Prev: New Infrared Gallery
Next: Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective
From: Ryan McGinnis on 7 Aug 2010 09:58
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 8/6/2010 7:02 AM, ransley wrote:
> I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
> believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
> For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
> looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
> noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
> 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
> the photo? What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
> hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
> with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
> Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
> jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
> Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.

It all depends on application. Does your workflow allow for a lot of
tweaking? Then RAW works better for you. Are you a run-and-gun sports
photographer who comes home with 2,000 images each day that need to be
done by the night? Then JPEG works better for you. I primarily shoot
commercial and editorial weatherscapes, which has no real deadline -- so
RAW is for me.

- --
- -Ryan McGinnis
The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMXWajAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1b/WMIAKeDjG+Qz5stBi4gd8BHNtcL
VVmTvXROx/IEud6dQvWWKsdzqWl+iJW9OUM+pXZReVX6frAO9SZxNlT1YPosKO4z
D/cCA3jDHpsAQkgS+hpRwtkjExXQO81AhSrcrMY9J3/POEB6OmqsiTs9rTEPqd19
C2diV82x7Y0AP1AwVVv128Q6Oyu0AQ/8Rl/XzwzoCelud96BzfSsTDn1SvQr4p7/
g9I3wEYt/oWWzAv+mrKcknETvBB503uCKKLCI4eDXhfNAW3Cl9SMW7UOx4lgBQH5
55ZZD25O2DearzHoUPaXf3/MlWEk8lBDGxqQlekEicwIAct4zDSsgYWmQwzAOPE=
=Q0Z3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg on 8 Aug 2010 09:09
Barry <bfeinstein(a)spamblocked.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 02:12:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
> <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote:

>>Barry <bfeinstein(a)spamblocked.com> wrote:
>>
>>> With an EVF, the exposure and color-balance
>>> that you see in the viewfinder is truly what you get.
>>
>>Especially since EVFs are not calibrated at all.
>>You probably never calibrated your monitor, nor ever used a
>>colour target.

> Especially since you've never held one camera in your whole lifetime,
> troll.

Ah, it is the idiot. PLONK.

-Wolfgang
From: SneakyP on 13 Aug 2010 21:03
Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcvgtt02(a)sneakemail.com> wrote in news:1tm2j7-
9mj.ln1(a)ID-52418.user.berlin.de:


>
> Ah, it is the idiot. PLONK.
>
There is a way to killfile all morphing socks of the P&S Sybil Troll.




--
__
SneakyP
To email me, you know what to do.

Supernews, if you get a complaint from a Jamie Baillie, please see:
http://www.canadianisp.ca/jamie_baillie.html
First  |  Prev  | 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: New Infrared Gallery
Next: Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective