JPEGs are fine, Brian. Don’t listen to the mockers – if all you want to do is
produce images which you will only slightly tweak.
However, just look at the histogram of a JPEG before you do some serious
adjusting (Auto Levels is a good example) and then check it after just one
process. You will see quite a bit of the graph missing. Likewise, try saving
and opening a JPEG a few times and a similar process will become apparent,
although less quickly.
I use JPEGs all the time, but with a RAW file for tweaking in case I want to.
Most of the time my Fujis produce pretty fine images with little fiddling. The
difference is an extra 15-20Mb per shot, and I weed my collection quite
frequently to slow the buildup of storage space used.
Chris
On 3 Aug 2014, at 11:30, bj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> RAW files. I'm not convinced. I've never seen a well-exposed jpeg
> from my Oly cameras that was as bad as Tina claims.
> My processed jpgs
> are fine. I like them a lot. I'm well aware that jpgs are lossy files,
> so I minimise the editing to them that I do, and I doubt if anybody can
> than tell by looking at them that the image quality shows they are
> spoiled / ruined by the lossy process operating.
> Yes, I have had
> difficulty with badly exposed files but they are not the norm.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|