Re: RAW VS JPEG

nospam <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <87k5nczyhc.fld@xxxxxxxxxx>, Floyd L. Davidson
<floyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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.

yes, you *are* working on the raw image. there is no intermediate file
format. all adjustments operate on the original raw data. period.

No, the original data is converted, whether you save it
as an image file or not makes no difference, you are
*not* able to save it back to a raw file and it *must*
be converted every time.

The only way the "edited" output of that program is
useful is if you do save it to an image format.

it's converted to rgb for display on a monitor or printed, but that's
going to happen with any format, jpeg included. images can also be
exported in one of several file formats, as a web gallery, a slide
show, or printed.

however, the real gain is not what it does internally, but rather how
it dramatically improves workflow. lightroom (and aperture) do pretty
much everything that needs to be done to most images. images that need
additional tweaks (such as extensive retouching or compositing) can
round-trip to photoshop or another external editor. it also provides
for easy searching based on keywords or metadata (e.g. all images taken
with a particular lens or a particular shutter speed).

All you have described is a fairly sophisticated RAW
conversion program. UFRAW, for example, does much the
same thing. It saves all the parameters to a file, and
that can be used to make the same conversion again with
the same RAW file or with a different one.

It's a *conversion* program, not an image editor though.

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

Relevant Pages

  • Re: RAW or not RAW? :)
    ... When you "view" a "raw ... the program either looks at the embedded JPEG ... not converted to a standard image file format at all. ... the specific conversion process for jpeg is different than nef, ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • 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: RAW Conversion: Adobe Capture Raw vs. Canon Digital Photo Pro
    ... Like it or not, many people look at it as a simple file format conversion, ... JPEG or what the vendor software produces". ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: RAW vs JPEGs - Does RAW show more detail?
    ... conversion, why should I do a re-conversion in PC? ... RAW files, if you had software that supports this. ... printing or exporting to jpeg. ... converting the raw sensor data to an image format. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • 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)