jake on 2004.01.23
at 06:17 pm
PhotographyBLOG has 2 articles about jpeg vs. raw for digital cameras.
JPG vs RAW vs TIFF: Get it Right the First Time by Ken Rockwell is absurd. He makes very few good points in the article. He actually believes that a lossy jpeg is just as good as a large raw file. Maybe for the Internet, or comp work.
I just look at it by taking it from a similar musical subject. If I take a large mp3 and a wav file of the same very elaborate music (something with lots of highs and lows) and compare them, the mp3 may sound good, but it's definitely muddy compared to the full wav file as soon as you listen to it from a good system at a good volume.
Bringing it back to the image, as is stated in the second article (which I'll link to in a second) as soon as you try to blow the image up, even with a good camera, you can notice the compression's effects on the image.
Sermon From A Raw Convert by Petteri Sulonen is written from a more objective view point. He explains how Raw isn't always the way to go when you shoot, but in most circumstances it's flexibility raises it above jpeg.
Posted in: Photography · Technology
Comments have been automatically disabled to curtail spam.