded in my images and RAW is the way.

Mark

[url deleted by host]