Jan 19, 2016, 06:07
Thank you for that, John.
There are probably some points there that would be debatable, but also there is much that I would agree with and already have. I just think that JPEGs (and those who choose to shoot JPEG) are often unfairly maligned when, due to the way our vision works, normal viewing distances, and the nature of the photos that we view - typically A4-A3 prints or pictures on medium size screens - for the majority of photos it seems virtually impossible to identify whether the final product was processed from a raw file or a JPEG file.
The following is a much less extreme example than the one above:
1. This JPEG of Wrest Park House, being slightly under-exposed, came out of the camera looking a bit dull and flat:
2. So it was edited in PaintShop Pro to make it 'pop' more, and (in my humble opinion!) the A4 print of it looks great:
3: I cannot print at A0 size = nearly 4 feet wide, so as a matter of interest I cropped about one sixteenth of its area, to make an A4 print with the equivalent appearance of A0 for that part of the image. That still looks pretty good to me:
Again, as Ed keeps telling us, and I fully agree, to each his own!
Cheers.
Philip
There are probably some points there that would be debatable, but also there is much that I would agree with and already have. I just think that JPEGs (and those who choose to shoot JPEG) are often unfairly maligned when, due to the way our vision works, normal viewing distances, and the nature of the photos that we view - typically A4-A3 prints or pictures on medium size screens - for the majority of photos it seems virtually impossible to identify whether the final product was processed from a raw file or a JPEG file.
The following is a much less extreme example than the one above:
1. This JPEG of Wrest Park House, being slightly under-exposed, came out of the camera looking a bit dull and flat:
2. So it was edited in PaintShop Pro to make it 'pop' more, and (in my humble opinion!) the A4 print of it looks great:
3: I cannot print at A0 size = nearly 4 feet wide, so as a matter of interest I cropped about one sixteenth of its area, to make an A4 print with the equivalent appearance of A0 for that part of the image. That still looks pretty good to me:
Again, as Ed keeps telling us, and I fully agree, to each his own!
Cheers.
Philip