>> |
Anonymous
>>162287It's really not, though. RAW lets you get a better shot than would be possible with JPEG. It's also more convenient, since you don't have to be constantly worrying about your white balance before you take the picture.
No, there is zero advantage. See, I, unlike you, actually take pictures so people can print them out and hang them on their wall or give them to people or whatever. i.e., for others. I don't do it for technical masturbation.
And its obvious you have never even touched or considered a professional workflow, which deals with thousands of images. I shot for example over 400 just a couple hours ago and if I was shooting RAW - god help me.
You still haven't even considered the workflow. Aperture and Lightroom do a fine job of integrating raw, but JPEG is the only real archive format available. That, and you still have to fucking export it to do anything useful! Who wants to sit around meddeling with sliders for 5 minutes a photo?
RAW is great and all but above all else an enormous time waster.
You take an identical photo with a RAW+JPEG setting, process them as you would a RAW or a JPEG, print them both onto premium matte, and I dare you to tell me you see a difference.
RAW is for people who can't expose properly in the first place.
The reason people shoot RAW is for better highlight/shadow detail. You have for example thousands of ranges of black instead of hundreds.
Problem is, these are all invisible to the naked eye. You're talking about huge ranges of color, but you're talking about "black" and "jet black" and "really pitch black". The only way you'll be able to tell that they are there is if you actually go into photoshop and try to lighten the shadows or recover highlights.
If you expose properly in the first place there is zero reason to do this and a jpeg looks identical for all practical purposes (e.g. not zooming into the image at 600%.)
|