Anthomyia pluvialis


I still not very into this, and honestly I can't see a lot of difference between them (except on the file one is like 3 MB and the RAW is 10MB lol)
I guess I should still be trying and see if i get any results!
Though Is my first RAW Attempt

Trying raw myself with photoshop cs4 and don't see a great deal of difference between raw and JPG only that JPG is simpler and easier to deal with pcmcgarry · 2011-08-25: 11:18

Raw gives me a sense of freedom :) In case of burnt skies I can easily fix it, for example. And a lot of other things too. I recently started too, and at the beginning i didn't see any real difference, but now I wonder why I have waited so long to start taking in raw instead of jpeg :) MsCumberdale · 2011-08-25: 11:20

RAW is something like an unfinished picture. All information is in the image, you just have to do the finishing editings in for example: lightroom or photoshop. RAW files give you so much more freedom with your pictures and how they will look like at the end. Ryana · 2011-08-25: 11:33

It depends heavily on how much editing you plan to do with each shot. If you under expose in RAW, you can recover a lot of the information in post. Versus having shot in JPG, it would be more difficult [usually] to achieve the same result. Another way of looking at it is having a 'flattened' PhotoShop file versus a Photoshop file with a bunch of layers... I hope I didn't just confuse the situation more! Ha! [RAW FOR LIFE!] smbunation · 2011-08-25: 11:36

All greek to me at this point and I'm too old to learn a new language! danrav · 2011-08-25: 12:06

I was using RAW for about one year and working with it in Lightroom. About 2 months ago I switched back to JPG. For me the JPG is much better since it takes less space per photo and is quicker for thansfers and quality.....what can I say....I don't see any difference. That's just me! Nice test Ricky honzicek · 2011-08-25: 12:29

"JPEG".... "Raw raw raw"...What's good for one may not be for another! Decide for yourself! ArtBee · 2011-08-25: 12:30

LOL. Interesting view! promise · 2011-08-25: 12:38

I can not tell the difference either. LOL I will just stick with point and shoot and hope. ;0 Wonderful captures. karmankwarner · 2011-08-25: 13:05

Raw looks a liiiitle better... :-) wfrnk · 2011-08-25: 13:08

I can see some differences but are they worth the file size. Yes. The RAW file has more colour and is a bit brighter. Could you manipulate the jpg file to get similar results? You could give it a try. I try to take photos as I wish them to be, in the camera and seldom do more than straighten, crop or adjust lighting so jpg works for me. There is a lot to be said for RAW images allowing the photographer to manipulate them to a far higher level. When I get to the point of having more time that I wish to use in manipulating the photos I take, I will certainly have more interest in RAW again. stabeez · 2011-08-25: 14:11

I'm so glad you posted this, I have been doing some reading on this very subject lately... I can't see any difference either. After reading the comments above, it seems to me that RAW would be better if one does and desires to do quite a bit of editing.... Is this right??? ????? · 2011-08-25: 14:19

RAW forever ;) TIM927 · 2011-08-25: 14:52

I don't really see the differnce but jpg is more convient mystic1 · 2011-08-25: 15:46

interesting work!! finbarr · 2011-08-25: 17:14

A lot depends on the kind of shot you're taking. Sometimes it doesn't seem to matter....other times it really does if you're wanting a quality image! lookagain · 2011-08-25: 18:47

Ricky...check this out. Maybe it will help you understand better. Raw vs. JPEG mikro · 2011-08-25: 20:46

I am personally just to LAZY for raw. :-) DancingDolphin · 2011-08-25: 22:23

Really? I prefer the JPG in this example. I have also been thinking I want to get a camera that allows me to shoot RAW so I can try it, but now I see that, not only would I have to pay for the new camera, but also for Photoshop or another program to work with the RAW files. AND they take up a lot of space? I don't know if I want to anymore. liveandletlive · 2011-08-25: 23:50

It certainly depends on what you want be able to do with your images... and it's quite possible as well, that PB is not the best place to be able to see the differences. All of thing that everyone who shoots raw has said here is true. You can fix things with a raw file that you can't with a jpg. My biggest thing is that I want control over what happens. I don't always agree with what the camera (or even Lr3) would do on automatic settings... in fact the white balance is something that I find is never to my satisfaction when I let the computer decide. I guess if you like to spend time in PP, then raw makes sense, and if you don't, then it doesn't. Even when I was a little girl, I preferred the box of 96 coloured crayons to the box of 18 :) McMommy · 2011-08-26: 12:07

McMommy@ yes ... yes ... yes I agree kekok · 2011-08-27: 03:02

If anything, I'd say that the eye is a little redder in the jpeg version, otherwise I'm struggling to see a difference. I don't think that it matters to much for Photoblog where the images are so small anyway. For me main the benefit is in having greater control over white balance and a few other things when post processing. Sometimes it makes a lot of difference, sometimes none. Jarvo · 2011-08-31: 19:18

Tagged: raw fly macro