Professionals (and the confident) shoot JPEG; amateurs shoot RAW ...

So basically, rather than having a blind test, Bosky has now explained that you can tell a RAW image because it's darker.

So I'll find another Internet forum to do the blind trial.

Apologies to anyone who was looking forward to a bit of fun.

IMO the best test would be two photographic prints.

After all .. its photography.. about the print! no?

awwwr

Good to see this thread is still steaming along!

Out of curiosity, in order to use one with the same bit depth as a jpeg (ie as close an equivalent as possible) does that mean saving as a bmp file?

no photography is about light period anything else is snapping

I think it would be more meaningful to process them both to the 'same' end result (ie end up with the same levels etc). Probably impossible to do objectively though.

I'm not sure it can be done in that way your still going to use an output format which compresses for one and not the other...

it might be possible with scaled up details to give an artifical look but on a standard pc monitor then the res isn't good enough to show it you'd need people to have an hd screen to see it otherwise what's out putted to your screen is only the maximum resolution on screen that the screen can handle.

What is snapping about then?

About the picture, surely? Isn't the medium irrelevant these days?

using a camera to take images with no thought to the composition or light levels merely to be there and record the moment

but you said photography was about light, 'period', nothing else. Now you are saying it's about composition too. I'm getting confused.

The distinction between snapping and photographing is an important one and you aren't taking the issue seriously. Real photographers take this issue seriously. Snappers roll eyes.

How does zero processing work exactly?

Or, in other words, 0100100001101111011
10111001000000110010001101111011001
01011100110010000001111010011001010
11100100110111100100000011100000111
00100110111101100011011001010111001
10111001101101001011011100110011100
10000001110111011011110111001001101
01100111111

I think he was distinguishing between photographs taken simply as a visual record of a moment and not much more, like a graduation photo taken by someone's parent, and....the other thing. Where the quality of the light transforms something mundane into something beautiful, mysterious.

LOL

((((((((Garf)))))))))

So, what steps do RAW shooters go through to get a print?

Open in lightroom

adjust

manipulate

sharpen

print

So you are saying you print from raw in lightroom?

Someone needs to shoot a picture in RAW + JPG, do what processing they want to the RAW, and then post the result.

Then upload the unedited JPG, and we can fiddle about with it in photoshop to achieve the best match to the processed RAW and then upload that, and we can examine the difference in quality.

do you?

that's because you are infinitely more reasonable than teuchter

I don't have lightroom. I've got corel, but I've printed plenty of pictures directly from raws.

Has this been wrong?

what don't you get about screen resolution not being able to fully convey this unless you have a HD screen?

Screen res for output is limited and as a result normal pc screens aren't capable of being able to translate the data they get into an exact replica of the image but have to show it at their maximum image quality which means both jpg and raw will peak before way after the screen has...

unless it's a HD screen.

why do you think professional graphics houses and photographers spend money on screens which are capable of displaying far higher than normal resolutions? is it vainity? or maybe there's another reason...

this has been explained to you know 3 times.

unless you view it with your own eyes then the standard pc monitors will not give you the difference.

fuck me this is like explaining to a savage the concept of a car...

Just view a portion of the image at 100% then and stand back a bit. A pixel is a pixel.

heh.