|
Dren posted:RAW vs JPG is more about detail you can recover from the image when making the final JPG than it is about detail present in the final JPG. RAWs are way bigger than JPG so lack of archive space is probably the real issue. It used to be that in-camera processors were awful terrible and you got markedly better quality from a RAW you could process yourself. Recent generations of cameras seem to have ironed out this issue to some degree, but I think there is some residual feeling that an OOC JPEG is going to have quality issues like artifacting, etc. Also, it's pretty well standard practice for quick moving news organizations to work largely in JPEG vice RAW, due to time, processing, and storage constraints.
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 19:06 |
|
|
Platystemon posted:
Exactly, and to elaborate, I think there is a lot of confusion between distortion due to flaws in the lens, either intentional as seen in a fisheye or just an artifact of production, and perspective distortion, which is the result of the relative distance between objects and the lens. A 17mm doesn't by nature make someone look like they have a big nose. The impression of a big nose comes from the fact that in order to fill the frame, you have to get very close to them, which means that relative to the lens there is a much more significant distance between their nose and face than there would be from further away. If you stood further away and then cropped the image down, the perspective would appear as though the image had been shot with a longer lens. So what that means is that it's germane to consider the "crop factor" when considering a focal length's likelihood of perspective distortion.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 7, 2013 16:45
|
|