p.4 #1 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
Rodolfo Paiz wrote:
Yes, most of the time. A low-noise, perfectly-exposed, perfectly-white-balanced JPG may do better with the camera's processing than with LR2. Not better than NX2, which can duplicate all the camera's processing with the far greater horsepower of the computer CPU. But, in most cases, the shot will not be absolutely perfect. And for all of those shots, which are most shots, then RAW is uncontestably superior.
Bayer interpolation and other technical issues aside (because they affect any recording of the image regardless of format), a 12-bit camera RAW records 4,096 levels each of red, green, and blue. 14-bit records 16,384 levels of each color. JPG is only 8 bits, which means the most important 256 shades of each color are selected. From 12-bit to 8-bit, you lose 15 out of every 16 shades of RGB the sensor captured... you throw away 94% of your data.
Rodolfo, I agree with everything you have posted so far on this subject and I indeed shoot RAW but just wanted to mention the 8bit JPEG isn't as bad as what your stats infer.
Raw is 12 or 14bit LINEAR whereas JPEGs are 8 bit non linear, log, and/or gamma corrected files taken from the 12 bit linear file. If you grew up shooting film, shooting JPEG would seem quite natural in the way you prepped and "developed" your picture.
p.4 #2 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
JPG is just fine as an output medium: for most situations, even many great prints, 256 shades per color is enough. But to get the best results, they need to be the right 256, and not a mutilated and mistreated 184 that's left over after the file has been put through the wringer.
It's vaguely like CD's and MP3's. MP3 music is, in nearly all situations and in nearly all stereos, good enough for enjoyment and listening. But because it's a lossy format, you want to keep an MP3 copy of your music... you don't (ideally) want to just convert all your music over to it and throw away the originals.
Which reminds me: JPG uses lossy compression, so each time you edit and save you lose more information and more quality. Still makes it a perfectly useful and convenient output format for final results, and yes it can also be used with pretty good quality in most cases without ever going through RAW. But it's going to be "pretty good quality" and not "the best possible quality" ever... that, you get from RAW.
Just in case it seems like I'm still arguing with you... I'm not. You are entirely correct, and the non-linear logarithmic distribution of the tonal shades really does make those 256 values look a lot better than the simple numbers would seem to imply. You are entirely correct; the reason I'm still rephrasing, explaining, and offering examples is that not everyone is already aware of the differences in color spaces, gamma linearity, and other more-technical differences in digital vs film. Heck, I'm just starting to understand all that crap myself.
p.4 #3 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
I'm an amateur in that I don't do this for my living how I shoot depended on what I wanted for the outcome..
I had a small Olympus stylus that I would use for casual shooting. Shooting JPEG for me was like shooting film with the Stylus. Film from the Stylus was processed at one of the one hour processing Kiosk and returned with 4x6 prints that I then kept in the little paper envelope with the negatives or if ambitious put in a scrap book.
Shooting raw is more more like the way I shot film with my SLR or 4X5. First deciding whether I needed to push, pull or normal process the film. For b&w this was done at home for color or chromes always sent to a pro lab where I had then process only and leave the film uncut. @ home I would then cut and file the negatives and print out a contact sheet. From the contact sheet I would then select a negative that I wanted to print. It wasn't uncommon to then spend 5 to 6 hours in the darkroom to produce the image that I had envisioned and with which I was satisfied.. Later after reviewing the image for a couple of days the next decision was could I make it better , what was missing, I would go back to that same negative and reprint , maybe altering the time that I dodged one part or burned in another area. Once developed and dry again review it over the next couple of days and decide at that point was this an image that I wanted to mount and frame.
p.4 #4 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
I shoot 100% RAW but don't like NX2. I love the workflow of LR2 and I'm purchasing the full version tonight. I had reservations about the conversion compared to NX2 but the workflow is well worth it. For those worried about work, LR2 makes ANY sorting/editing/cataloging simpler.
I'm not that familiar with DNG but had a photographer this weekend (fireworks shoot) say she converts everything to DNG as her first step in LR2. What is the opinion here? I saw one reference to DNG.
p.4 #5 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
luminosity wrote:
One thing RAW+jpeg is great for is comparing the same shot as shot in each format.
...
The difference can be astounding.
As this is in a Nikon forum, isn't it the case that Nikon only provides for
RAW + JPEG-Basic/Large? Whereas a JPEG-only shooter is likely to use
either the camera's (well, a D40's) JPEG-Normal/Large default or -Fine/Large.
And that's a difference of a (for D40) 0.8mb vs 1.5/2.9mb file (5? mb RAW)).
So, not quite a great grounds for comparison, as far as that goes.
p.4 #6 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
I don't have my camera with me (it's packed up and ready for shipping since it's being sold), but I got curious and downloaded the manual from Nikon to check. According to the D300 manual, page 56 and thereabouts, you can definitely choose from basic/normal/fine quality levels for your JPG image when shooting NEF+JPG.
I would guess you can choose both the size and quality of the JPG, but I've never shot that way so I can't rely on memory. And this is as far as my personal curiosity goes.
p.4 #8 · D300 users do you shoot Raw or JPG and why?
Ah, thanks... much appreciate the thought behind that phrase. It has indeed, and I am grateful beyond words for what it's taught me and the images it's given me. I can but pray that its next owner will be as blessed, and will get even more from it.
