NZ107 From New Zealand, joined Jul 2005, 6418 posts, RR: 38
Reply 2, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3879 times:
Quoting stealthz (Thread starter): Has anyone used it this way and if so what successes or issues have you experienced.
I've tinkered around with it a little. Although the functions are the same, you're still slightly restricted as to what you can do with a JPEG compared with a RAW but reasons for this are quite obvious. I wouldn't say I've succeeded in doing much with it but I think the functions of controlling 'black' and 'fill light' come in handy when trying to get something out of a near pitch black picture compared to the normal functions on Photoshop. These have been my deductions anyway.
White balance has to be changed manually as it doesn't give generic values for daylight/cloudy etc, even as just a reference but I guess the eyedropper white balance tool might be useful. It also remembers that you opened the JPEG with Camera RAW and will open Camera RAW up if you go back to re-edit the picture, as if it were a RAW itself.
kukkudrill From Malta, joined Dec 2004, 1123 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3854 times:
A JPEG is basically a RAW file which has had a lot of data thrown away and the rest compressed to a certain extent. So I don't think Karl need worry about RAW files becoming obsolete. It's only logical that you should be able to apply the same software tools to both formats, but the RAW file will always be more editable than a JPEG.
Make the most of the available light ... a lesson of photography that applies to life
coninpa From Luxembourg, joined May 2005, 244 posts, RR: 6
Reply 5, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3853 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SCREENER
Quoting viv (Reply 1): I try to get exposure, lighting and colour temperature right when I shoot, not in post-processing.
This is the best way to start a good photo.
However, to reply to your question if your shot was not that good, you will never get the same (usually good) result with Camera Raw on a JPEG image as with a RAW image. Sorry to be a bit technical... A JPEG image is digitally encoded using 8 bits and is already compressed by your camera body, a RAW image is encoded most of the time using 12 bits (14 bits on high-end cameras) with no compression. So, even if ACR permits to act on JPEG images, it is only "trying" to apply corrections on an image which contains a lot less informations than a RAW image, so the quality and the result can only suffer.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 972 posts, RR: 31
Reply 6, posted (4 years 2 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3853 times:
ACR 4+ can edit jpegs and you can use your jpeg as a smart object if you wish. ACR does not manipulate your jpeg in the same way as a RAW file however, for instance if your jpeg is slightly over exposed ACR can not help you like it would a RAW file. But again the question is why would you want to edit a jpeg? Shoot RAW, try to get everything right straight from the camera. Process in ACR first and finish in PS and save as a jpeg - done. If you need to do any re-working go back to your RAW file and start again.
Good luck .. Jid
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX