Rodolfo Paiz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
Nathan, I wasn't directing my comments at your post, sorry if it sounded that way. I was referring to Roger's comments:
RRRoger wrote:
I find that if the camera is set up properly, the JPEGs are better than the RAW and don't need editing.
A 4mb file is big enough to "capture the moment" and print 17x24.
We shoot MotoCross Events and it takes enough time to sort thousands of shots.
If I had to edit each one, I would still be working on the last shoot.
1. I'm going to call "JPG better than RAW" a logical impossibility. The JPG is derived from the RAW using simple choices made by the camera settings. There is no way those can be better than making the same kinds of choices, carefully and with greater computing power, in the computer. At best, the JPG can be just as good as the RAW in theory; but in practice, a processed RAW file will always give you a better JPG at the end, than the JPG you had from the camera at the beginning.
2. Yes, a well-executed 4MP capture (note MP not MB, not the same thing at all!) is enough to make a good-looking 16x24 print. It is also true that a 12MP capture of the same scene will look even better.
3. Those comments, especially "if I had to edit each one" et al, simply show that Roger is not yet as skilled at post as he is with his camera. He should work on that some more, since I'm sure he's a skilled shooter and we all need every edge we can get.
Look at how simple it is. In LR, for example, I set up a metadata profile and a "develop settings" profile. Those have my default settings for exposure modification, brightness, contrast, saturation, curves, sharpening, NR, vignetting, lens corrections, and color profiles... everything the camera has inside it, and then some. When I import a CF full of cards, all the files are renamed, keyworded, tagged, and processed according to my default settings. Previews generated too. Zero editing, just like a JPG. When I run through them to do the sorting, rejecting, filtering, picking, whatever, any quick "slider edits" I might have done to a JPG get done the same say as I would have done to a JPG. At the end, I tell LR to export all my picks to JPG. The end result is that I have all my JPG's processed from the RAW files after processing, but it took me no more time. So no, it does not take more time, and you don't have to "edit every one". Those are incorrect ideas, let go of them already.
And the JPG-from-RAW files are always better than the OOC JPG files... always. Why? Remember a JPG can only hold 256 tones of R, G, and B each. Say that in editing you wipe out 60-80 shades of red (30% or so)... you're down to 176 shades of red which is probably enough. But heavy editing will start to show posterization and banding. But in a RAW, you start with 4,096 shades of red. Say you trash 3,500 of them (about 87%) in heavy editing, you still have almost 600 shades of red left, enough to pick the best and most representative 256 reds and make a perfect JPG. You are guaranteed to have a better JPG if you go through RAW first. And that's just in a simple, normal case.
Seriously screwed up your WB? Your JPG is worthless, your RAW is totally unaffected. Need to edit and save several times? Your JPG gets progressively more compression artifacts and loses quality, your JPG-from-RAW results are always perfect. Need to push/pull your base image to do faux HDR so you recover some DR? JPG is very limited, RAW is far more flexible. Overexposed and blew some highlights? RAW has almost a full stop of better highlight recovery ability.
You can tell me that your clients buy your images as-is and that JPG is good enough for you. I will respect that, and you have every right to feel that way. But don't tell me JPG is better, and don't tell me that editing RAW is cumbersome and time-consuming. Those statements are false. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
|
