|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/14/2022 10:22:41 AM · #1 |
| The former 4th-place image in the "Soft II" challenge has been disqualified because the original was shot in RAW, which is not allowed in Minimal Editing. Congrats to our new HM. |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 02:42:49 PM · #2 |
This is going to be a silly question and I know it has been discussed other times.
But why is Minimal in JPEG?
People say that they shoot either or and it really isn't making much a difference between the two. Can you do sneaky things in RAW that would not be possible in Jpeg? |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 03:25:18 PM · #3 |
Minimal is in JPG because It's not possible to ascertain from EXIF data whether a RAW file has been "processed". In fact, to even VIEW a RAW file it has to BE processed; when you shoot in RAW the version the camera shows you is a JPG rendering of the RAW file, and it is rendered based on the parameters you have set in-camera, just like a JPG would be. Unfortunately, that rendered file doesn't otherwise exist, when you download RAW to your computer, it gets re-rendered when you go to view it in LR (or whatever RAW editor you are using) and THAT rendering is also based on the preferences you have set into LR for how you want it done.
SO, what this means is; in order to see what my image looks like in RAW, I open it in LR and there it is. If I don't like how it looks, I can change it, and there's no way of knowing IN THE RAW FILE that any changes have been made, because the RAW file itself never gets altered; it has appended to it a JPG "sidecar file" that specifies the settings dialed into this RAW file by the photographer, and when you go to open it in PS that's what the program uses to generate the first view.
Now, the catch is that MY installation of LR may be set to different previewing parameters than yours is, so when I open your RAW file in *my* LR, what I am seeing is not necessarily what you saw, since my parameters are unique to my LR and my Monitor. So it's just unverifiable...
Understand this: ALL cameras "shoot RAW" ALL the time, in the sense that JPG is a way to ORGANIZE and view an image, and the native bitmap that the sensor captures is, by definition, a "RAW" (read "unreconstructed") set of information. The magic happens in the organization, and JPG is the generally-accepted standard for doing that.
When you shoot in JPG yu can set your camera for more-or-less saturation, for more-or-less contrast, for desired white balance, for over- or under-exposure, and a host of other things, and the in-camera processor renders all these different parameters as a particular (and unique) JPG that shows us exactly what you intended us to see when you composed and shot the image. If you are serious about minimal challenges, you'll shot the same scene with bracketed exposures (to get that part right) and different white balances, contrasts, and so forth, so you have a bunch of options for the challenge entry.
We think of this, somewhat archaically, as the difference between shooting color slides and color film. With color slides, you had to get all the parameters right in camera, and the slide was a finished product. With color film, you PRINTED the image, and it was possible to make many changes in the darkroom to improve the look of the image.
That's all for now :-) Is your brain reeling yet? |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 04:10:03 PM · #4 |
Weeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll,,,,,,,,,,,,
Who would have thought I would learn something new today. (well actually I did, cus I asked the question)
That is really interesting. Vaguely knew half of that, didn't realize the other half.
I don't have lightroom.
So in your opinion, is it best to shoot JPEG and RAW in camera, or just RAW, and then just switch to JPEG. Is there an or any advantage to shooting in JPEG and RAW together or one or the other? |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 04:16:26 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
I don't have lightroom.
So in your opinion, is it best to shoot JPEG and RAW in camera, or just RAW, and then just switch to JPEG. Is there an or any advantage to shooting in JPEG and RAW together or one or the other? |
For "LR" read "whatever RAW processor you use": you can't process a RAW image without one.
As for the question, there are only three reasons to shoot RAW + JPG, IMO:
1. It makes it a LOT easier to share casual photos on social media and emails (you don't need to process them first), and
2. It's what you have to do for a DPChallenge Minimal Challenge...
3. Some pros who shoot things like weddings and social events that generate a lot of images that need to be gone through by the customer(s) find it simpler to shoot both and upload the unaltered JPGs for customer review. |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 05:50:20 PM · #6 |
| I think a 4th reason might be to have a backup of the image in (the rare) case the RAW file gets damaged or corrupted ... JPEGs in the size needed for DPC Minimal entries are so small that the extra storage required is pretty minimal compared to the RAW files. |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 06:10:42 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by JulietNN:
Weeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll,,,,,,,,,,,,
Who would have thought I would learn something new today. (well actually I did, cus I asked the question)
That is really interesting. Vaguely knew half of that, didn't realize the other half.
I don't have lightroom.
So in your opinion, is it best to shoot JPEG and RAW in camera, or just RAW, and then just switch to JPEG. Is there an or any advantage to shooting in JPEG and RAW together or one or the other? |
I used to shoot horse competitions for a living. I would come home with sometimes 10K images from a weekend (I had others working some of the shows with me).
Just because of the sheer numbers of pix, many of my peers (and I tried it once) shoot jpeg only. I refuse to. The range of color you can get from a RAW image is SO much greater than a jpeg. I would shoot everything in RAW + sm jpeg at the same time. I would lightly batch process images (2-3 hundred at a time) with similar lighting from the jpegs and show those as proofs but everything anybody ordered got processed from the RAW file because they just contain so much more information AND there is much more room to "save" darks & lights that you just cannot save with a jpeg.
I also do not & never have had Lightroom. ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) in Photoshop serves me well and Bridge handles batch processing efficiently (just don't try to batch rename with it...it's OMG slow for that.
Message edited by author 2022-04-14 18:14:18. |
|
|
|
04/14/2022 11:01:39 PM · #8 |
| I shoot RAW plus small jpg (social is much easier) but the only real time I use the jpg is in low light situations. Sometimes the jpg does a much better job than I can of denoising and developing the file. |
|
|
|
04/15/2022 11:29:28 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I shoot RAW plus small jpg (social is much easier) but the only real time I use the jpg is in low light situations. Sometimes the jpg does a much better job than I can of denoising and developing the file. |
Well that is interesting, I shall have to give that one a go!
|
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 06:56:37 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 06:56:37 PM EDT.
|
