Jpeg v Raw

[Ralph]

I shoot in JPEG only and it is the way I have been doing it since I picked up a my camera.
Some say oh no you should be shooting in RAW and leave JPEG's alone.
But you can post RAW images as you have to convert in back to a JPEG image.
So its sort of like double handling.

Now never doing this I am going by what I have seen and there is far more adjustments you can make to your shots of JPEGS.
For me I only think this and its if I was selling my shots I would change but I'm not.
And as far as I can see I am still getting okay comments one what I post which are JPEG's.
So why do or is there a good reason to change over to RAW.
Thank you to those who choose to reply to this.

 

[Reciprocum]

I shoot in JPEG only and it is the way I have been doing it since I picked up a my camera.
Some say oh no you should be shooting in RAW and leave JPEG's alone.
But you can post RAW images as you have to convert in back to a JPEG image.
So its sort of like double handling.

Now never doing this I am going by what I have seen and there is far more adjustments you can make to your shots of JPEGS.
For me I only think this and its if I was selling my shots I would change but I'm not.
And as far as I can see I am still getting okay comments one what I post which are JPEG's.
So why do or is there a good reason to change over to RAW.
Thank you to those who choose to reply to this.

The biggest ever improvement in IQ for me was not when I moved from a micro 4/3 12mpx sensor to a 24mpx FF sensor, it was when I moved from JPEG to RAW (and learned to edit those). You cannot compare the latitude of shadow recovery, color grading, noise reduction, de hazing, etc, that a 14bit deep RAW file allows compared to an 8bit deep JPEG file. Modern cameras have pretty decent built-in algorithms for producing in camera JPEGs, and if you only post then online in social media and those images are only viewed by people using smartphone screens then JPEGs are totally fine and don’t bother dealing with RAWs, but if you ever think of large prints and/or viewing your pics in large screens then you are loosing out quite a bit of your camera/sensor IQ potential.

Looking back on my image archives I often find precious family memories ruined by overexposed highlights and/or underexposed shadows, and always wish I was shooting RAW back then.

Oh, and you don’t have to do your final RAW conversions only to 8 bit JPEGs, you can export as TIFFs and soon as 10bit deep HEIFs too. Post your subsampled watermarked JPEGs, print your full-resolution TIFFs, archive your HEIFs, delete your RAWs.

For an audio analogy: if you only use sub-par headphones to listen to music you will never tell the difference between 128kbps MP3s (JPEGs) and 16 bit deep WAV files (RAWs), pick high-end phones and it will be painfull to hear anything less than 320kbps MP3s (HEIFs).

To illustrate the degree of salvaging that can be done with RAWs:
Sometimes we cannot have the luxury of shooting at golden hour or seeking shadow for defending against hard shadows cast by mid-day sunny conditions (plenty of those in Australia as well I am sure).
What would have been a toss able JPEG became one of my best pics after RAW editing.
And to paraphrase you, both pics bellow are JPEGs in the end, only not quite equally satisfying ones are they ? ;-)

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM (SEL135F18GM)
• 135.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/8000 sec
• ISO 50

• ILCE-7M3
• Sony FE 135mm F1.8 GM (SEL135F18GM)
• 135.0 mm
• ƒ/2
• 1/8000 sec
• ISO 50

Colour grading selected parts of the image is another thing that I take great advantage of while editing my RAWs (never used Photoshop im my life)

• ILCE-7M3
• Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1.8 ZA (SEL55F18Z)
• 55.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 64

• ILCE-7M3
• Zeiss Sonnar T* FE 55 mm F1.8 ZA (SEL55F18Z)
• 55.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/5000 sec
• ISO 64

 

[Ralph]

Good examples and makes me think. But do you have to spend more time in front of the computer.
As I have got a short attention span and get bored very quick even if I love the subject.

 

[Reciprocum]

Good examples and makes me think. But do you have to spend more time in front of the computer.
As I have got a short attention span and get bored very quick even if I love the subject.

Initially it is a steep learning curve to dominate your RAW editing software. with time you spend less and less time to achieve the desired results.

Just commit to spend some of your time (1h every other day should be enough) in a free trial period (CaptureOne gives you 30 days) to test the waters. But if you don't have at least a 24" monitor on your PC then forget about RAW editing.

 

[Ralph]

I only have got my 15.1 inch laptop which I use. Thanks for all the help.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Good examples and makes me think. But do you have to spend more time in front of the computer.
As I have got a short attention span and get bored very quick even if I love the subject.

Here’s my take on it: if your skill level is high enough that you can get the shot right in the camera (right exposure, right white balance, right ISO, and so on), then shooting just JPEG won’t lose you anything. I have heard tell that some of the best photo-journalists shoot JPEG-only all the time. They have the skills, and the experience.

I have complete certainty that I am not that good. I will get my white balance wrong. I will get my exposure wrong. Heck, I will get my focus wrong (but RAW won’t help me there!). In the heat of the moment, I can, and will, make mistakes. So I shoot RAW, where I have a better chance of rescuing a shot when I have made a mistake. I can set the white balance, I can push or pull the exposure, I can crop away my mistakes, ...

Yes, shooting RAW does mean taking more time at the computer. But I can take my time at the computer, without the pressure of “must set the right white balance before the bird flies away”. That suits me better, because I compensate for my ageing reflexes by taking my time over the processing. I find it soothing to work through a shoot and find a handful of shots that are worth spending time over.

There is no reason that you have to do the same as me!

If someone takes you to task over shooting JPEG, smile contentedly, and say “I get it right in camera”. If they are really annoying, add “Don’t you?”

 

[Alain]

I like shooting JPEG most of the time, and sometimes RAW when lighting is really difficult. I don't spend a lot of time in post. Part of the fun is to try to get the lighting right in camera. I'm just a hobbyist, so if I mess up a shoot nobody cares ;-) For BIF or airplanes where I shoot more high-speed bursts, JPEG is way easier on my disk space.

 

[pointreyes]

I used to shoot jpeg and raw. Now I just shoot raw. The raw files allow me to go back and see what else I can do with the images as my photographic journey evolves. Having the freedom of knowing that I can play with my images within the limits of the camera's raw files compared to the jpegs is for me rather important. But that is my freedom - yours is not having to do much post processing.

 

[asfodelo]

Hi everyone, I bought the A7III that I use together with the 200-600 sel for a few months,

I noticed that the compressed and uncompressed raw files have detailed JPEG files

extra-fine at 10 mb and 8 mb, while the 24 mb jpeg has a lower detail.

What can be the causes ??? Thank you

 

[Jeff A]

I find that editing my RAW files not only makes for a better photograph but it aids in training my eyes to know what to look for.

 

[pmenear]

You are in good company when shooting just jpegs as that is the professionals commercial/press/sport etc way of working because the time to process so many images is not economically viable. This method does not produce the best quality images possible but produces images good enough for the customer. If your jpegs are good enough for your purposes then keep doing it but if you want the best quality possible then shoot raw and spend the time post processing.

 

[AlphaWorld]

Hi everyone, I bought the A7III that I use together with the 200-600 sel for a few months,

I noticed that the compressed and uncompressed raw files have detailed JPEG files

extra-fine at 10 mb and 8 mb, while the 24 mb jpeg has a lower detail.

What can be the causes ??? Thank you

I do not know what you mean by this. Are you talking about the JPEGs embedded in the RAW files?

Are you processing the RAW files? What software are you using for the processing?

 

[Clix Pix]

I've been shooting RAW for many years and much prefer it, as it does give me the opportunity to see how I can correct an error I've made, other creative possibilities for presenting the image by cropping or converting to B&W or whatever. Sometimes I'd rather just be able to take the shots and have them magically all ready to show off instantly but I much prefer the additional control I have over my images when seated at the computer using an editing program.

There are many editing programs out there and after experimenting with various ones I am very happy with DXO PhotoLab 4, which seems to be intuitive and matches my thinking process. I also have Luminar AI, which I use for just quickie touchups or a fast edit if I'm in a hurry. Many years ago I used Photoshop but found it overkill for my simple processing needs -- I'm not into layers and complex retouching; I pretty much just do the basics: check the exposure, check the contrast level, add sharpening if needed, cropping if needed, maybe adjust the color levels if I want an image to really pop. Oh, and also I use DXO's excellent noise removal program, called Deep Prime, which is included in PhotoLab 4. Sometimes I've shot under poor lighting conditions and the ISO has really gone too high so it's good to clean up the noise as much as possible.

 

[Boojum]

I understand all the arguments in favor of raw files. They are valid. However when one considers where these photos will be displayed it is a moot point. Yes, you have a nice 30, 32 or 36 inch screen to edit the raw files with and enjoy them immensely when done. It is a real sense of accomplishment. How many other viewers will be able to appreciate the raw file compared to a JPG? You have a minuscule audience. So other than pleasing oneself it is a lot of work for nothing. Look what FB does to images. Flickr Pro leaves images untouched I believe. I only shoot JPG and they go up full sized. For the pure pleasure of editing them you cannot be faulted.

You could be out pursuing your other hobby of robbing banks. And robbing banks pays good money. Winters all paid for in Menorca. Lots of good pictures there and the time to edit them. ;o)

 

[Boojum]

The biggest ever improvement in IQ for me was not when I moved from a micro 4/3 12mpx sensor to a 24mpx FF sensor, it was when I moved from JPEG to RAW (and learned to edit those). You cannot compare the latitude of shadow recovery, color grading, noise reduction, de hazing, etc, that a 14bit deep RAW file allows compared to an 8bit deep JPEG file. Modern cameras have pretty decent built-in algorithms for producing in camera JPEGs, and if you only post then online in social media and those images are only viewed by people using smartphone screens then JPEGs are totally fine and don’t bother dealing with RAWs, but if you ever think of large prints and/or viewing your pics in large screens then you are loosing out quite a bit of your camera/sensor IQ potential.

Looking back on my image archives I often find precious family memories ruined by overexposed highlights and/or underexposed shadows, and always wish I was shooting RAW back then.

Oh, and you don’t have to do your final RAW conversions only to 8 bit JPEGs, you can export as TIFFs and soon as 10bit deep HEIFs too. Post your subsampled watermarked JPEGs, print your full-resolution TIFFs, archive your HEIFs, delete your RAWs.

For an audio analogy: if you only use sub-par headphones to listen to music you will never tell the difference between 128kbps MP3s (JPEGs) and 16 bit deep WAV files (RAWs), pick high-end phones and it will be painfull to hear anything less than 320kbps MP3s (HEIFs).

To illustrate the degree of salvaging that can be done with RAWs:
Sometimes we cannot have the luxury of shooting at golden hour or seeking shadow for defending against hard shadows cast by mid-day sunny conditions (plenty of those in Australia as well I am sure).
What would have been a toss able JPEG became one of my best pics after RAW editing.
And to paraphrase you, both pics bellow are JPEGs in the end, only not quite equally satisfying ones are they ? ;-)
View attachment 9124View attachment 9126

Colour grading selected parts of the image is another thing that I take great advantage of while editing my RAWs (never used Photoshop im my life)
View attachment 9128View attachment 9127

Your edits are wonderful. Have you ever shot both raw and JPG together and compared your edited result against the camera's? That child is as cute as a button. I am sure she is a real joy.

 

[Alan Clark]

With an 8 bit jpeg there are 256 levels of brightness. 128 of these cover the top stop of exposure, 64 cover the second stop, 32 for the third stop, and so on. The fifth stop only has 8 levels.
So, if you need to lighten the shadows these few levels will move further apart and give poor quality in the shadows. With a raw file there are more bits and so there are many more levels which are much closer together and can therefore be stretched with far less loss of quality.
If the original jpeg is correctly exposed and needs no adjustment then the raw file serves no purpose, it cannot give better image quality. The raw file is only useful if the photo needs adjustment, for example if it is underexposed or the contrast needs adjustment.

 

[Reciprocum]

Your edits are wonderful. Have you ever shot both raw and JPG together and compared your edited result against the camera's? That child is as cute as a button. I am sure she is a real joy.

Unless it is a wedding (in which case is RAW+RAW) I always shoot RAW+JPEG, but because (with A7M3) slot-2 is slower than slot-1 and I don't want to be choked by slot-2 I always set JPEG to low res low quality (which makes it undeliverable, just good for culling/selection purpouses). I have tried a few times to go RAW+JEPG high quality but I shoot often with highlights meetering (because I know DR on RAWs will allow me to pull shadows in post without blowing the highlights) so the JPEGs end up being too dark/underexposed most of the time anyway.

Now with the A1 both slots are equally fast and the worst JPEG quality is still 12mpx so, if it is a sports session, I do ask my client to bring a laptop and let him/her have the JPEGs at the end of the session even before returning to the studio for post. This way I kinda delegate on them the culling/selection workload ;-) , and they also get to appreciate the gains/value of post because they have the originals to compare to, and they are also happy to keep more images than the contracted edited quantity.

As for my little model she is the main reason I got serious about photography in the first place

 

[Boojum]

Unless it is a wedding (in which case is RAW+RAW) I always shoot RAW+JPEG, but because (with A7M3) slot-2 is slower than slot-1 and I don't want to be choked by slot-2 I always set JPEG to low res low quality (which makes it undeliverable, just good for culling/selection purpouses). I have tried a few times to go RAW+JEPG high quality but I shoot often with highlights meetering (because I know DR on RAWs will allow me to pull shadows in post without blowing the highlights) so the JPEGs end up being too dark/underexposed most of the time anyway.

Now with the A1 both slots are equally fast and the worst JPEG quality is still 12mpx so, if it is a sports session, I do ask my client to bring a laptop and let him/her have the JPEGs at the end of the session even before returning to the studio for post. This way I kinda delegate on them the culling/selection workload ;-) , and they also get to appreciate the gains/value of post because they have the originals to compare to, and they are also happy to keep more images than the contracted edited quantity.

As for my little model she is the main reason I got serious about photography in the first place

View attachment 12726View attachment 12727View attachment 12728View attachment 12729View attachment 12730View attachment 12731View attachment 12732View attachment 12733View attachment 12734View attachment 12735View attachment 12736View attachment 12737View attachment 12738

I understand now what you are doing with raw and JPG.

Daddy's not proud of that little cutie. LOL She is precious. She will be breaking hearts in ten years or so. You are a lucky fellow to have her. Boa sorte.

 

[Jeff A]

I'm 10 months into my "Photography career" (it's humor, OK?) and I shoot in JPEG and RAW. When I get back from a shoot, I can't wait to look and you can't see much in a RAW image. Secondly, POST Processing is a talent that I want to learn. I enjoy it. I also believe it is a learning tool and I have a lot to learn. To each his own, as they say.

 

[Boojum]

I'm 10 months into my "Photography career" (it's humor, OK?) and I shoot in JPEG and RAW. When I get back from a shoot, I can't wait to look and you can't see much in a RAW image. Secondly, POST Processing is a talent that I want to learn. I enjoy it. I also believe it is a learning tool and I have a lot to learn. To each his own, as they say.

I understand the what and why of what you are doing. It is just not something that interests me. I kind of think of Zeno's Paradox. You will get closer to the goal with RAW, maybe, but it's a lot of effort for just a little gain. I've got a few editors on the Linux side of the house and a few on W10. But for me it is almost as bad as having my appendix taken out by a wild dog. OTOH I should sharpen what I can do to make the Leica CMOS (M240) sensor look a lot more like the Leica CCD (M8.2 and M9) sensor. But, you know, the CMOS sensor does look pretty good. These kind of endeavo(u)rs verge on the Medieval firestorms over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Three if you must know. ;o)

Here is an example of the sensor differences of four cameras, two Leicas, a Pentax and a Sony A7M II. https://flickr.com/photos/sandynoyes/albums/72157716739415061/with/50563694458/ All are out of the camera JPG's

 

[AlphaWorld]

I understand all the arguments in favor of raw files. They are valid. However when one considers where these photos will be displayed it is a moot point. Yes, you have a nice 30, 32 or 36 inch screen to edit the raw files with and enjoy them immensely when done. It is a real sense of accomplishment. How many other viewers will be able to appreciate the raw file compared to a JPG? You have a minuscule audience. So other than pleasing oneself it is a lot of work for nothing. Look what FB does to images. Flickr Pro leaves images untouched I believe. I only shoot JPG and the go up full sized. For the pure pleasure of editing them you cannot be faulted.

You could be out pursuing your other hobby of robbing banks. And robbing banks pays good money. Winters all paid for in Menorca. Lots of good pictures there and the time to edit them. ;o)

8k screens are already here, and they tend to come in large sizes (65" is a small one). An 8k screen is around 33 million pixels, and all of them I've seen support HDR, so at least 10 bit colour, sometimes 12.

Imagine a carousel of your images up on an 8k screen. The tech is already available, and the price is dropping. These screens are getting really thin, too, so wall-mount is entirely practical.

So the ongoing "oh, but people will only ever see your images on a phone or a laptop" - nope.

 

[liggy]

lol... "appendix taken out by a wild dog".

When I'm shooting everday stuff I tend to only shoot jpeg. If it's serious or for someone else or a once in a lifetime opportunity I'll shoot RAW+JPEG.
Good point @Jeff A - I should definitely improve my post skills. I just don't find it fun at all.

Trying to "get it right in camera" is more entertaining / challenging / satisfying but clearly post skills are essential in this endeavor.

 

[Boojum]

8k screens are already here, and they tend to come in large sizes (65" is a small one). An 8k screen is around 33 million pixels, and all of them I've seen support HDR, so at least 10 bit colour, sometimes 12.

Imagine a carousel of your images up on an 8k screen. The tech is already available, and the price is dropping. These screens are getting really thin, too, so wall-mount is entirely practical.

So the ongoing "oh, but people will only ever see your images on a phone or a laptop" - nope.

The 8K screens are here, yes. At US$100+ an inch they will not be common for a long while. Some sell for more than cars, like an LG 77 for US$20K. Prices in the camera world are really strange, by that I mean high. And the high prices shrink the market. Not my problem, though. 8K is here, yes. But outside of a narrow market I do not think a big seller. The average guy is just not that interested. The consumer end for curved screens was a bust and I do not see folks walking out of Costco with too many 8K TV's either. The global pandemic has caused an economic slowing. Not everyone has a lot of disposable income. I do hope they come down to less than the price of an automobile. And then there is the problem of color accuracy.

I may just go out and get a box Brownie. LOL

 

[Jeff A]

I understand the what and why of what you are doing. It is just not something that interests me. I kind of think of Zeno's Paradox. You will get closer to the goal with RAW, maybe, but it's a lot of effort for just a little gain. I've got a few editors on the Linux side of the house and a few on W10. But for me it is almost as bad as having my appendix taken out by a wild dog. OTOH I should sharpen what I can do to make the Leica CMOS (M240) sensor look a lot more like the Leica CCD (M8.2 and M9) sensor. But, you know, the CMOS sensor does look pretty good. These kind of endeavo(u)rs verge on the Medieval firestorms over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Three if you must know. ;o)

Here is an example of the sensor differences of four cameras, two Leicas, a Pentax and a Sony A7M II. https://flickr.com/photos/sandynoyes/albums/72157716739415061/with/50563694458/ All are out of the camera JPG's

And all are good. I wonder what I would have thought with a Blind taste test. I too have the Sony 55. I read about this lens many times before I bought my camera. I did order it with my camera order.

 

[Jeff A]

lol... "appendix taken out by a wild dog".

When I'm shooting everday stuff I tend to only shoot jpeg. If it's serious or for someone else or a once in a lifetime opportunity I'll shoot RAW+JPEG.
Good point @Jeff A - I should definitely improve my post skills. I just don't find it fun at all.

Trying to "get it right in camera" is more entertaining / challenging / satisfying but clearly post skills are essential in this endeavor.

I agree. I had a Mentor here on the Forum and he would get on my ass and say to have everything set correctly before you expose the shot. I need to work on this skill..

 

[AlphaWorld]

The 8K screens are here, yes. At US$100+ an inch they will not be common for a long while. Some sell for more than cars, like an LG 77 for US$20K. Prices in the camera world are really strange, by that I mean high. And the high prices shrink the market. Not my problem, though. 8K is here, yes. But outside of a narrow market I do not think a big seller. The average guy is just not that interested. The consumer end for curved screens was a bust and I do not see folks walking out of Costco with too many 8K TV's either. The global pandemic has caused an economic slowing. Not everyone has a lot of disposable income. I do hope they come down to less than the price of an automobile. And then there is the problem of color accuracy.

I may just go out and get a box Brownie. LOL

The first 8k TV I saw an article about was more like $1000 per inch! There are already 8k TVs at under $50 per inch (65 inch at just over $3000, and that's not US$, either). I am surprised at how quickly they are coming, but then, I was surprised how quickly 4k became mainstream. Oh, I just found a US page showing Bestbuy offering a 55" 8k TV (Samsung) for US$1799... That's a lot cheaper than a car

The tech is available today, so the mantra "your images will only even be seen at 1000 pixels wide" is no longer credible. Heck, even the MacBook Pro 16" 2019 has a screen 3072 pixels wide.

 

[Boojum]

The first 8k TV I saw an article about was more like $1000 per inch! There are already 8k TVs at under $50 per inch (65 inch at just over $3000, and that's not US$, either). I am surprised at how quickly they are coming, but then, I was surprised how quickly 4k became mainstream. Oh, I just found a US page showing Bestbuy offering a 55" 8k TV (Samsung) for US$1799... That's a lot cheaper than a car

The tech is available today, so the mantra "your images will only even be seen at 1000 pixels wide" is no longer credible. Heck, even the MacBook Pro 16" 2019 has a screen 3072 pixels wide.

I love being quoted. But if your are going to do it do not misquote me. I never said that "your images will only even be seen at 1000 pixels wide" and a screen at US$20,000, that is more expensive than many cars. NB, I did not say all cars. You may think that US$3,000 is a fine price for a screen to view your photos on but I still believe you are in a distinct minority. You may also think that spending US$3K or US$4K on a camera and lens is just fine but the vast majority do not. This board is not an accurate summation of the real world. It is a collection of folks who willingly spend a lot of money to take photos. Other folks spend that money on boats, cars, guns, planes, travel, education and so on.

Here are some figures:

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Photographers use their technical expertise, creativity, and composition skills to produce and preserve images.

www.bls.gov

The Statistics of Collecting and Hobbies –the DEMOGRAPHICS

Who spends what? Do men or women spend more? How old? What hobbies? Find some of the answers here. And what I don't know, I make up.

home-museum.com

Most popular hobbies & activities in the U.S. 2023 | Statista

"Cooking / baking" and "Reading" are the top two answers among U.S.

www.statista.com

You will see that hobby photography is not much mentioned if at all. Subtract from that group the subset willing to go US10K+ for camera and screen and it will hardly fill a phone booth. Well, OK, more than a phone booth but still not a lot of people. They will not drive the market for 8K screens but they will use them as a specialized subset of screen viewers. Then add in software and accessories. Even smaller group. Let's face it, how much is being broadcast in 8K? Yeah, close your eyes and tell me what you see. And streaming is often compressed. I would assume that is why they all do upscaling, making it look like 8K. I think that the 8K screens may be out there but suspect that they will suffer the same fate as curved screens. A lot of money for a dubious gain. And there will be a consequential fall from favor, just like the curved screens. Of course I could be entirely wrong. It has happened more than once. Time will tell.


Later addition: I started poking around after seeing a "famous" bird photographers video on his tips. I noticed what screen he is using: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1650164-REG/eizo_coloredge_cg319x_31_1_monitor.html/overview

His tips, BTW, included shooting at a way higher ISO. Noise can be fixed in post, out of focus can never be fixed.

 

[Jeff A]

I love being quoted. But if your are going to do it do not misquote me. I never said that "your images will only even be seen at 1000 pixels wide" and a screen at US$20,000, that is more expensive than many cars. NB, I did not say all cars. You may think that US$3,000 is a fine price for a screen to view your photos on but I still believe you are in a distinct minority. You may also think that spending US$3K or US$4K on a camera and lens is just fine but the vast majority do not. This board is not an accurate summation of the real world. It is a collection of folks who willingly spend a lot of money to take photos. Other folks spend that money on boats, cars, guns, planes, travel, education and so on.

Here are some figures:

Photographers : Occupational Outlook Handbook: : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Photographers use their technical expertise, creativity, and composition skills to produce and preserve images.

www.bls.gov

The Statistics of Collecting and Hobbies –the DEMOGRAPHICS

Who spends what? Do men or women spend more? How old? What hobbies? Find some of the answers here. And what I don't know, I make up.

home-museum.com

Most popular hobbies & activities in the U.S. 2023 | Statista

"Cooking / baking" and "Reading" are the top two answers among U.S.

www.statista.com

You will see that hobby photography is not much mentioned if at all. Subtract from that group the subset willing to go US10K+ for camera and screen and it will hardly fill a phone booth. Well, OK, more than a phone booth but still not a lot of people. They will not drive the market for 8K screens but they will use them as a specialized subset of screen viewers. Then add in software and accessories. Even smaller group. Let's face it, how much is being broadcast in 8K? Yeah, close your eyes and tell me what you see. And streaming is often compressed. I would assume that is why they all do upscaling, making it look like 8K. I think that the 8K screens may be out there but suspect that they will suffer the same fate as curved screens. A lot of money for a dubious gain. And there will be a consequential fall from favor, just like the curved screens. Of course I could be entirely wrong. It has happened more than once. Time will tell.


Later addition: I started poking around after seeing a "famous" bird photographers video on his tips. I noticed what screen he is using: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1650164-REG/eizo_coloredge_cg319x_31_1_monitor.html/overview

His tips, BTW, included shooting at a way higher ISO. Noise can be fixed in post, out of focus can never be fixed.

"Noise can be fixed in post, out of focus can never be fixed." This is a great quote.

 

[MikeInMI]

If you nail white balance and exposure most of the time, then JPG will give you great results. But I like having the flexibility that Raw gives me to improve my photo when I don’t nail those two in camera.

 

[Boojum]

If you nail white balance and exposure most of the time, then JPG will give you great results. But I like having the flexibility that Raw gives me to improve my photo when I don’t nail those two in camera.

I leave it all up to the camera. Likewise with HDR. That's all done in-camera, too. I understand the interest in creative control but it is not an interest I share. I am content to let Sony do all that work for me. As usual, YMMV.