Squirsier
500+ Head-Fier
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2008
- Posts
- 750
- Likes
- 13
Greetings
Back in December, I bought myself a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28. I wanted something with more options than my old Lumix DMC-LZ5 but not a DSLR (I can't, for the life of me, LEARN to use those).
Now I have the option to shoot a RAW file instead of a JPG (or both if I need to). I've been reading on the subject a bit and RAW looks like it requires a bit of post-processing to "finish" the image, especially in regards to contrast.
Frankly, I printed a few pictures this weekend that I took from the company picnic and they all turned out really great. All JPGs.
Now my main issue with this is... Considering that I'll probably never know how the colors of my LCD monitor are calibrated anyway (it's a TV first with VGA input), should I really bother using RAW?
I have a funny "lossless vs lossy" feeling when I think of RAW vs JPG, but if it means heavy post-processing... I'm not sure.
What do you guys think? How many of you use RAW?
Back in December, I bought myself a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ28. I wanted something with more options than my old Lumix DMC-LZ5 but not a DSLR (I can't, for the life of me, LEARN to use those).
Now I have the option to shoot a RAW file instead of a JPG (or both if I need to). I've been reading on the subject a bit and RAW looks like it requires a bit of post-processing to "finish" the image, especially in regards to contrast.
Frankly, I printed a few pictures this weekend that I took from the company picnic and they all turned out really great. All JPGs.
Now my main issue with this is... Considering that I'll probably never know how the colors of my LCD monitor are calibrated anyway (it's a TV first with VGA input), should I really bother using RAW?
I have a funny "lossless vs lossy" feeling when I think of RAW vs JPG, but if it means heavy post-processing... I'm not sure.
What do you guys think? How many of you use RAW?