1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by wolfism, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. paolo

    paolo Well-Known Member

    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.
  2. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    IMO the best test would be two photographic prints.

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

    boskysquelch Banned Banned

  4. 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?
  5. GarfieldLeChat

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

    no photography is about light period anything else is snapping
  6. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
  7. GarfieldLeChat

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

    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.
  8. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    What is snapping about then?
  9. Blagsta

    Blagsta Minimum cage, maximum cage

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

    cybertect It's grim up north (London)

  11. GarfieldLeChat

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

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

    teuchter je suis teuchter

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

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

  14. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
  15. mauvais

    mauvais change has become unavoidable

    How does zero processing work exactly?

    Or, in other words, 0100100001101111011
  16. Johnny Canuck3

    Johnny Canuck3 Well-Known Member

    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.
  17. Pie 1

    Pie 1 The fuck did I do?

    LOL :D

  18. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

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

    Herbsman. Free the Poppy

    Open in lightroom




  20. weltweit

    weltweit Well-Known Member

    So you are saying you print from raw in lightroom?
  21. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

    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.
  22. Herbsman.

    Herbsman. Free the Poppy

    do you?
  23. GarfieldLeChat

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

  24. GarfieldLeChat

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

    that's because you are infinitely more reasonable than teuchter
  25. army_of_one

    army_of_one on the giddy edge

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

    Has this been wrong?
  26. GarfieldLeChat

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but 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...
  27. teuchter

    teuchter je suis teuchter

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

    GarfieldLeChat fucking awesome but wrong

  29. boskysquelch

    boskysquelch Banned Banned

  30. Pie 1

    Pie 1 The fuck did I do?

Share This Page