11-10-2010, 08:50 PM #1I'm new here!
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
Pre-processing vs post-processing
With so many cameras offering processing in camera, how many use it? I just use the standard picture style, no DRO, no HDR, the lowest NR I can select and do it all in LightRoom. I have only been using cameras for hobby shooting for a couple months, so this might just be lack of knowledge, but does the pre-processing only effect jpegs taken with the camera? is RAW always unprocessed?
Last edited by Saralonde; 11-11-2010 at 02:06 AM.
11-10-2010, 09:29 PM #2maxharvard Guest
RAW is unprocessed.
Nah-ha-hah-evAR pre-process.... totally kills any ability to go backwards.
11-10-2010, 10:09 PM #3
11-10-2010, 10:15 PM #4
11-10-2010, 10:36 PM #5
Shoot RAW if you want to increase the complexity and amount of time it takes to process an image by a factor of about 3 while only increasing the quality by about 5%.
If you need the extra 5% then yeah go ahead and shoot RAW
11-10-2010, 10:53 PM #6
Shot underexposed as JPEG, increased exposure by 1.5 stops or so, and blew out the sky, but left those blue halos thanks to lossy JPEG compression having dumped all those extra transitional tones of blue in the sky. Shooting RAW would have eliminated the blue halo.
Not to mention that this was early enough in my digital photography post-processing experience that I was still doing edits in the original JPEG file--i.e., destructive editing (there was no Lightroom back then). I can't go back to the original.
It's not a quality issue. It's a missing data issue.
Last edited by inkista; 11-10-2010 at 10:56 PM.
11-10-2010, 11:27 PM #7
11-10-2010, 11:31 PM #8
11-10-2010, 11:32 PM #9
11-10-2010, 11:39 PM #10
If you edit a JPEG and then save as a JPEG you deserve all you get. I take images as JPEG, edit, save as an XCF (the native GIMP format, it would be PSD for PS?) then as the last step use a plug-in called David Batch Processor to convert them all to a JPEG just before uploading.