| Joined: | Fri Apr 6th, 2012 |
| Location: | Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom |
| Posts: | 1409 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
Robert wrote:
Just passing...
I have notice with alarm that you keep saying you save as JPEG, "it will be 'good enough'" If I may say so it WON'T be 'good enough', you are complaining about IQ, use the highest quality NEF's you can lay your hands on just for starters, and leave the noise reduction for the computer. The available choice of NR software is far greater and infinitely more controllable than what the camera has to offer. Use layers and masking, you are the expert in that department yet you seem to be missing it.
OK you are fed up with using computers but if you want the good results in my view it's the only way.
Off to the tip!
Not sure if that remark was addressed to me or Jeff?
I HAVE been shooting raw on recent images and there's no difference in the outputted image quality to computer. There is nothing wrong with saving files as JPEGs.
The whole publishing industry demands the supply of images in JPEGs format. Send a NEF file to a magazine and they will reject it.
In fact these days they frequently want png files.
The whole point about raw files is they enable YOU to make whatever corrections you think need doing ....corrections that you or the camera didn't do at the time of the exposure. My point is ...the captured images are not good enough irrespective of file format.
The risk with compressed files is the degree and repeated application of this compression by repeated resaving.
In my early years of supplying digital artwork I did repeated and exhaustive test on the effect on quality of the degree of jpeg compression and multiple circles thereof.
I fear the jpeg is not the bogeyman many would have us believe.
Of course it's not good practise to save part processed WIP images in any compressed format. But there's nothing wrong in saving finished files in jpeg. Arguably thts what the camera assumes you require...a finished jpeg.
Just my experience
