I did some tests, and jpg turned out as good as raw.
I took some photos of a house with a very bright sun. Locked the exposure where it was the most bright.
Then tried to recover some shadows and couldn't see any difference from recovering the shadows with raw and jpg.
Raw is just not worth the space.
>>2767652
If it doesn't help you, don't use it then. I can think of no real reason for you to post here beyond you making a rather poor attempt at trolling.
>>2767652
>I did some tests
Raw is better for pushing shadows than it is for pulling highlights, but even with highlights, there should be a pretty noticeable difference.
Post your results.
>>2767652
>couldn't see any difference from recovering the shadows with raw and jpg.
Canon camera detected.
>>2767652
I only shoot JPG
>>2767652
Hi Uncle Ken!
>>2767652
>>2767652
hi, ken.
HDR is not worth it.
>>2767652
raw is meant for heavier post-processing. there is absolutely no intelligence behind shooting compressed and raw and comparing the hardly modified results.
but when you process a post line-up with let's say 15 operation steps or more, you'll realize that you are dependant on uncompressed data.
knowing this, you also can anticipate that raw also allows some more inaccurate shooting. which is a trap and you always should product as good as possible.
just a brief example for a other useful case: you're shooting long exposure at night. what you want is shooting also a dark-image so that you can remove hot pixels. you need to shoot raw because the compressor could kill the hot pixels in the dark-image. which would make it useless.
so, understand that raw is for post. if you don't post or just optimize a little you can shoot also compressed.
>>2767657
Hahahahaha
But srsly, shut up
I shoot png
>>2767652
Well this thread is pretty easy...
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:13 13:22:14 Exposure Time 1/80 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 6.3 EV Exposure Bias 3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2767741
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:13 13:25:00 Exposure Time 1/1000 sec F-Number f/5.6 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 200 Lens Aperture f/5.6 Brightness 6.2 EV Exposure Bias -3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>shooting JPEG
Not even once.
>>2767657
DELETE THIS
>>2767725
Which camera produced in the last 10 years does not take dark-images automatically after longer exposures? On many you are even able to turn that on and off...
Even my 7 year old Canon snapshit does it.
For those who have a Nikon: always shoot LOSSY COMPRESSED raw.
There is absolutely no reason to shoot lossless raw with Nikon, you only get larger files without any better quality whatsoever.
>>2767818
Yes, he's an idiot.
>>2767842
>miss exposure
have you never had to expose for the sky and recover the shadows of a building?
or are you one of those faggots that just shoots homeless people in B&W
>>2767842
Flexibility in post processing. You can dick around harder with all factors of the image before you start damaging IQ than with jpgs.
>>2767842
Genuinely good question. Here's one example - incorrect white balance.
Other examples, noise reduction and sharpening that can't be altered once they're baked into a jpeg. Color manipulation in general won't go very well since you'll have trouble accentuating blues (for example) without altering the hue of the rest of the colors as well.
There really are many situations where people do NOT need to shoot in RAW, and those situations are usually people who don't plan to do any editing at all, or people who have the time and will to do their image "editing" pre-shoot in camera. Personally, I don't mind editing on my computer, so I shoot raw, I've never once touched my white balance, sharpening, contrast, color mode, noise reduction, etc options in camera, and I have the freedom to do exactly what each image needs back at home. I also do a lot of heavy color editing, dodging and burning, skin clean up, selective sharpening, etc. But that's my personal work, and that's not better or worse than someone who prefers a more "purist" style.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make FUJIFILM Camera Model X-T1 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.0 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 53 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2016:02:13 15:36:37 Exposure Time 1/220 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 400 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness 5.1 EV Exposure Bias 0.7 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 35.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 2000 Image Height 1500 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Manual Scene Capture Type Standard Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>2767842
>What advantages does RAW offer to people who aren't morons and don't miss exposure by 3 stops in either direction?
ETTR
Basically what >>2767846 says:
You expose for the highlights and process the shadows.
Although most cameras have "active D-lighting" to do the same in JPEG, it works better doing it yourself.
>>2767850
Good point. Especially when there are different light sources and white balance just cannot be done right, I feel I get a more coherent result when working with RAW files.
>>2767876
*shrug* so shoot JPEG. It's an option that is available to you. What is your issue? I don't particularly want to spend time between every lighting situation to adjust my color temperature. If you're going to be doing processing on the photo on your computer anyway, why not shoot it in raw and save yourself the time on the scene?
>>2767876
>You can also turn off noise reduction and sharpening and do that only in post as well.
Not to the same extent.
>highlights/shadows
>in JPEG as well
Are you seriously this thick?
It's not that you cannot do these things while using jpg, it's that you are more limited in how much you can in jpg.
>>2767652
>Then tried to recover some shadows and couldn't see any difference from recovering the shadows with raw and jpg.
You don't recover shit from a JPEG or any 8-bit format for that matter. JPEGs are for posting to the internet, not capturing.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2016:02:13 16:28:43 Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2000 Image Height 1500
>>2767879
I don't have an issue, I just think you guys aren't doing a great job of enumerating the reasons for shooting RAW. Ironically, you brought up one of the best things about RAW in this post. It does save a fuckton of time both on the scene and in post.
>>2767881
That wasn't exposed for highlights, it was deliberately underexposed by three stops. I doubt very much that the dynamic range of that scene fell out of the reach of a properly exposed jpeg anyway.
>>2767899
>That wasn't exposed for highlights, it was deliberately underexposed by three stops. I doubt very much that the dynamic range of that scene fell out of the reach of a properly exposed jpeg anyway.
It's an example. In a high dynamic range scene, you may have to under-expose shadows by three stops to preserve highlights. In RAW you'd be able to get those shadows back easily. In JPEG, not so much.
>>2767899
In that scene of course not, but in others!
I (different anon) mentioned above I have a 2009 Canon Powershit - and I often take pictures at night.
The result? Pitch black AND clipped lights in EVERY fucking picture.
But with the RAW files (made with CHDK), I have only about half as much clipped shadows or highlights in the scene. It makes a huge difference whether a lantern's light bulb or a 2 meter wide circle around is blown out.
A 128GB SD card costs less than a nifty fifty. Absolutely shoot RAW, it's worth it for that one photo that's perfect apart from something stupid like underexposure or white balance.
every time u open a jpeg file to edit it it loses quality so u gotta like make a copy of it before editing it for the first time
tedious
i just shoot raw cuz my card is big enough
>>2767919
How many times do you imagine people are opening and saving their JPEG files?
>>2767920
He probably thinks opening a jpg and viewing it leads to file decay not understanding it's only whenever you cause jpg compression to run.
>>2767652
I don't know if this is shitty bait or genuine retardation. Either way you should sit in the corner and eat your applesauce quietly.
Shooting in JPEG is the digital equivalent to polaroids.
>>2767725
In my experience raw has been for very articulate edits and heavy post processing. But the companies I've worked with have never used raw files and have been always in jpegs. Working with extremely high volumes raw just doesn't make any sense taking up so much space.
In a professional studio what do you need to fix in raw that you couldn't do in jpeg?
>>2767994
Raw isn't just about fixing. It's about pushing colors and exposure. It's about adjustments in general, and in a LOT of studio work (particularly editorial fashion stuff) that is very important. trying to edit skin coloring on JPEG is a LOT less pleasant and smooth a process, since it's very difficult to isolate colors and adjust them without affecting other things in the image.
just drawed this in paint
if any more moron will argue that he does not see the difference i will kick him in the ass!
>>2768123
tl;dr jpeg is whatever dumbass settings the camera thinks it good with all extra data thrown away
raw is the whole bunch of data that you, a human with a goal, can draw more visual information from
>>2767657
topkek
>>2768130
You can control the processing in camera, using four buttons and a screen that's about half the size of an average penis, or you can control it later with a mouse, full keyboard, tablet, pen, and 24" monitor.
>>2767846
its called a grad nd lol
and here i was thinking /p/ couldn't get any more retarded or trolly
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make PENTAX Camera Model PENTAX K-5 Camera Software RawTherapee Photographer Andrew Wade Eglington oh-hi.info Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 150 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 400 Image Height 600 Compression Scheme Uncompressed Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Data Arrangement Chunky Format Image Created 2013:07:23 16:58:55 Exposure Time 1/250 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Aperture Priority ISO Speed Rating 160 Exposure Bias -5 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash Focal Length 100.00 mm Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Manual White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Contrast Hard Saturation Normal Sharpness Hard Subject Distance Range Distant View
>>2768232
If you need to ask...
..and you assume stupidity..
Take a seat over there next to png guy.
space is cheap you fucking retard
so is writing a little script to generate jpg from raw and letting it run overnight
literally the only reason to not shoot raw might be is if it reduced your max shots/sec
>>2767657
Can you explain the meaning here?
Is there a defect in canon's .RAW or is this just a meme?
>>2768290
you didn't answer my question very directly, i could take that to mean it does or does not have issues
but since shit tons of pros and professionals shoot canon, yeah.. it doesn't
Honestly, I've got my first digital camera 9 years ago, and have been shooting jpeg+raw since. (Admittedly, last 5 years I basically went back to film).
In that time, I have:
1) Been pissed off I accidentally didn't have RAW on once. Took a purposefully over-exposed photograph, but got more clipping than I'd like.
2) Went to raw to construct a photograph that wasn't worth much in the end, about 5 times.
3) Actually recovered a 5+ stops under-exposed photograph. Once. Was impressive though.
Otherwise, I use jpegs, scan MF/LF on a V600 flatbed. I don't think I've ever had someone complain that some photo was technically bad.
For printing- I have no real experience with printing digital photographs, it was always someone else printing my color scans but I never saw any real difference between 8 and more bpp.
I never filled up my 64GB card. Not even once. If you can actually fill it up, then you're a shit photographer and 99% of those shots are guaranteed to be shit that you're too lazy to delete.
>>2768292
Canon struggles at pushing up shadows, do to it's narrower dynamic range in capture. That's about it. This is particularly unimportant in genres that don't require a lot of post processing (sports) or straight up forbid it (reportage), or in places where the photographer has complete control over the lighting (Studio work)
It's an issue for people who like to heavily process photos, or for people who don't have control over their light in every way (landscape, for instance)
I shot Canon for years, and it was an issue for me, but I frequently needed to bring up my shadows. I shoot a Sony sensor now, and the ability to push the shadows up five stops with minimal degradation to the image is fantastic to me.
All of that being said, Canon ergonomics are great, Canon lenses are great, Canon colors and contrast are very pleasant (especially skin tones) Canon durability is good, canon's pro-autofocus is the best you can get (matched well by Nikon's pro level stuff). If you don't need to push your shadows more than about a stop or a stop and a half, Canon will not disappoint you.
>>2768439
*due to its narrower dynamic range
Jesus.
>>2768439
Bracketing exposures will always be superior to using information captured in RAW to drag shadows in post. Your point is essentially moot - use bracketing for things like landscapes or other genres in which your focus is to create a higher dynamic range in the photo.
>>2767842
if you shoot sony.
you can see jpeg artifacts even with fine settings.
>>2768446
The point is moot for people who feel that they want to deal with bracketing, or for people who shoot only stationary objects, which is not anywhere near to always the case. You also need a tripod, which many people don't want to carry.
There are ways to work around the limitations, this is not being denied, but I'd rather not have the limitations in the first place.
>>2768448
>landscape
>no tripod
Seriously, get the fuck out of here. There is no scenario in which you'd need to pull shadows to a detrimental degree with Canon while shooting handheld.
>>2768292
I have and shoot Canon, but even I will admit that the dynamic range on their sensors is awful compared to pretty much everyone else these days.
>>2768449
Sure thing dude. You're right. Nobody in the history of photography has ever been in a situation where they've shot ETTR and needed to bring up shadows more than a stop. I was just making it all up. I'll see myself out.
>>2768451
If you're shooting ETTR with Canon, then you're a fucking retard.
>>2768455
Something something context, something something actually autistic.
>>2768466
I know what it is, the guy just used the term incorrectly, and I didn't feel like going full autist.
He meant many people expose for highlights and compensate by pulling up shadows to balance exposure in shots where you're in more direct sunlight or have dramatic contrast between shadows and highlights.
Not a good idea, at least from my experience, when shooting with Canon. My RAW files much more easily pull back highlights over pulling up shadows.
It's all about using the tools in your hands properly.
>>2768496
I stopped relying on a histogram long ago. I will typically pick an exposure somewhere smack in the middle of the brighter highlights I need to pull back and the darkest shadows. Then using a balanced approach in post - you can pull both back and make a few tweaks to bring back detail/color/etc as needed.
Perhaps it's a lot easier with a Nikon, because all you have to do is drag a shadow slider - but it can definitely be done when executed properly with Canon.
I invested heavy into Canon before I knew all of this stuff and I'm just not going to take a loss on my gear. I will full admit Nikon is superior in terms of DR.
>>2768496
>ETTR is even more important with Canon because of how quickly the highlight blow out.
Oh wow. The idiocy is getting worse and worse.
You actually think that sony sensors handle *highlights* better than Canon? Or really that there's any significant difference between how any digital sensor handles highlights?
Homie, it's time to back away from /p/ and the internet. Maybe learn a little something. Get some fresh air, talk to some people. See the world.
>>2768513
There's definitely a difference between how each of the sensors handle how far blown out a highlight can be via histogram and how much information you can pull back.
No need to go full autist. The only reason you'd make a comment like this is because you either don't know how to properly use Photoshop or the highest quality camera you've ever shot with is a 70D, D7200, or A6000.
>>2768450
So why are they so popular?
>>2768518
>There's definitely a difference between how each of the sensors handle how far blown out a highlight can be via histogram and how much information you can pull back.
Via histogram=in the jpeg and only a factor in camera.
>no need to go full autist
There's nothing autistic about the fact that highlight performance is basically identical across all flavors of CMOS sensors. Dynamic range performance increases are seen by going deeper into the shadows.
>The only reason you'd make a comment like this is because you either don't know how to properly use Photoshop or the highest quality camera you've ever shot with is a 70D, D7200, or A6000.
Nope. The only reason I'd make that reply is that it's the truth. It's how the stuff actually works. Do you want to continue to toss around insults and make erroneous assumptions to obfuscate just how wrong you are?
>>2768523
Because the difference is two stops and this difference only makes a massive difference to those who are doing stuff like night/club photography. If you're doing shit like studio shooting, wedding shooting, etc. you'll have no problems.
Additionally, kick ass lens selection, the absolutely best professional service group of any of the camera companies, and a living, active ecosystem=shoot Canon.
>>2768525
That wasn't me. I don't know why I bought Canon to start with. It's just a name my newbie self connected well with and I preferred the ergonomics at the time.
Now I could give a fuck less about ergonomics, because I'd rather have the objectively better IQ.... but that's only a year after learning PS super heavy and doing pretty advanced photography. (studio strobes, image stacks, blending, heavy retouching to enhance, etc).
>>2768526
Sorry, m8, but you're totally wrong. I'd really suggest you read up on how dynamic range works and how sensor performance directly relates to DR.
Information is not equal in RAW files across different sensors.
>>2768534
Whatever guy, you're clearly talking out of your ass.
>>2768523
>>2768439
>This is particularly unimportant in genres that don't require a lot of post processing (sports) or straight up forbid it (reportage), or in places where the photographer has complete control over the lighting (Studio work)
Pros in these areas use them because the limitations don't affect them. People who want to use what the pros use (because if the pros use them, they must be good) see Canon being used, and buy them at Best Buy.
>>2768539
http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Read up, uneducated little shit.
>Maximum dynamic range is the greatest possible amplitude between light and dark details a given sensor can record, and is expressed in EVs (exposure values) or f-stops, with each increase of 1 EV (or one stop) corresponding to twice the amount of light.
>>2768513
The comment was not to state the Canon blows highlights more quickly, it was that all digital sensors blow highlights quickly, and it's important to ETTR more with Canon because you need to get as much light into your shadows as you can on a Canon sensor, because you have much less room to push shadows on a Canon sensor.
On an ISO Invariant Sony sensor, you can push your shadows up five stops and your shadows would merely look like you had taken the shot at ISO 3200 (assuming you started at ISO 100) which on modern sensors, can look very very clean. so getting your highlights to the very edge of the histogram is less important.
>>2768553
I know Fujis are also ISO Invariant, but what about Panasonic? Any other brands whose modern cameras are also ISO Invariant?
>>2768549
HAHAHA. You don't even know what those words mean.
Seriously, what exactly do you think that greentext you've quoted says and how exactly do you think it addresses your point?
>>2768560
Okay 70D - it's okay if you've never handled a camera capable of pulling back highlights from a discernible degree.
If you think that sensors with 14 EV of recorded dynamic range means that the information takes 14EV of DR from the brightest point of your highlights in any given image all the way through your shadows, you're clearly just ignorant of how all of this works in real life situations.
>>2768556
I'm not sure about Panasonic, to be honest. I knw that Sony, Nikon, Fuji, Pentax are.
>>2768549
>Maximum dynamic range is the greatest possible amplitude between light and dark details a given sensor can record, and is expressed in EVs (exposure values) or f-stops, with each increase of 1 EV (or one stop) corresponding to twice the amount of light
>>2768575
>sensors with 14 EV of recorded dynamic range means that the information takes 14EV of DR from the brightest point of your highlights in any given image all the way through your shadows, you're clearly just ignorant
>>2768549
okay like check this out
when you say that raw output from some sensors can be pulled back out of blown highlights, it's literally just because the cameras are underexposing in the capture stage as a precaution. i think some new fujis do this as well, it was mentioned in some xpro2 reviews too.
it doesn't have anything to do with the sensor. unlike analogue, digital has a maximum headroom at which point shit just clips. only thing to do is lower the noise floor and fit everything into that by lowering exposure. and we're at, or have been at, a point where you don't even notice that the camera is underexposing and embedding the intended exposure value in the raw's capture info and in the jpeg processing.
tl;dr can't capture brighter highlights than others, only darker shadows
>>2767652
>I did some tests, and jpg turned out as good as raw.
Then you must be high as fuck. jpg is a lossy compression, RAW aint
>Raw is just not worth the space.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the Pope of modern digital photography has spoken. Obey and he wont kill you.
>>2768548
yet if said people are doing sports, reportage, or studio it doesn't matter.
>>2768539
>http://www.dxomark.com/About/Sensor-scores/Use-Case-Scores
Why the fuck does dynamic range matter for landscapes when you can trivially bracket?
>>2768587
Accurate. It also doesn't matter to people not doing fairly heavy editing on their photos, which is why most soccer moms and otherwise casual shooters never even notice the limitation.
>>2768591
Some people don't feel like lugging a three foot four pound tripod on a hike with them when they're carrying a tiny light camera to shoot the things they see.
>>2768596
m8 firstly there are tripods less than 2lbs, but more importantly you're severely out of shape or one hell of a nanomanlet / low T psuedomale if you can't handle 3 fucking pounds on a hike, holy shit
you do realize that people in shape (e.g. military) run around with like 50-100lb bags, right? you can't even do 1/15th of that?
>>2768582
>>2768592
Here is a graphical representation of an EV scale.
Sensors do not simply say +7EV is the absolute clipping point on all sensors.
Sensor performance in terms of DR, on a 14EV capable sensor, would add exposure values the sensor is capable of reading on *both* sides of this graphical representations.
Some sensors can go farther left or right more stops than other sensors. It's all in what the camera is capable of collecting information in. It does not just go +7EV to the left because it is a 14EV capable sensor.
>>2768592
>It's like you don't even know how to read :\ You do realize the sliding scale in this measurement is the brightness the sensor is capable of reading, right?
Yup, and you realize that this scale is pinned at only ever being as wide as the maximum dynamic range right?
And you're further aware that the only way we keep increasing this range is by sliding the left side further away, right? We have pretty much maxed out the highlight side. Nobody is or has in a long time expanded the DR of their sensors by extending sensitivity to the highlight side, just to the shadow side.
>>2768602
Sorry m8, but that is such a bullshit and severely arbitrary statement solely based on your lack of understanding of the subject.
There would be no point in manufacturers solely figuring out how to go one direction in terms of EV. You apparently have no clue how any of this shit works. Perhaps some understanding of how our own vision works may help you.
>>2768600
m8 I didn't say "aren't physically capable" I said "don't feel like"
For people who don't shoot Canon, it's not a necessity in most cases, so the idea of adding a whole other thing to your kit seems annoying. Not impossible, or deadly, just annoying.
>>2768607
>1ev prevents me from shooting landscapes
?
>>2768607
Number of serious landscape photographers who do not use a tripod.
>>2768610
What?
any landscape photo taken without a tripod is categorically a snapshit
>hey guys im crippled and i can run a mile in 55 minutes
>hey guys im crippled and i can run a mile in 58 minutes
guess what, you're still both crippled
>>2768601
>>2768601
Oh for fuck's sake that's not how it works. Go google up signal processing and come back when you've got at least a brief understanding of shit like gain, snr, and amplification, then we can talk. Until then, you're wasting my time, your electricity, and everyone who downloads your ignorance's data.
Literally ALL modern sensor sensitivity gains are made by extending into the shadow side. Period.
>>2768610
>1EV
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Greenshot Image-Specific Properties:
>>2768617
Any landscape photo taken on digital is a snapshit. If you aren't shooting at LEAST 4x5 for landscapes, you may as well be taking a photo of your cat on your cell phone.
![rage-red-eyes-l[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/pb24nLk.png "rage-red-eyes-l[1].png")
>>2768619
Okay D7200. Continue on attempting to throw arbitrary science terms at something you don't understand. Maybe one day you'll stop taking photos of cats and flowers and you'll actually learn how things apply in the real world for a change.
SOOC JPEG
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:09:30 23:19:14
>>2768649
RAW
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:09:27 22:48:38
>>2768649
wtf is SOOC
>>2768664
straight out of camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:24 00:31:51
>>2768670
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Camera Software Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.0 (Windows) Image-Specific Properties: Horizontal Resolution 240 dpi Vertical Resolution 240 dpi Image Created 2015:12:24 00:32:00
>>2768657
>comparing camera-adjusted JPEG to unedited RAW
>missing the fucking point
would you call a polaroid better because it skips the part with the negatives and just gives you the image?
>>2768646
>thinking the terms are arbitrary
Homie, the fucking advances in camera dynamic range are through being able to correctly discriminate fewer protons from shit like sensor heat. That's it. There's no point in expanding in the highlight range because what's needed there is to REDUCE sensitivity for positive discrimination. This is very, very fucking basic tuning of a response band which is what signal processing is all about.
Fuck me, you call snr "arbitrary" when ISO literally is just a special case of signal:noise ratio measurements.
You. literally. have. no. fucking. clue. what. you. are. talking. about.
Like I said before, go, learn some signal processing theory, then you *might* begin to have a clue.
I still shot raw+jpeg, only difference being I switched from "my brand" to "new brand" and basically get spot on beautiful sooc jpegs 9.9/10 times.
fuji
u
j
i
>>2768712
If you're just using JPEGs from your fuji, you're fucking up son. They have incredible DR and highlight recovery. The two photos above you are Fuji jpeg and then raw.
>>2768805
What is the point you're making with those photos? There aren't any spots that need pushed or pulled... what are you JPEG settings... One just looks processed, and the other doesn't.
>>2768215
which is shit unless the horizon is literally a straight line
>>2768701
Sure thing, a6000.
>>2768812
Bro, no such thing as highlight recovery - all sensors read highlights the same.
>>2768870
>Bro, no such thing as highlight recovery - all sensors read highlights the same.
How is that relevant to my question?
>>2768686
looks like shitty hdr
>>2768878
I think he was quoting the post above yours.
Either way, he's wrong.
>>2767652
Ken, pls
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Photographer Althouse, Matthew Image-Specific Properties:
>>2767657
topkek
its doesnt matter what manufactor
matter sensor and processing (camera processor+camera built in firmware). what the difference can make manufactor?
crop would always suck at jpeg, but can be good at 100,200
good camera can make awesome jpeg on iso 100 that would be almost equal to raw
so if you cant see difference between jpeg and raw its because you have very good raw mostly or very crap raw either. both not depend on manufactor, but is this crop or full frame and how old camera is and how many mp its have (less is better in terms of iso quality and noise)
>>2767652
raw is very different from jpeg. it worth everything BUT if you want speed and ability to make like few thousands of images to choose better one jpeg can do work better. its like diesel and gas (im not american so benzin for me) its not what is better it s like what it is better for. raw is 98 gas and jpeg is diesel. and sometime you need diesel more
raw supreme 10x times in terms of ability to post processing
jpeg is fast, small size, and you can make tons of jpeg till you memory card full so you can make more shots and and choose on pc best shots later afster and work with them easier
choose what you need. i think both good
>>2772812
SOOC is so much better because the RAW was just posted as is without any editing, which is missing the fucking point.
GROWING
R
O
W
I
N
G
FAMILY
A
M
I
L
Y
>>2772820
You sure that RAW isn't edited? Because it definitely looks like the shadows and clarity were pushed, there.
>>2772846
What you should have done is try to do the same edit to the JPEG to show how much information is NOT there.
