If your camera allows it, you can always shoot in RAW+ (takes a RAW image plus a jpeg) , then you can work from there and decide, best of both worlds.
If your camera allows it, you can always shoot in RAW+ (takes a RAW image plus a jpeg) , then you can work from there and decide, best of both worlds.
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.
That would seem like good advice but I know a lot of people look at the jpeg and then ask why the RAW image doesn't "pop" or it looks washed out. The raw image lets you control how the final image is "developed." If you think you may want to do any adjustments or effects to an image then shoot raw otherwise just shoot jpeg.
Think of it this way. The raw file is a negative. It's needs processing/developing to give you the final product. A out the camera jpeg is like a photo print, to make adjustments means "rescanning" and adjusting, this causes image degradation. This is probably a little over simplified but you understand what I'm getting at? There is a time and place for each.
Why yes, my one eye is bigger than the other. Thanks for pointing that out.
Last edited by Arthur; 19-07-2012 at 08:30 AM.
Maybe he is using one one these babies : http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/promotions/h4d-launch.aspx :P
To me it sounds like he advocating getting things right in camera - iow everything up to and including the pressing of the button.
Most people equate RAW with the digital darkroom but realistically, how many film photographers do you know who have even set foot inside a real darkroom let alone processed their own negatives because the majority of the ones I knew of would send their film off to the lab, unless they shot B&W.
"Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." FM Arouet
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience" Unknown
I would not be able to do what I do without RAW... Not because I don't get it right in camera, but because I shoot scenes with a dynamic range that is impossible to get right in camera. Depends what you do. If you've got the storage space and you are not shooting 1000's of images at a time, there is no reason not to shoot RAW and have full control over the JPEG conversion.
Way I see it: You either process the raw photo data yourself afterwards (RAW) - or you let the Canon/Nikon/etc software on the processor in the camera do it for you and spit out the resulting jpeg. Big competition between manufacturers on who can make the best software/chip to produce the best processed jpeg.
May be a bit late to jump on the wagon here, but here goes anyway. Unless you plan on doing a lot of post processing and manipulation, shooting in Jpeg will be fine. Your ZS8 gives you 14mp which should be more than enough for most photos.
If you want to start playing with stuff like HDR etc, it might get worth to invest in a camera that shoots in RAW too. But with that comes an investment in software like Lightroom and an investment in time to learn how to use RAW properly.
But if you are planning on shooting family photos, party shots, your pets etc etc, jpeg would be more than adequate to do the job. Rather make sure you know learn how the use the camera in Manual mode before you worry about RAW.
As Chase Jarvis said, the best camera in the world is the one you have in your hands right now, so go out and shoot!
PS. For the record, I shoot in RAW+Jpeg
Bookmarks