Re: RAW VS JPEG

nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Keith) wrote:

Even better use Lightroom or Aperture and you work non-destructively
directly on the RAW image, with no jpeg or tiff duplicates clogging up
your storage.

You aren't working "directly on the RAW image". It
*does* convert it to an image format (almost certainly
not JPEG, but it might well be a TIFF variant) before
editing. Whether you save that image or not is perhaps
a reasonable option, but others might well do whatever
it is that you don't, and both are reasonable.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@xxxxxxxxxx
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAW VS JPEG
    ... Even better use Lightroom or Aperture and you work non-destructively ... with no jpeg or tiff duplicates clogging up ... You aren't working "directly on the RAW image". ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: RAW VS JPEG
    ... Even better use Lightroom or Aperture and you work non-destructively ... with no jpeg or tiff duplicates clogging up ... You aren't working "directly on the RAW image". ... *does* convert it to an image format (almost certainly ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Backlit - yep, I can do it too
    ... film. ... Also shooting with a long lens and the MF losses its advantage. ... In the case of jpeg vs. raw there is no shot where the jpeg will come ... out better then the raw image. ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)
  • Re: RAW VS JPEG
    ... with no jpeg or tiff duplicates clogging up ... You aren't working "directly on the RAW image". ... *does* convert it to an image format (almost certainly ... conversion program. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Help re. colour differences in image viewers...
    ... When I then compare the RAW image seen in Rawshooter with the converted ... Jpeg viewed in CS2 the colours of that image look the same... ... if I then compare the above images with the converted Jpeg ...
    (rec.photo.digital)