JPEG V's RAW

[Suvv]

Where did you get the idea that you can't change the white balance of a Jpeg?

As I understood it the WB is set by the camera after the Bayer interpolation and before the tonal and other adjustments and the final compression and reduction to 8 bits to get the JPEG?

Using raw allows you to set that WB to whatever you want before any reduction in bit count or compression, whereas with the JPEG you are altering data which has been reduced to 8 bit and has had data lost due to compression.

I am not sure if the above is correct but if so it would seem that WB adjustment is only possible with raw?

I do know that raw allows much more adjustment of the colour by using WB than JPEG adjustments, although that may be my limited PP skills :shrug:

 

[DemiLion]

You can make minor adjustments, but you don't have the control that raw gives you.

Here's an image I shot using 'Tungsten' white balance (Yes, I'm stupid). Luckily I shot it in raw, so just one click to set it to daylight got it right -

If I'd only had the jpeg to work with then I'd find it very difficult to get the grass green and the blue in the target correct by just changing the WB. Too much data has already been thrown away.

That isn't an adjustment. It's a Hail Mary save after cocking up!

If you're using RAW to rectify basic mistakes, then you're using it for he wrong reason and need to practice your photography more ( not directly aimed at you btw).

Everyone screws up occasionally, but that isn't a decent argument for RAW.

Jpeg and RAW both have their place and as a photographer you need to learn how they are best used for your own advantage!

 

[hollis_f]

Everyone screws up occasionally, but that isn't a decent argument for RAW.

This wasn't presented as an argument for raw. It was presented as evidence to support my statement about adjustimg WB in jpegs - "You can make minor adjustments, but you don't have the control that raw gives you."

 

[barratt1988]

A pro shooting jpeg.. not many of those... but mardy people on here there are many of them. Sound to me like because you get paid a few quid you think your the be all amd end all of photography.... if jpeg is so sldamn good why did nikon amd canon spend so much developing raw?

 

[big soft moose]

you're just making yourself look silly now phillip - mark is a very well regarded press photographer - He and i don't see eye to eye about a whole passel of stuff but even i realise that he's more than some guy getting paid a few quid (check out his shots from the 2011 riots for example - i'm willing to bet you werent out on the streets shooting images for the national press - but mark was ! )

on your latter point they didn't develop raw - theres nothing to develop its just raw data captured from the camera. Also as i said earlier format is just a tool so arguing that one is better than the other is like arguing that a ferrari is better than a jeep - on the motorway yes, but try driving a ferrari across a ploughed feild and your opinion might be different

 

[DemiLion]

your just making yourself look silly now phillip - mark is a very well regarded press photographer - He and i don't see eye to eye about a whole passel of stuff but even i realise that he's more than some guy getting paid a few quid

Kind of you Pete, but I wouldn't go that far! Or even close actually!

 

[LCPete]

A pro shooting jpeg.. not many of those... but mardy people on here there are many of them. Sound to me like because you get paid a few quid you think your the be all amd end all of photography.... if jpeg is so sldamn good why did nikon amd canon spend so much developing raw?

I think a pro could get perfectly good results shooting jpegs more likely to get the settings spot on
Myself tho I shoot raw because im more likely too need to adjust the white balance and or exposure in post

 

[big soft moose]

From the fact it destroys the image...

and that is utter rubbish i'm afraid

Andy rouse (well known wildlife pro - another guy with a lot more knowledge than you seem to have) demonstrated that you can save and resave a high quality jpeg at least ten times before you start getting any artifacting , so theres nothing stop you from opening it one resaving as a tiff editing it and then resaving as a jpeg

 

[DemiLion]

A pro shooting jpeg.. not many of those... but mardy people on here there are many of them. Sound to me like because you get paid a few quid you think your the be all amd end all of photography.... if jpeg is so sldamn good why did nikon amd canon spend so much developing raw?

It's not a question of being mardy. You are making sweeping statements about photography that you don't have the knowledge to back up.

There is no definitive answer in photographic terms, and there is no one singleright approach.

You've got one thing the wrong way around though. The question isn't why manufacturers would provide RAW, it's why would they provide an adjustable Jpeg engine in camera if it wasn't good enough. They haven't spent money developing RAW output- (as such) it has always been there!

 

[jon ryan]

A pro shooting jpeg.. not many of those... but mardy people on here there are many of them. Sound to me like because you get paid a few quid you think your the be all amd end all of photography.... if jpeg is so sldamn good why did nikon amd canon spend so much developing raw?

Jpeg and RAW both have their place. I use both, as circumstances demand. If possible I will shoot RAW for the many good reasons given above. But sometime it is necessary to shoot jpeg. Other photographers work in their own way, but the point is knowing why a certain technique is likely to be best, and offers the best solution to a given commission.

Perhaps one day you will come to understand this.

Camera manufacturers are constantly researching and experimenting to produce a better product. RAW is one result of this. I would have thought that was rather obvious.

 

[barratt1988]

I understand perfectly that they have a place and yes people on here have more experience than me but im sorry if people say jpeg give as much flexibility as raw in post your incorrect. Its personal preference what people shoot.

I just have to laugh how people on here spit there dummy out and feel they have to stamp on other peoples valid points. Jusr because you do something a certain way doesnt mean its correct

 

[big soft moose]

I understand perfectly that they have a place and yes people on here have more experience than me but im sorry if people say jpeg give as much flexibility as raw in post your incorrect. Its personal preference what people shoot.

who said jpeg had as much flexibility as raw - all people are saying is that its as useful for different things - its when you start making sweeping statements about how no pro's shoot raw and anyone who things they do must be a pretender that you just undermine your own credibility

I just have to laugh how people on here spit there dummy out and feel they have to stamp on other peoples valid points. Jusr because you do something a certain way doesnt mean its correct

read back some of your own posts in this thread... its like rain on your wedding day , a green light when your all ready late... the good advice you just didnt take.. etc

 

[barratt1988]

who said jpeg had as much flexibility as raw - all people are saying is that its as useful for different things

read back some of your own posts in this thread... its like rain on your wedding day , a green light when your all ready late... the good advice you just didnt take.. etc

Did you not read the whole point about altering the wb in jpeg vs raw...?

And ive no idea what the hell the 2nd part is all about...

This is one discussion guaranteed to get people worked up.

 

[big soft moose]

yes i did - and i saw you completely fail to comprehend that you can alter the WB in a jpeg without a problem , wrongly assert that editing a jpeg destroys the file, and tell mark that he's awanna be who's got a few quid for his shots.

No one is saying raw isnt more flexible - but its completely wrong to say you can't make basic alterations to a jpeg.(you can also get it right in camera - which is what most workking pros do most of the time regardless of the format they are shooting in)

oh and the second point , the next line " isnt it ironic, don't you think ?'

 

[DemiLion]

I understand perfectly that they have a place and yes people on here have more experience than me but im sorry if people say jpeg give as much flexibility as raw in post your incorrect. Its personal preference what people shoot.

I just have to laugh how people on here spit there dummy out and feel they have to stamp on other peoples valid points. Jusr because you do something a certain way doesnt mean its correct

No one is stamping on valid comments and my point throughout any RAW v Jpeg discussion is that there is no right way of doing things.

However the comments below are not valid and some of them are just plain wrong or misguided:

The argument for space now days is dead. Storage is cheap. Recently saw a 2tb hdd for £65. And as for instantly sending photos unless yours a journalist then thats not going to be the case. An edited raw file will always be better than a camera jpeg.

Not true. Most sports event photography is shot in Jpeg for example - space baing one of the major factors.

I have the d7100 and people slate the buffer but to be honest if you require a burst of more that 6 shots you need to look at your technique

If you are shooting certain types of photography then you need to examine you technique if you aren't using more than six shot bursts.

Soo you require 16 shots to get one decent shot...?

Sometimes, absolutely.

The thing is shooting jpeg applies edits in camera not allowing for simple adjustments like WB. Its no hards*** shooting raw so why not? Are we so short on time that we cant make the effort to make a good shot great

Untrue

From the fact it destroys the image...

Again, untrue.


I'm not the one making sweeping statements. You are.

 

[Yv]

Right chaps - RAW v Jpg - age old argument, age old end result, BOTH have their place in photography, neither is more right or more wrong than the other. Yes you can make adjustments to jpgs, yes RAW files were always there, it is turning them into jpgs that manufacturers spent money on, yes, RAW files are more flexible and forgiving, yes, shooting in jpg IS exactly the right thing to do for certain circumstances and yes, you should be aiming to get it right in camera regardless of what format you shoot in.

So, can we get over it, stop having a go at each other personally, and discuss it like adults or this thread will end like most other xxx -v- yyy threads - with a great big padlock on it.