Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

0

On the referenced “duplicate” thread, I found RawDigger: Exposure Edition is for everyday use and is intended to help those who are serious about extracting the maximum quality from the camera to get precise exposures. That looks like exactly what I'm doing. This was pointed out by @IliahBorg, one of the developers. Hopefully that means that they are ...


1

Most of the OSX GUI applications for manipulating exif information rely on Phil Harvey's exiftool, an open source perl library and cross-platform command-line tool for manipulating EXIF information. HoudahGPS, Geotagger, and GPSPhotoLinker all rely on exiftool to write EXIF tags. And since exiftool can write to Canon RAW files, these apps are likely to be ...


1

I have had quite good success with houdahGeo, in particular with Aperture. For this you open the photos you want to geotag from houdahGeo (you can open photos already in your Aperture Library) select them and then geotag them using either a map or a GPX file. Then you can reverse geocode and write the data back to the original Raw files. HoudahGeo then ...


2

It isn't really "stuck" in the past. The release of Camera Raw and Lr can be out of step on occasion, but rarely for more than a few weeks. Most of the time, they are released as updates on the same day, as was the case for CR 8.7 and Lr 5.7. I recall that the minor release numbers of both related products are set to match on purpose. For older releases of ...


3

No - You cannot upgrade only the camera raw portion of LR separately from the software as a whole. The workaround is exactly what you proposed - using the free converter to DNG. This is how Adobe keeps you upgrading. If you get a new camera, you may also need to upgrade your Adobe software unless you want to change your workflow(use the free converter, stop ...


0

JPEG is a compressed format, as has been pointed out by several others here, but what they haven't mentioned is that it is not a totally "lossless" compression. Every time you open a JPEG file for editing, it's being uncompressed, then compressed again when your edits are stored. Ergo, you're potentially losing a few bits every time. I started out as a "wet" ...


0

There will always be pros and cons for each side of this question- RAW or JPG, for my personal experience it depends on the 'venue'. But I mostly shoot JPG for the simple reason of efficiency in storage and work-flow. The single best response for this question, in my opinion.. from dpollit...JPEG can force you to become a better photographer. I believe ...


0

This is well answered by Unapiedra, but I thought I might add a bit more about RAW itself. A RAW file, whatever format it comes in (NEF on nikon) is a big stack of data. It's not even just one image: it actually contains a small jpeg "preview" which is what you saw on the back of your camera, and what some editing programs (like Aperture) make the loading ...


1

The only time I'd opt for JPEG a over RAW, was when I'd be shooting all day and needed to maximize my card storage and battery life. JPEGs write faster to the card, which saves battery life. And, it's obvious they take less space, so I could shove a lot more images into a few chips. Of course, shooting JPEGs means you don't have the leeway available for ...


11

No, it does not matter where your JPEG comes from. Editing a JPEG degrades its quality. The reason that JPEG is not suited to editing has to do with the way the data is saved in JPEGs, not whether the camera produced the JPEG or Lightroom did. I suggest you read the many excellent answers on this site that explain why raw is better than JPEG for editing. ...


2

In some scenarios, you just simply doesn't need RAW files. A good example is daily press: JPGs are rarely edited for more than basic level and constrast adjustements, they have more than enough quality for web and press paper, are faster to transmit to the newsroom, can be directly used on layout software, and speed the general process both for photographer ...


3

Here is a good reason why RAW+JPEG is a good idea - tethering. If you use WiFi of a third party device like Cam Ranger, transferring a raw image to the tethered device can take a while. Transferring the JPEG should only take a few seconds in contrast.


0

It is no longer an issue today, but until just a few years ago many people were still using computers with insufficient memory to smoothly work with RAW files. On my old XP computer I had to split up a picture into small parts, process them separately and then stitch them back together when doing memory intensive computations.


25

Beyond the very obvious memory card requirement differences between RAW and JPEG images as noted in the question: JPEGs are compressed and typically have much smaller file sizes. For example a RAW file from a Nikon D800 can be 50MB and the JPEG may be a fraction at 10MB. This benefits not only memory card capacity but also editing workflow speed, archival ...


2

I doubt there are any hidden advantages, it is more or less obvious: the file is immediately ready for sharing (JPEG can be used everywhere) will usually look better out of the box, because of the automated in-camera treatment and "intelligent shooting modes", including quick-and-easy HDR (while for RAW files, we expect the experienced user should process ...


1

I've been using RawTherapee and ViewNX mostly, and I've recently tried Capture NX-D. So fare my favorite is RawTherapee, although I still have some issues with it. I'll list some pros and cons of the tools, based on my experience and some things that I've read here and there. ViewNX is the simplest of the three, mainly due to the limited number of possible ...



Top 50 recent answers are included