Just dived in

[mohammadali]

what kinda clown fish is the black and yellow ?

[Patwa]

Originally Posted by sphelps

Gotta love that need people have to bump up old threads to only attempt to discredit someone on silly technicalities while offering zero new advice or any for that matter in regards to the subject. I like the phrase "in layman's terms", it's something I've become quite good at over the years in my profession and while perhaps a lot of what is said isn't necessarily 100% accurate it gets the point across without sounding like a complete tool or making someones else's eyes cross.

not trying to discredit you, phelps.....don't take it so personal.

I don't need to offer new advice, you did a good job of doing that in your post! (see my original post where I commend you for that....did you not see that?)

You should always try to be accurate and deliberate in what you say, even if you're trying to convey it in "laymans terms" Otherwise, you open yourself up to people like me who will call you out on it. Unless you don't care, then I can't help you, and you can carry on.

Originally Posted by sphelps

So if you really feel the best advice for new photographers is to shoot in RAW so be it. It only enforces the act of relying purely on post processing rather than real photography, an art near extinction for that very same attitude. RAW has it's purpose, no doubt but there's a learning curve involved and I don't agree it's a good idea for beginners.

I never said my advice is for "new photographers is to shoot RAW"...maybe try reading my post again? My post was in your response assertion that RAW was a waste of time...nothing else

Newbies can and should start with JPEG until they feel comfy, but they shd aim to use RAW at some point as it's far superior at the end of the day.

Originally Posted by sphelps

RAR files require post processing, sorry but they do. A RAR file contains only what the sensor recorded, nothing less and nothing more. Windows can only allow you to preview the file provided your camera format is supported and you have the plugin installed. You can't edit them with Windows alone nor can you convert them to jpeg so specific software is absolutely needed. Software may come free with your camera but ultimately you get what you pay for. RAW files are harder to deal with, not because they are larger but because you can't print them, post them, send them or share them with others, it's just bits and bites until you process it into jpeg. So unlike jpeg you're forced to manually process every image to take, that's harder than not having to do anything... During manual processing of RAW files you'll end up tuning the image to your monitor, you can be the most intelligent person in the world but if your monitor isn't calibrated properly your images will suffer.

man, there is just so much wrong with this particular post, i can't even begin to comprehend. But i will. You really will never comprehend what working with RAW files can really do for your photography game, and especially how relatively easy it is to work with and incorporate into your photo-processing workflow.

And, of course, RAW files need processing. I never said they don't! lol ..read my post again? Why else are they called RAW!? My point is that processing of a RAW file is easy if you actually sit down and have everything set up (but obviously more involved than just just leaving your camera to process and spit out a JPEG you can use in like 5 seconds after you press the shutter release).

...and the processing of a RAW file on a computer by a human being is immeasurably better than the processing done on a camera. It's obvious you're not as techno-savvy as the next person (ie. me?)...it's all good. to each his own, right?

stick to what you know. and for you, if it's relying solely on the processing power of your camera alone, then that's cool beans, man. Leave the more complex stuff to the more tech-savvy people, i guess

Originally Posted by sphelps

A good read on Ken Rockwell's website for anyone interested in reading all about the boring specifics of JPEG vs RAW

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I love Ken's site, really, I do.

But if you've noticed, he writes for the "layman" ...people who want the bottom line wrt new cameras and lenses. And his opinions are just that: opinions, and directed at most photographers out there, who happen to be just amateurs and who don't give two craps about JPEG vs. RAW: they want their picture now, and they want it "perfect". For them, JPEG is the obvious answer (and yours).

no argument there.

z