Thread replies: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
File: coll_00024.jpg (512KB, 1000x667px) Image search:
[Google]
512KB, 1000x667px
I started shooting in raw recently. Is there actually any benefit to shooting in raw or is it just a meme? so far it seems to just take up more space on my camera.
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make NIKON CORPORATION Camera Model NIKON D3400 Camera Software Capture NX-D 1.4.3 W Maximum Lens Aperture f/3.5 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Color Filter Array Pattern 1012 Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 27 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 300 dpi Vertical Resolution 300 dpi Image Created 2017:02:17 17:49:57 Exposure Time 1/320 sec F-Number f/9.0 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 100 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Light Source Unknown Flash No Flash, Compulsory Focal Length 18.00 mm Color Space Information Uncalibrated Image Width 1000 Image Height 667 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard Gain Control None Contrast Normal Saturation Normal Sharpness Normal Subject Distance Range Unknown
>>
It's for people who want to manipulate images beyond what the camera captures. It's also good for fixing your fuck ups, to a certain degree. Both require you to do post processing, and learning how it works.
>>
File: sniff-test.png (2MB, 1493x953px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 1493x953px
>>3024029
only jared polin shoots raw nowadays
>>
>>3024029
> Is there actually any benefit to shooting in raw or is it just a meme?
It's not a meme. It's used in most digital editing processes.
JPEG is the 10 year old stupid ass image format that everyone can use, but it's not really adequate before you are dealing with the final output (and I honestly hope I can be rid if JPEG itself in like 5-10 years, faster is probably illusory).
> on my camera
Uh, you generally transfer this frequently (maybe after every shoot to a computer + backup.
>>
>>3024057 (correction)
Well over ten years old in general use, sorry for the mistake.
>>
that picture looks retarded
>>
>>3024029
follow up question. why doesn't /p/ accept raw files?
>>
>>3024093
Because it's not a photo collaboration site that wants to share 50MB image files?
Because web browsers can't actually decode and display RAW images.
Never mind RAW isn't *ONE* standardized format, every camera vendor has its own format(s), really - and then of course these also had versions.
>>
>>3024097
I feel very informed now
>>
>>3024103
Good. If you are OP, maybe still try to yank sliders on a handful of RAW+JPEG shot pairs (both RAW *and* JPEG) shot in different lighting conditions in OpticsPro, Camera One, Lightroom, Darktable or whatever you use to edit.
I think you'll fairly quickly see why the RAW is better.
>>
>>3024029
Stop reading ken rockwell
Thread posts: 11
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2