Challenge Your Approach to Photography by Ripping Up These Common Beliefs

Challenge Your Approach to Photography by Ripping Up These Common Beliefs

There are four interrelated ideas that some photographers create a song and dance about. However, for most photography, you can forget them and adopt a different approach.

Forget Shooting Raw, Choose JPEG Instead

For me, the most important part of photography is getting out and shooting pictures. Being in the natural environment, experiencing a golden dawn, capturing images of wildlife, or setting up a huge softbox and photographing people brings me more joy than the finished product. I do like the photos, but I enjoy taking them more. Like many others, I don’t relish the bit in front of the computer, culling the images and developing those I intend to keep.

Something happened recently that took me pleasantly by surprise. I was testing a new camera before the various programs I use had updated their ability to handle the raw files. Consequently, I had it set to shoot raw + JPEG. It was liberating opening the JPEGs and discovering I didn’t need to do anything to them. They were perfectly okay as they were.

I often tell others that one of the best photographers I know only shoots JPEG, and I hadn’t questioned why I don’t do it more. For most of my photography, it would be a perfectly acceptable approach, as I really like the colors and tones my camera delivers. Of course, in a commercial setting, I am likely to still shoot raw. Plus, when there's very low light and I want to take advantage of AI noise reduction, then I would choose raw. But there is a very good argument at other times, to switch the camera over to shooting JPEGs.

It will certainly make me even more fussy about the composition and exposure settings before I press the shutter, ensuring everything is absolutely right in the camera before I take the shot. Consequently, shooting JPEGs will save me lots of time in front of the computer screen.

Are you brave enough to tear up the common misbeliefs about photography? Although shooting JPEGS is okay much of the time, there are times when raw is essential, such as photographing this eagle in low light.

Don't Bother Calibrating Your Screen Most of the Time

This morning, a client asked me if I sell my photos. I do, and people buy them. But it’s not something I actively promote. Of course, when I shoot weddings, events, and so forth, the client is invariably paying for prints. Then I must go through the whole rigmarole of calibrating my screens. When I put images to sell on my website shop, I need to do the same. So, out comes the Datacolor Spyder X2, and my screens are calibrated.

However, what about when I am just sharing an image on Instagram? Then, most people who are looking at the image haven’t got their screen calibrated. Everyone else’s phone and computer screens can vary in brightness, contrast, color saturation, and hue. Therefore, how my photo appears to them might be very different from how I see it.

So, no matter how carefully you adjust the colors and tones on your screen, no two people are going to see the same thing. More so because we know people see things differently. Women and men perceive colors differently, with women seeing the world in warmer colors than men and better able to distinguish between shades of red. Meanwhile, men are more likely to make out objects in scenes with poor contrast but are more prone to color blindness; about 8% of men have some form of color perception deficiency.

Furthermore, if you have had a cataract operation, you may have a superpower. There is a good chance that you can see a wider spectrum of colors that others cannot. You possibly even have vision capable of seeing into the ultraviolet after the operation.

Although in some circumstances screen calibration is necessary, for example, if you intend to print, for many photographers it’s an unnecessary waste of time.

I only calibrate my screen when it is necessary.

A Bigger Sensor Doesn't Mean Better Photos

I shoot with an OM-1 Mark II, which is a Micro Four Thirds camera. It has a smaller sensor than you will find in a 35mm camera. If you put a 300mm lens on each camera, mine will appear to be zoomed in a lot more. Effectively, this means my camera has twice the reach, i.e., a 600mm equivalent field of view. That smaller sensor also means that the lens can be smaller and lighter than its 35mm equivalents.

This isn’t the whole story, though. My camera is just over 20 megapixels. If you put that 300mm lens on an 80-megapixel camera and cropped the image down to 20 megapixels, you would have approximately the same image resolution. Or you could put a 600mm lens on that 80-megapixel 35mm camera and get the same field of view.

That sounds ideal. But with everything in photography, there is a compromise to be made. The Sony FE 600mm f/4 OSS G Master Full Frame E-mount Lens costs just shy of $13,000 and weighs 6.7 lbs. The Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS III USM lens costs the same. Meanwhile, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 600mm f/4E FL ED VR lens is about $700 less.

Meanwhile, the OM System M.Zuiko Digital ED 300mm f/4 IS PRO lens, which gives the same reach and allows the same shutter speed as those above, is just under $2,800, less than a quarter of the cost, and weighs only 3.25 lbs.

They are all excellent lenses.

However, all that information only really matters if you are considering buying a different camera system. Most who are reading this article will have already chosen their brand and, unless you are thinking about changing, and there can be reasons for doing so, then all that matters is how a lens performs on the camera you use.

It makes no difference to me that a so-called full frame camera lens 150-400mm lens has half the reach of my 150-400mm f/4.5 lens. All I am interested in is how my camera works for me and whether it gives me the results I want; it does. I am sure those who own other brand equivalents of that lens will think similarly.

Similarly, the often touted and misinformed argument that a, say, 50mm lens is “better” than the same length lens on an MFT camera because there is a shallower apparent depth of field is of no interest. It makes no difference to an OM System or Lumix owner how a particular focal length and lens brightness work on a 35mm-sensor camera because they just shoot with the lenses and focusing distance to get the effect they want.

Furthermore, the word “better” is subjective. It is a common mistake that many photographers make to shoot with too shallow a depth of field. “Differently” would be a more objective term.

I defy you to tell me whether I shot this photo with my friend's R5, a collegue's A7 RIV or my OM-1. The number of megapixels makes no dofference when you post images online.

Forget Huge Pixel Counts

The never-ending promotion of more pixels has been going on since the birth of digital photography. But I think it is something most photographers shouldn’t be bothered with anymore.

As for the 80-megapixel camera I mentioned earlier, unless you count the sensor shift technology in the OM System cameras that make huge composite images, they don’t exist in any of the small formats from 35mm downwards. The Canon R5 (RRP $3,399) is just over halfway there at 45 megapixels, the Nikon Z8 (RRP $3,996.95) has 45.7 megapixels, and the Sony a7R IV  ($3,198) is 61 MP. The OM-1 Mark II (RRP $2,399) is 20.4 megapixels. Does that matter?

The answer to that is another question. What do you do with your pictures? I sometimes print mine, but most of them end up solely online. On Instagram, the images are under 0.7 megapixels in size. When I do put the images on paper, it’s rarely bigger than A3. According to B&H's resolution chart, I need just eight megapixels for that to produce a photo-quality print. A 20” x 30” print only requires 10 megapixels.

A slightly more accurate way of calculating the size of the print is using the following formulas to calculate the maximum size of a print.

Width in Inches = √ ((aspect ratio×megapixels×1000000)/ resolution) Height in Inches = √ ((megapixels×1,000,000)/(aspect ratio×resolution) )

If mathematics isn’t your thing and if you are interested, then the Megapixel To Print Size Converter is worth a look. Interesting though it is, the results are approximate values. The actual print size will vary depending on the camera settings and the quality of the printer.

What is more, when a large picture is printed, usually the audience stands back to see it. In that way, they appreciate the entire picture. If they don’t step back, perhaps you should encourage them to do so. Firstly, many photographers find it insulting when people stand too close; it’s as if they are checking whether the picture is good enough and thus doubting the photographer’s skills. Moreover, photographers are presenting a complete work of art and not a cropped snippet of it, which is all they will see if they are too close. Also, by standing back, they are not breathing moisture and bacteria onto the print's emulsion, nor are they tempted to touch it with their greasy fingers.

When the viewer stands back, a lower resolution than the usual 300 dots per inch is possible because of the limitations of the viewer’s eyes. Consequently, a print can be made at a lower resolution, and therefore larger.

For me, the only significant difference in a larger pixel count is far bigger file sizes. That's not an advantage at all.

What Do You Think?

Some of these are old discussions that many will be familiar with, while for newer photographers they are topics well worth considering if they want to break away from the mundane way of producing photos.

Are you brave enough to shoot JPEGs? Do you photograph with a smaller sensor camera and are more than happy with the results? Do you not bother calibrating your screen every day? Are you obsessed with large pixel counts, or do you think of it as just a means of attracting people to buy cameras? I’ll be interested in hearing your views in the comments.

Ivor Rackham's picture

Earning a living as a photographer, website developer, and writer and Based in the North East of England, much of Ivor's work is training others; helping people become better photographers. He has a special interest in supporting people with their mental well-being through photography. In 2023 he became a brand ambassador for the OM System

Log in or register to post comments

I believe this article generalises far to much, and is pretty much aligned with the authors usage.

Not all photography and photographic subjects can be delt with by using out of camera JPEG. In my case, my Architectural photography often needs a lot of dodging and burning in Capture one, as well as 3 frame HDR combinations, to have detail in the deep shadow areas, and detail in the window areas. Quality is maintained by using a Raw file manipulated with non destructive PP. I find most of my photographs benefit from a little dodging and burning in post.

I also take issue with the authors views on M43. I used this system for several years, and I am well acquainted with its advantages and defects. Sure M43 is great if you are using long lenses a lot, as the weight advantage is real. But if you do not use long lenses over 200mm (35mm format), I see no real advantage, My Olympus 7-14 was a beast of a lens, heavier than my Nikon Z14-35.

The better tonal and and colour transitons of a FF sensor are markedly better than what a M43 sensor can offer. I was shocked just how much more file manipulation I could do on my Z7 files, before they became noticeable, compared to M43. Even my obsolete D700 did much better than my EM5. A Nikon Z6 will cost you less than an OM1 and €500 more than a OM5. For general photography the Z6 is a far superior choice. The Z5 is very closely priced to the OM5.

But again it depends on what you shoot, maybe your subjects do not need subtle colour and tonal transitions. maybe you just want an EM10 with a small lens to fit in a jacket pocket. Or maybe you need the better image quality that a FF or MF sensor offers.

A recent article by T Hogan tries to counter the wasted MP argument. Basically having more data to work with produces better pictures even at small print sizes.

Thanks for the comment. I did start by saying this is for most photography, which implies not all photography. Most photography is carried out by amateurs posting to social media, so I stand by what I said. I also pointed out there were exceptions. As with all photography articles, there will always be exceptions. No opinion piece is supposed to be taken as universally applicable.

Simpllified lens comparisons can be misleading because they lack many of the facts that readers might want to take into account.

That 14-35 is a good lens, but it's only an f/4, isn't it? I haven't handled one for a while, but I am pretty sure it's also partly plastic construction. If so, it's bound to be smaller and lighter than the f/2.8 all metal, 7-14mm OM System lens. Both claim weather-sealing, but the OM System lens is IP53 rated, whereas the Nikkor has no certification. The Nikkor has 14 elements in 12 groups and the OM System lens has 16 elements in 10 groups.

They are completely different lenses and so each should be appreciated on its own merits and whether it suits the needs of a particular photographer. I don't think it makes one universally better or worse than the other.

For nighttime shooting in the wilds, which is what I mainly use the lens for, I would always choose the OM System 7-14 lens over the Nikkor because it lets in double the light. The Nikkor would not be as good for that. However, for your purposes, it's probably ideal. Although, I am in the process of selling my house and supplied my photos to the estate agent and I was using my 7-14. After seeing them, she subsequently switched to the OM System.

Similarly, with cameras, the Nikon range is great. However, judging by the comments by Nikon shooters on articles, slower focussing on wildlife. The colour reproduction seems to be upsetting a lot of photographers compared to the older DSLRs. They also lack many of the computational features of the OM-1. For example, they can't shoot 14-bit, 80-megapixel images, and it cannot maintain a fixed exposure with an open shutter while only adding new light to it. The Z6 only has 5 stops of image stabilisation as opposed to 8.5.

As for better tonal and colour transitions, I think that's subjective. Someone made a similar argument with me recently so a few of us got together and photographed the same scene. We printed them and presented them to others, telling them to guess which camera took the pictures. They couldn't.

So, what you claim is a superior choice I could easily argue isn't. Don't get me wrong, the Z6 is a superb camera and I am sure you are happy with it as are many people. If I were forced to move away from the OM System, Nikon would be my third choice, just behind Fujifilm, which would be my second for several reasons. But comparing them on limited criteria isn't an accurate way of assessing whether a camera is a better choice for everyone. Doing so really is too much of a generalisation.

Thanks again for the comment. It's always interesting to hear a different opinion.

Actually the Nikon Z14-30 is part of their premium S line, so the accusation of plasticky construction is not really fair. I own this lens and do not find it lacking in quality. BTW. there are very valid plastic materials that often have advantages over metal.

Yes, it is F4, but a 135 format sensor has about two stops less noise than a M43 sensor. At F2.8 the Olympus 7-14 is the equivalent to an F5.6, if we are talking about DoF. So on paper the Nikon will produce less noisy images. I have done the comparisons myself with the two systems.

Weather sealing may be valuable to some, but I tend to avoid soaking my camera gear and myself with water in torrential rain. I like sunny days or dry interiors for my photography, and found this to be true. I do mostly Architectural photography, so weather is not a problem as photographing exteriors on a rainy day is pointless. Weather sealing is of no consequence to me.

I find that Raw processors produce very different colour palets with the same Raw file. I have not much negativity concerning Nikon colours, but the trick is to find the best Raw program.

I have a certain geological feature near to home. It is a strange sandstone formation, with very subtle colouring. Whereas my Z7 can separate the subtle colours, quite well, my M43 camera struggled. The Better tonal and colour transitions that a 135 sensor or even better a MF sensor can distinguish are a technical fact, often very visible in two photographs, side by side.

I am not saying one system is better than another. All systems are trade-offs. The ability to have lighter smaller long lenses with the OM system comes with the poorer image quality trade-off.

I didn't say it was plasticky, I said it was partly plastic, there's a big difference. Thanks for confirming that.

I am glad you agree about the situation with different cameras. I am often shooting on a sea-sprayed beach and in precipitation. Clearly, that's an advantage you don't need.

I do disagree with your poorer image quality trade-off. But you are entitled to your opinion.

There's 1.6 EV difference in dynamic range (and thus noise), and not 2 steps as you state. That is an advantage, but for most photography, it makes no difference. I can quite happily shoot at ISO 12,800 with no issues, but I rarely need to go ven that high. Moreover, there are fabulous noise reduction programs out there and so noise control has become a non-issue for MFT users.

Yes, raw processing depends upon the software you use. However, there is a big difference between the Z series and the D series files, especially the jpegs. There's a great deal of disappointment being vocalised about the former in comparison to the latter. But, it is of course subjective.

As for the lenses, you are incorrect about the equivalent, as it only tells a small part of the story. If you put an f/2.8 lens on your camera, and one on mine, at the same ISO they would have exactly the same shutter speed. The only difference would be the apparent depth of field, although not the actual depth of field as some suggest because that is based upon the myth of lens compression. That greater apparent DoF on MFT cameras is an advantage in many situations. If you cropped your frame down to the same field of view as the same length of lens on an MFT camera, it would have (about) the same, although the formula is more complex than many people would have you believe. There's not a direct correlation.

Furthermore, if you put the same length of lens on both cameras and cropped the Z6's frame down to the same size as the OM-1's frame, you would only have 6.1 megapixels, not enough to print A3. But, where I need that extra length, you don't.

For every advantage of a system, there is an equal and opposite disadvantage. Neither is better or worse, just different.

Once, I was thinking of shooting raw + jpg, then just use jpg if it's good enough but still keep the raws just in case. However, I often shoot in tricky lighting scenarios so I need the power of raw. More often than not, I actually like the rendered jpgs as a base and wished Capture One could mimic it. And, I don't want to have to deal with two sets of files. My solution is I just created a preset I could apply to my raws to get them close to the jpg look. Then, tweak as necessary or leave as is if I just need something fast and dirty.

To me, monitor calibration from time to time is a must:

1. Numero uno, for my own viewing pleasure. Besides ridding of the color cast, correcting colors, and for consistency, it has a deeper tonality. It has deeper blacks/shadows without crushing them.

2. Setting a base. Even though the images may look different in other viewer's devices, unless their devices are whacked, it shouldn't deviate too much from the intended look.

Yes, I absolutely agree that there are always exceptions. That's interesting what you say about Capture One and the JPEGs from your camera. I guess you have tried other software because they all produce different results with different camera brands. I like my camera's JPEGs too, but get the best results from DxO PhotoLab, although a lot of my fellow OM System shooters swear by the same as you.

I have three smartphones, two Xiaomi and one Samsung. They all render pictures completely differently from each other. I do regularly calibrate my screens, especially when printing or about to give a lecture using a calibrated display, but I sometimes wonder why I bother most of the time.

Thank you for the great comment.

This is a good article. In the studio we use medium-format cameras and we don't bother with full frame cameras because there is too much of a compromise. Yes, between micro 4/3 and full frame the difference is so small it makes little difference. So out of the studio I now use an OM1 because my Canon R5 fell to bits. I think canon has a big quality control issue as I'm not the only one. There was an article about it here wasn't there? I had a problem with the Canon 5D IV before. Apart from the frame's shape, in most photos you can't tell. I tried Sony but the jpeg pictures looked flat. Jpegs should be good enough for most photography, not all, as the writer says. And at home I only calibrate my screen once in a while. In the studio we do them all the time.

Thanks, Tessa for taking the time to comment. I think I remember you mentioning this before. Like you, I photograph professionally, although not in a studio so much. But I also like to just go for a walk with my camera. I am glad you got yourself an OM-1 and are pleased with it. It must be a huge change from a medium-format camera.

What I find problematic with Ivor and other writers is they give the impression that photography is some homogeneous community where there is some mythical set of rules that apply to all regardless.
I never ever shoot in jpg for very good reasons as jpgs don’t fit with my workflow.
I shoot with a hi res 61MP system and would not wish to shoot with a lower res sensor, again for workflow and post processing reasons.
I do a lot of composite images that involves complex masking. Hi res images with more pixel real estate gives me that bit more latitude when it comes to creating a perfect mask. Here pixel density is important. Working in 16 bit with Raw images again gives more flexibility for subtle processing as there is more information for the software to work with. While that applies to what I do and the way I do things I don’t think for one moment that it would apply to others. I’ve been using Photoshop for almost 30 years and am very comfortable with it. The same applies to photographic software in general. Many photographers are NOT comfortable as it’s a steep learning curve. In this situation shooting in jpg is a good choice. I also shoot macro images and again I prefer shooting RAW hi res and stacking externally using an app like helicon rather than opting for 15 camera stacked internal jpgs as in the OM system. It’s all down to choice and photographic satisfaction. What is it that rocks your own photographic boat? As for screen calibration it all depends on photographic satisfaction. I just calibrated my BenQ 321C yesterday as it told me it needed done. I know that it’s working optimally. Will it make a difference to my own printed images and the results from the printing house? I’m not sure, but at least I’m a bit more confident about the end result. Finally the approach taken by Ivor has in my opinion the tail wagging the dog. There is no perfect camera system and while the OM system loved by Ivor may work for him it does not work for everyone. New users should not use his experiences as a guide to choosing a system, instead they need to find a system that integrates and meets their own needs and desires. A choice of system is down to what fits best with how the photographer works and not the other way around. Picking a system then trying to work within its limitations it’s not the way to go and can be a costly mistake.
Constantly preaching that shooting in jpg with a camera with a small sensor is the way to go backed by spurious arguments is in my opinion pointless. It’s never the hardware that’s important it’s the intentions of the photographer that is paramount. Photography is never ever about the hardware it’s about the photographer. But hey… it’s much easier to bang your gums and write about the gross and tangible differences with hardware than it is to deal with the subtle and almost intangible differences concerning photographic thought and intentions. Plus it ends up giving idiots like me an opportunity to bang their own gums and saddle up their own particular hobby horse. …. Whoa there boy.

Ps. The other factor is of course what you can afford. Medium format is outwith my means so I’m limited to full frame. Would I like the opportunity to shoot with a larger format? If I knew for sure it would give better results and I had unlimited cash then yes. Like all choices it all ends up to being limited by pocket depth.

Just looking at monitor calibration one thing that one does notice which is very common with many people is working with monitors that are far too bright that result in prints that are far too dark. It's a very common complaint I hear all the time for those new to printing and even those who print infrequently. They work on an image send it off to a print house and then they complain that their prints are too dark or the colours are not quite right! What do you expect! What one notices when calibrating computers like laptops and iMacs with fixed screens is how people set them as though they were TV screens! Too bright and too saturated. It gives a totally wrong impression of what any image will really look like when printed. I would say for anyone who is looking to do a reasonable amount of printing then calibrating your monitor is essential if you wish to avoid disappointment. Computer screens unless calibrated to your working environment will almost always deliver results that are not optimal. It's a bit like not using not using the correct ICC profile and wondering why the print looks terrible. If you are not going to print or have your images printed then I suppose calibrating your monitor is possibly not required. If you do intend printing then I would say calibration is essential otherwise a successful print will be down to luck more than judgment. Monitor calibration is hardly a rigmarole as it only takes a few minutes once any software is installed. Fire up the app, take a room reading with normal lighting, place the Spyder or other device on the screen then go though the process. Ive not actually timed it but it must be no longer than 5 mins. My advice would be if you want to print then you need to calibrate otherwise you may well be disappointed and waste a lot of paper and ink. Plus calibration every day is daft so why mention it! Once a month or when the monitor reminds you is more than enough for most. If you are going to present an argument then at least give real world situations as examples, calibrating every day is not real world apart for pretty exceptional circumstances.

I am curious to know why calibrating a monitor more than once would ever be necessary. I mean, I view my monitor in the same place with the same light 24/7 ... a blacked out room so that photos look their best with no lights of any kind to distract or reflect. I have done so for years and years.

Also, I no longer do updates to my computer because my operating system is considered "obsolete" and no further updates will ever be available.

So, if everything stays the same for years and years, then why wouldn't I just calibrate my monitor once and then never ever do it again? What would ever change that would cause me to need to re-calibrate it?

EDIT: I was directing my question to Eric, because it was in response to what his comment ... but I would also appreciate an answer from anyone who has any insight about the calibration process.

HI Tom, in a work situation where the ambient light changes and absolute accuracy of color and tone is required, screens may well need recalibrating. This is pretty specialist though. I do calibrate my screen more regularly than once a month, but not throughout the day unless I am about to print.

Hi Eric, Sorry that it gave you the impression that we are writing articles for all photographers. This is tagged as an opinion piece and you are welcome to disagree with my opinion. In fact, I invited it at the end of the piece. I always welcome discussion on a topic if the comments are made respectfully.

Nothing is universally applicable, which is why I often write stuff to show there is a different way of looking at things rather than the often repeated mantras that photography must be done in a certain way. It's healthy for the art to challenge commonly held opinions.

This was very much aimed at hobbyists, which covers the vast majority of photographers. They are photographing for enjoyment. It was written a response to someone I know being told at a camera club that they must shoot raw. They really didn't want to learn that. Do did they want to spend hours in front of a computer, and it was a great relief to them when I said that there was no compulsion to do so. If someone enjoys just shooting with a camera. They were happy with the results they got, which were fabulous by the way.

If you are a professional photographer then, of course, the situation will be different for you. I am and when on a professional shoot it's raw files for me too. Byt most photos don't get printed but end up on Instagram. Then the approach can be very different.

You think we writers see readers as a homogenous group? We definitely don't. Quite often writers see comments from (usually anonymous) readers and they refuse to accept anything that is written applies to anyone. Sometimes, they are not very bright and just throw insults about the article or the writer as opposed to making constructive discussions about the points that were written.

The idea of this and many of my articles is to make people think that there is more than one way of doing things and to challenge others' misconceptions that their way is the only way. In the article. Some people must shoot raw, but it isn't the only way of doing it.

It's only an option, not a diktat.

--- "I am curious to know why calibrating a monitor more than once would ever be necessary."

They say over time, the color and brightness of monitors may shift.

Ivor, as always, you make good points and articulate them well. Thank you.

It seems to me that the 3 points you make are all based on a basic principle:
"The fine points of image quality do not matter so much ... it is the content and the story of the image that matters"

This may be true for some, or many, photographers. But it is not true for all of us.

Personally, if an image tells an amazing story and captures a dramatic moment, it is a failure if I can't zoom way in and see crisply resolved details in each hair and each feather segment.

It is also a failure if I see grain when I zoom way in. I know that grain wasn't there in the scene I captured in real life, so why would I be okay with it in my image?

Hence, the gear I use and the settings I use are chosen to maximize image quality at the finest level. If I miss a few "great" shots because of that, it's totally fine with me. Because my mindset is, "if I can't capture it with technical excellence at the pixel level, then why would I want to capture it at all?"

But of course I know I am probably a bit of an outlier in this area, and that the standpoint you write from is valid for most other photographers.

Thank you, Tom. Great reply as always. I think I have just answered this in what I wrote above.

If you don't like grain, then the review of a camera I've got coming up soon is definitely not going to be for you.

I also shoot raw+jpeg - it allows me to index my photos more easily. The jpeg images themselves are usually pretty good, but I rarely take a photo that doesn't need some kind of editing. The reasons vary but the fact remains I have to modify those images.

Often jpegs will start at a much better place than raw photos, because of in-camera corrections, but each process I put them through lowers their quality.

So while I might have to work to get raw photos to the same place as my jpegs, once I have achieved that I can continue to edit without having to worry that every save is going to harm the image.

That's why I prefer to shoot raw+jpeg - it has nothing to do with the quality of the starting image, it's just that raw gives me the opportunity to edit my photos slowly, making small changes over time to move the image towards what I imagined why I first took the shot.

I love how well you articulated that! You explained it perfectly.

The megapixel argument has been going on since the beginning of digital. You're absolutely correct, but it won't stop manufacturers from adding more and more pixels, or users from demanding more (and bragging about it). I've got some photos I took with a Canon 20D back when that was current that still look great on a screen, and even at reasonable print sizes. (And today's software makes them even better!)

Thanks, Bob.

Me gustan tus planteamientos Ivor
Lo único que no comparto es lo de fotografiar en JPG, porque yo si disfruto de lo uso de simulaciones de película en Capture One con los archivos RAF Xtrans de mi Fuji.
Enhorabuena por el artículo