>> |
Anonymous
>>80689 Not as well, for three reasons:
1. Stuff already has been done to it to get the JPEG; the camera chooses everything you do on that menu before it even saves it. If you stick an ingredient into a recipe, sure, you can stick something else in to balance the taste, but it won't be the same.
Also, a lot of things, the noise reduction for instance, damages the file. It gets rid of some of the noise by getting rid of some of the detail. With RAW, you choose how much, if any.
2. The RAW file saves every bit of information the camera picks up; the JPEG only saves a small portion of it. If your picture is too dark or too bright, too bad with JPEG, but with RAW, there's some detail hidden in the dark and light areas you can bring out. There's other similar things, but basically, shooting with JPEG and then editing is like just grabbing some random bills and going for dinner: you might have enough information in the file, you might not. Shooting with RAW is bringing every last cent you own with you: you have to haul a larger file size or a larger wallet, but you're going to be able to pay for your dinner, unless it's something so freakishly extravagent your bill runs into the thousands. Similarly, grabbing a few bills will get you a meal at somewhere easy to pay for (a fast food place), but taking it all will make sure you can afford a harder-to-pay-for meal at an expensive restaurant. JPEG will work fine for normal shooting situations, but the harder the situation is for the camera to handle (high contrast situations, for instance) the more useful RAW becomes.
3. JPEG files have lossy compression- those little JPEG artifacts you see. They come in at every stage of processing. RAW has no artifacts, and so will have higher quality.
|