3 ms·
I get this. I'm a big fan of Straight Out of Camera photography for the same reason. i.e. just use JPEGs rather than RAW files. If you need RAW, use it obvio
by Lio 5y ago
I get this. I'm a big fan of Straight Out of Camera photography for the same reason. i.e. just use JPEGs rather than RAW files.
If you need RAW, use it obviously. To fix white balance or exposure later for example.
Letting the camera render your JPEGs though has the pleasing quality of being limited by the processing of camera model at the time you took the image.
Now that may not give you the "best" results but it will give you a certain look that's tied to the time you took the photo. A bit like using film that's not available any more.
- max49 5y agoI prefer shooting RAW+JPG You get the best of both world, the interpretation of the camera and the possibility to render your own if the camera messed up. It's a lot easier after a trip to just delete all the raw images than to try to fix the white balance of a jpg. When I started photography a decade ago, I tried to optimise by using Raw when I thought I could get a benefit (eg. night photography) and jpg for the rest. Now storage is cheap/fast enough that the impact is negligible and it can save you when the camera or you (manual mode ftw) mess up the exposure.
- opan 5y agoOn my Canon 60D my jpegs seem to come out looking noticeably blue while my raws look pretty normal. I save in both formats for each pic, so I see the side-by-side constantly.
- sound1 5y ago> I'm a big fan of Straight Out of Camera photography for the same reason. i.e. just use JPEGs rather than RAW files. Same here. I bought a Fujifilm xe2 few years back and it is one of the best purchases I made. Gives excellent JPEGs straight out of the camera without needing all that RAW post-processing.