• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Modern Photography and Ancient Art

kanabco said:
Everything you said above is true but immaterial for the "majority" of professional photographers.
What you do by posting that is muddy the waters because we have people to teach and they absorb things they do not comprehend simply because they do not understand the technology... you are not teaching.

By far the majority of professional photographers shoot JPG (if not only) because they cannot be bothered with trying to figure out the potential of a RAW file and when they finally do they discover that they would have processed the RAW file to look just like the JPG? It means RAW is less useful for most pros. Someone here was talking about shooting 500 clicks of a wedding. You certainly do not think he meant he shot raw, right? in fact I asked him and he responded "course not"
The only thing you achieve by bringing up the compressed vs uncompressed comparison of jpg vs raw is make the defacto standard (jpg) questionable. You are not teaching anything useful because the International Standards Organization (ISO) sponsors a standard for digital imaging called the "Joint Photographic Experts Group" (JPEG). They are true experts and meet three times per year and discuss how to make this ISO standard better. They are the real pros. Extolling virtue of RAW over JPG only confuses the layman. Trust me. I have been trying to convey this point for decades (I began in videography training films for the US Army long before single frame digital imaging came to be).
Click to expand...

Addendum----
Watching the Olympics?
Have you seen the photographers bay?
I can guarantee you they are shooting at least 10 frames per second.
Over a ten second Usain Bolt sprint that would be 100 frames.
There is no camera that I know of that can buffer 100 RAW images... they are HUGE!
I may be wrong as I have not kept up.
But jgs are captured and processed in firmware as fast at the (useless) mirror is retracted.
 
kanabco said:
Everything you said above is true but immaterial for the "majority" of professional photographers.
What you do by posting that is muddy the waters because we have people to teach and they absorb things they do not comprehend simply because they do not understand the technology... you are not teaching.

By far the majority of professional photographers shoot JPG (if not only) because they cannot be bothered with trying to figure out the potential of a RAW file and when they finally do they discover that they would have processed the RAW file to look just like the JPG? It means RAW is less useful for most pros. Someone here was talking about shooting 500 clicks of a wedding. You certainly do not think he meant he shot raw, right? in fact I asked him and he responded "course not"
The only thing you achieve by bringing up the compressed vs uncompressed comparison of jpg vs raw is make the defacto standard (jpg) questionable. You are not teaching anything useful because the International Standards Organization (ISO) sponsors a standard for digital imaging called the "Joint Photographic Experts Group" (JPEG). They are true experts and meet three times per year and discuss how to make this ISO standard better. They are the real pros. Extolling virtue of RAW over JPG only confuses the layman. Trust me. I have been trying to convey this point for decades (I began in videography training films for the US Army long before single frame digital imaging came to be).
Click to expand...

A lack of training is no excuse for using substandard formats that will make your work harder. It is like a recording studio using mp3 format just because they dont know any better..

When jpeg is used you lose certain information (in the file) that you cannot get back. Which is fine for the point and click/camera phone crowd.

Why do you think Adobe Lightroom exists? It is because your computer is much more powerful than the one in your camera, no matter what camera you have. It isnt a matter of making a RAW file look like any other format. RAW is a stage in photo editing. From there yes you can covert it to jpg or any other format that you please. But most professional photographers are not going to save their awesome photo to jpeg despite what the ISO thinks. The go to format is TIFF. The reason that RAW and TIFF exist is because of a things called compression artifacts. No professional photographer wants artifacts in their professional photos.

Dont let the word "Experts" confuse you, the word doesnt remove artifacts from the image.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
A lack of training is no excuse for using substandard formats that will make your work harder. It is like a recording studio using mp3 format just because they dont know any better..

When jpeg is used you lose certain information (in the file) that you cannot get back. Which is fine for the point and click/camera phone crowd.

Why do you think Adobe Lightroom exists? It is because your computer is much more powerful than the one in your camera, no matter what camera you have. It isnt a matter of making a RAW file look like any other format. RAW is a stage in photo editing. From there yes you can covert it to jpg or any other format that you please. But most professional photographers are not going to save their awesome photo to jpeg despite what the ISO thinks. The go to format is TIFF. The reason that RAW and TIFF exist is because of a things called compression artifacts. No professional photographer wants artifacts in their professional photos.

Dont let the word "Experts" confuse you, the word doesn't remove artifacts from the image.
Click to expand...

You are making a mistake with "No professional photographer" and it has clouded your reality. An open thinker would conclude that since some successful photographers shoot raw and some shoot jpg that an absolute like "no" is couching a hardened defensive opinion. Therefore I'm done.
 
For those who would like to learn the truth about professionals who use jpg files I offer some links.
If you are a blinded fan of RAW you will be able to find just as many links countering the links I provide here and should learn from all of this that neither side is completely right or completely wrong.

From Adorama, Can You Shoot JPEGs That Rock Better Than RAW?
"If you take great care in metering and exposure, you will rarely, if ever, need to shoot RAW and you can avoid a lot of post-production time."

From Scott Kelby, noted sports photographer, Confessions of a JPG Shooter
"What I’m saying here is that there are times when it makes perfect sense to shoot in JPEG, depending on what you’re shooting. Remember, better shots than you and I will ever take in our lifetimes were taken in JPEG format long before their was a Raw format. It’s just a file format. Not a religion."

From Michael Furtman, Ducks Unlimited Photographer, The Real Truth About JPEG images.
"There’s one last myth about JPEG – that it doesn’t provide enough adjustment latitude for correction for professional work. Bunk. A JPEG file will give you at LEAST one full F-stop above and below proper exposure for correction purposes."

From Will Crockett, a colleague. Youtube Video Lecture
"But I need the digital Negative", is an over used excuse for not shooting jpg
 
kanabco said:
You are making a mistake with "No professional photographer" and it has clouded your reality. An open thinker would conclude that since some successful photographers shoot raw and some shoot jpg that an absolute like "no" is couching a hardened defensive opinion. Therefore I'm done.
Click to expand...

WTF why were you trying to change my mind? I think that RAW is by far the better format for professional photographers. And professional photographers agree.

If you google RAW vs JPEG you will not find any results that say that JPEG wins (well one must allow for fringe results). The majority say it is best to use the RAW file And we are talking about professional opinions not some guy on the internet making claims (like you).

All professional photographers edit their photos. They learned that if they use a jpeg file they cannot edit every aspect of the photo. So since all digital cameras start out with a RAW file before it is converted into jpeg format (or TIFF) they demanded that the camera should have a option for the RAW format.

But I guess that you didnt actually mean a open discussion like you offered me. What you meant was that you are are right and thats all you are going to listen too.
 
It is easy to find these pros who shoot jpgs... here are a few more:

From Gizmodo, "The Inside Story of How Olympic Photographers Get Such Stunning Images"
The second a [AP] photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds.

From The Online Photographer, Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw
"Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home. This made perfect sense years ago when the chef was still in school. But today many in-camera chefs are James Beard Award candidates. It's definitely time for a re-think."

From Ken Rockwell, JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time
"Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time instead of having to tweak them later. If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs."
 
KevinKohler said:
Course not. I set my color balance profile in camera, based on where I'm shooting, and then shoot .jpg. RAW files are for shots that I fully intend to muck around with in post production.
Click to expand...

You must not get paid for your wedding photography since you are not a pro (facetiousness in concert with one person in this thread who insists no pro would shoot jpgs)
 
FreedomFromAll said:
A lack of training is no excuse for using substandard formats that will make your work harder. It is like a recording studio using mp3 format just because they dont know any better..

When jpeg is used you lose certain information (in the file) that you cannot get back. Which is fine for the point and click/camera phone crowd.

Why do you think Adobe Lightroom exists? It is because your computer is much more powerful than the one in your camera, no matter what camera you have. It isnt a matter of making a RAW file look like any other format. RAW is a stage in photo editing. From there yes you can covert it to jpg or any other format that you please. But most professional photographers are not going to save their awesome photo to jpeg despite what the ISO thinks. The go to format is TIFF. The reason that RAW and TIFF exist is because of a things called compression artifacts. No professional photographer wants artifacts in their professional photos.

Dont let the word "Experts" confuse you, the word doesnt remove artifacts from the image.
Click to expand...

Depends on the profession, and where the end result is expected to be. Shooting a magazine cover for vogue? RAW file, saved as a tiff. Shooting an event, where the end result is a CD handed off to the customer, or just images uploaded for ordering? JPEG all the way. Even with batch automation, reformatting that many files is cumbersome, plus shooting raw eats up a lot of room on memory cards, especially at high megapixel counts.

And then there are the artistic types, fine arts. And they are still using film, because it's still better.
 
KevinKohler said:
And they are still using film
Click to expand...

As I have since 1958 high school photography class. Today I have a simple digital kit (canon DSLR) with a bevy of lenses but when I want to get extreme I have an old Yahsica Mat D. A few of my best Gallery hangs were drum scans of film delivered back to me as TIF file, post edited, and printed out with a top end giclee machine. In the end you must still be a photographer to take a good image however my computer allows me to play with it later.
 
kanabco said:
As I have since 1958 high school photography class. Today I have a simple digital kit (canon DSLR) with a bevy of lenses but when I want to get extreme I have an old Yahsica Mat D. A few of my best Gallery hangs were drum scans of film delivered back to me as TIF file, post edited, and printed out with a top end giclee machine. In the end you must still be a photographer to take a good image however my computer allows me to play with it later.
Click to expand...
Bleh.



Cannon.



Nikon, brah. LOL. But I'm the same. I have a Nikon dslr, which a use several old school Nikon lenses with...no through the lens metering, but the high quality glass more than makes up for it. And then for landscapes, I have a calumet 4x5, the end all be all in cameras, imo. But getting the film developed is a bitch.
 
KevinKohler said:
Depends on the profession, and where the end result is expected to be. Shooting a magazine cover for vogue? RAW file, saved as a tiff. Shooting an event, where the end result is a CD handed off to the customer, or just images uploaded for ordering? JPEG all the way. Even with batch automation, reformatting that many files is cumbersome, plus shooting raw eats up a lot of room on memory cards, especially at high megapixel counts.

And then there are the artistic types, fine arts. And they are still using film, because it's still better.
Click to expand...

I mentioned several times in posts that it depends on the level of work that you are doing.

Explain how film photographer is better? I mean it isnt better for the casual photography that you mentioned (ie CD's, uploads, space, etc). And there is a catch with film photography: There isnt a real big demand for photographs everything in the industry is virtually digital.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
I mentioned several times in posts that it depends on the level of work that you are doing.

Explain how film photographer is better? I mean it isnt better for the casual photography that you mentioned (ie CD's, uploads, space, etc). And there is a catch with film photography: There isnt a real big demand for photographs everything in the industry is virtually digital.
Click to expand...

Film is better because silver prints and color process prints are better than even the best ink jet. Only thing that can compare is an iris printer, and silver print is still better.

200 years from now, ansell Adams prints are going to be just fine, while that gyclee print will have turned green and cracked. And those ink jet prints have turned green and faded out worse than an old Polaroid.
 
KevinKohler said:
Film is better because silver prints and color process prints are better than even the best ink jet. Only thing that can compare is an iris printer, and silver print is still better.

200 years from now, ansell Adams prints are going to be just fine, while that gyclee print will have turned green and cracked. And those ink jet prints have turned green and faded out worse than an old Polaroid.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that film is better because of ink jets? Lets pretend that we only have ink jet printers for a sec; if the print starts going bad then print a new one.

When was the last time that you researched digital printing? I suspect its been a good decade (or two) ago that you did that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_printing

"Fine art – archival digital printing methods include real photo paper exposure prints and giclée prints on watercolor paper using pigment based inks."

While printing is very important, it isnt based in the camera that made the image. That is a separate technology.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
So you are saying that film is better because of ink jets? Lets pretend that we only have ink jet printers for a sec; if the print starts going bad then print a new one.

When was the last time that you researched digital printing? I suspect its been a good decade (or two) ago that you did that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_printing

"Fine art – archival digital printing methods include real photo paper exposure prints and giclée prints on watercolor paper using pigment based inks."

While printing is very important, it isnt based in the camera that made the image. That is a separate technology.
Click to expand...

What you're describing is an iris printer...it projects a digital image onto a piece of photo paper. And that is almost as good as making prints in the dark room. Iris printing is only as good as the lens that's used to project the image. If you grab a loup and compare print to print, especially on larger images on larger paper, film still wins. For now. I fully expect it to be surpassed.

But quality is just one reason why fine artists use film. There are other reasons, like rarity. A gallery print gets bid on not just because it's a pretty picture, but because an investor believes in the future or continued success of that artist. But they, like any invested or collector of anything, want to know that the item is limited. Without that, it's like collecting one dollar bills...pointless.

Artists will make 50 or less prints of something, then strike the neg, preventing future prints from it.

There are other reasons still, but basically, the value of true color process, and silver print, exceeds that of digital prints.
 
KevinKohler said:
What you're describing is an iris printer...it projects a digital image onto a piece of photo paper. And that is almost as good as making prints in the dark room. Iris printing is only as good as the lens that's used to project the image. If you grab a loup and compare print to print, especially on larger images on larger paper, film still wins. For now. I fully expect it to be surpassed.

But quality is just one reason why fine artists use film. There are other reasons, like rarity. A gallery print gets bid on not just because it's a pretty picture, but because an investor believes in the future or continued success of that artist. But they, like any invested or collector of anything, want to know that the item is limited. Without that, it's like collecting one dollar bills...pointless.

Artists will make 50 or less prints of something, then strike the neg, preventing future prints from it.

There are other reasons still, but basically, the value of true color process, and silver print, exceeds that of digital prints.
Click to expand...

You seem to be stuck on printing technology and not actual photography with a camera. Developing photos depends on lenses quality as well as materials etc.
Here i the deal though, you cannot prove on the internet that film is better. In order to show a print shot with a film camera you have to digitize the photo. And this topic is highly contested and opinionated. So when you tell me that looking at a photo print with a loup makes all the difference I take that with a grain of salt. I know nothing about the contested photos that you are talking about.

Yes there exists idiotic photographers that destroy their negatives seeking extra value. Of course most dont actually destroy their negatives. They might say they did but that is just marketing. I suppose one could also just say the deleted the file as well. Or you could just say that you are only going to print X amount. But then we are not talking about photography we are still just talking about prints and marketing them.

Oddly despite your affinity for film prints, by far modern professional photographers use digital cameras. The film camera is a relic that is only used by the eccentric photographer. In the fine art or just art world there will most likely always be a niche. Hell theres even a niche for pin hole cameras.
 
KevinKohler said:
But quality is just one reason why fine artists use film.
Click to expand...

If there is a contest I want to enter or if I'm called to shoot I bring out the Twin Lens medium format with Velvia for better resolution. I send the film to be developed and drum scanned, get back a CD with Tifs, and then adjust the image in Photoshop. But of course it has to be machine printed. I suppose one could say I blew the chance to blow it up in an enlarger but to be quite frank the dark room is truly too hard for me to master (and I have tried off and on my entire life). But fact remains film is the artist's choice if you want to display or sell.

addendum---
I am sure I can find a digital camera that approaches the resolution of medium format film, if not now, soon. But what for? $7000? why?
 
Last edited:
kanabco said:
If there is a contest I want to enter or if I'm called to shoot I bring out the Twin Lens medium format with Velvia for better resolution. I send the film to be developed and drum scanned, get back a CD with Tifs, and then adjust the image in Photoshop. But of course it has to be machine printed. I suppose one could say I blew the chance to blow it up in an enlarger but to be quite frank the dark room is truly too hard for me to master (and I have tried off and on my entire life). But fact remains film is the artist's choice if you want to display or sell.

addendum---
I am sure I can find a digital camera that approaches the resolution of medium format film, if not now, soon. But what for? $7000? why?
Click to expand...

Ignorance is bliss I guess.
 
watch
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Ignorance is bliss I guess.
Click to expand...

If one still believes that professionals like Getty and Associated Press do not shoot JPGS (as fully documented) then you should know.
 
Last edited:
FreedomFromAll said:
WTF why were you trying to change my mind? I think that RAW is by far the better format for professional photographers. And professional photographers agree.

If you google RAW vs JPEG you will not find any results that say that JPEG wins (well one must allow for fringe results). The majority say it is best to use the RAW file And we are talking about professional opinions not some guy on the internet making claims (like you).

All professional photographers edit their photos. They learned that if they use a jpeg file they cannot edit every aspect of the photo. So since all digital cameras start out with a RAW file before it is converted into jpeg format (or TIFF) they demanded that the camera should have a option for the RAW format.

But I guess that you didnt actually mean a open discussion like you offered me. What you meant was that you are are right and thats all you are going to listen too.
Click to expand...

What part of these links do you no understand?

From Adorama, Can You Shoot JPEGs That Rock Better Than RAW?
"If you take great care in metering and exposure, you will rarely, if ever, need to shoot RAW and you can avoid a lot of post-production time."

From Scott Kelby, noted sports photographer, Confessions of a JPG Shooter
"What I’m saying here is that there are times when it makes perfect sense to shoot in JPEG, depending on what you’re shooting. Remember, better shots than you and I will ever take in our lifetimes were taken in JPEG format long before their was a Raw format. It’s just a file format. Not a religion."

From Michael Furtman, Ducks Unlimited Photographer, The Real Truth About JPEG images.
"There’s one last myth about JPEG – that it doesn’t provide enough adjustment latitude for correction for professional work. Bunk. A JPEG file will give you at LEAST one full F-stop above and below proper exposure for correction purposes."

From Will Crockett, a colleague. Youtube Video Lecture
"But I need the digital Negative", is an over used excuse for not shooting jpg

From Gizmodo, "The Inside Story of How Olympic Photographers Get Such Stunning Images"
The second a [AP] photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds.

From The Online Photographer, Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw
"Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home. This made perfect sense years ago when the chef was still in school. But today many in-camera chefs are James Beard Award candidates. It's definitely time for a re-think."

From Ken Rockwell, JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time
"Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time instead of having to tweak them later. If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs."
 
kanabco said:
What part of these links do you no understand?

From Adorama, Can You Shoot JPEGs That Rock Better Than RAW?
"If you take great care in metering and exposure, you will rarely, if ever, need to shoot RAW and you can avoid a lot of post-production time."

From Scott Kelby, noted sports photographer, Confessions of a JPG Shooter
"What I’m saying here is that there are times when it makes perfect sense to shoot in JPEG, depending on what you’re shooting. Remember, better shots than you and I will ever take in our lifetimes were taken in JPEG format long before their was a Raw format. It’s just a file format. Not a religion."

From Michael Furtman, Ducks Unlimited Photographer, The Real Truth About JPEG images.
"There’s one last myth about JPEG – that it doesn’t provide enough adjustment latitude for correction for professional work. Bunk. A JPEG file will give you at LEAST one full F-stop above and below proper exposure for correction purposes."

From Will Crockett, a colleague. Youtube Video Lecture
"But I need the digital Negative", is an over used excuse for not shooting jpg

From Gizmodo, "The Inside Story of How Olympic Photographers Get Such Stunning Images"
The second a [AP] photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds.

From The Online Photographer, Ken Tanaka: Shooting JPEG Instead of Raw
"Using only Raw files from your camera is analogous to buying an uncooked meal from a fine restaurant, preferring to season and cook it at home. This made perfect sense years ago when the chef was still in school. But today many in-camera chefs are James Beard Award candidates. It's definitely time for a re-think."

From Ken Rockwell, JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time
"Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time instead of having to tweak them later. If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs."
Click to expand...

Then dont use RAW files if thats what you believe. Hell dont even use a digital camera if you dont want to.

But in the future dont bother PM'ing me asking if I will debate a topic, if you are not going to debate. Its obvious that your point was to attack digital photography.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Then dont use RAW files if thats what you believe. Hell dont even use a digital camera if you dont want to.

But in the future dont bother PM'ing me asking if I will debate a topic, if you are not going to debate. Its obvious that your point was to attack digital photography.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with what I shoot. It is epistemology. You don't need a Whitehead principia to prove 1+1=2 but, if someone is convinced 1+1=3, then it the duty of the thinking person to correct the unthinking one... and to do that without being pissy (ignorance is bliss... really?). The only thing I was attempting to do in starting this thread was to teach beginners who (as it turns out) were misguided by the things they didn't know about what they knew. That was going well until you took the position that ALL professional photographers shoot only RAW or never shoot JPG which I knew all along was incorrect. You were teaching them that 1+1=3. I am supposed to not break in and say, "umm.. not quite true"?

You are about to get into the same type of argument with Kevin about shooting film and I can provide dozens of links to prove that many pros are still using film and some digital pros are switching back to film.

By the way an educated thinking person would have agreed that some pros shot jpgs after reading that list.... at least one who had no problem with being wrong sometimes... and they would have said so.

"Its obvious that your point was to attack digital photography" which of course I never did... sigh

Suggested reading: The Republic... the part about the Oracle of Delphi
 
Last edited:
kanabco said:
This has nothing to do with what I shoot. It is epistemology. You don't need a Whitehead principia to prove 1+1=2 but, if someone is convinced 1+1=3, then it the duty of the thinking person to correct the unthinking one... and to do that without being pissy (ignorance is bliss... really?). The only thing I was attempting to do in starting this thread was to teach beginners who (as it turns out) were misguided by the things they didn't know about what they knew. That was going well until you took the position that ALL professional photographers shoot only RAW or never shoot JPG which I knew all along was incorrect. You were teaching them that 1+1=3. I am supposed to not break in and say, "umm.. not quite true"?

You are about to get into the same type of argument with Kevin about shooting film and I can provide dozens of links to prove that many pros are still using film and some digital pros are switching back to film.

By the way an educated thinking person would have agreed that some pros shot jpgs after reading that list.... at least one who had no problem with being wrong sometimes... and they would have said so.

"Its obvious that your point was to attack digital photography" which of course I never did... sigh

Suggested reading: The Republic... the part about the Oracle of Delphi
Click to expand...

Well you latched on to that point and seemed a bit too interested in it. I didnt expect you to get all but hurt over such a trivial thing. So your opinion is different than mine. That doesnt justify your childish foray.

Digital photography has replaced film photography except for a few stubborn regressive hold outs. I dont really care how many photographers go the extra mile and use RAW so that they can have more options. The fact is that the options are better with RAW as opposed to jpeg. Digital photography is less restricted than primitive analog photographic technologies. As the old fossil hold outs grow too old to mess with their old cameras, the younger crowd wont be keeping it going. Eventually it will die a deserved death. But until then a small market will persist until the old people die.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
The fact is that the options are better with RAW as opposed to jpeg. .
Click to expand...


There you go with your facts again. Do you now what a fact is? You have the facts and Getty Images does not? You have the facts and the Associated Press does not? The world is not black and white as you try to make it. Professional photographers of very high standing use neither file format exclusively. They USE BOTH when required.

U
S
E

B
O
T
H

But in the case of the Winter Olympics here is what Getty had to say

"The second a photographer fires the shutter on a camera, the resulting image—a high quality JPEG, not an uncompressed RAW file—is transported by ethernet to Getty's central editing office in about 1.5 seconds. There, a team of three editors processes the photo. The first selects the best image and crops it for composition; the second editor color corrects; and the third adds metadata. The whole editing process is done in 30-40 seconds. Once the last editor is done, the image is blasted to the world. It takes about 90 seconds for the images to travel over redundant 100 Mbit/s dedicated lines to Getty's data servers in the the United States."
 
Just for RAW worshipers
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom