old argument - RAW versus JPG

A

albedo_0_39

Suspended / Banned
Messages
26
Name
garry
Edit My Images
No
I have seen several comments for and against using RAW instead of JPG. Well, most people seem to favour RAW. OK but I do have a couple of comments of my own about this.

I know that RAW carries a lot more info than JPG but surely if you dont export or transfer these off your camera's memory card then the issue of RAW being superior is nullified, yes?
Is RAW only better when it is utilised in software afterwards, such as photoshop?

Gaz
 
Yes.

The advantage of RAW is that no information is discarded, which gives you much more leeway with adjusting exposure etc in postprocessing.

If you're only ever using the files straight from the camera then you may as well use JPEG for the smaller file sizes. Although you will lose some image quality depending on the size of JPEG you choose to use.
 
Here we go :D

Jpeg for me 99% of the time, I honestly can't see the difference when it comes to the final print.
 
dod said:
Here we go :D

Jpeg for me 99% of the time, I honestly can't see the difference when it comes to the final print.
Click to expand...

Yo Dod, If you photograph 'a' subject - bike. person, fish, tree, etc. then I agree with ya. Because the subject can be viewed as 'one'.

However! If you photograph a composite of subject, surroundings, and beyond. THEN balance, perspective, tone, contrast AND intent (arty farty) become very important and the RAW file gives the edge on adjustment/control etc..

See what I mean?
 
Sharkey said:
See what I mean?
Click to expand...

You can't catch me like that, I'm not getting into this one again, I'm only stating my preference, I'm outta here :D
 
Both are very uselful, all depends on what you're doing, what you need and how much processing you like to do.
 
dod said:
You can't catch me like that, I'm not getting into this one again, I'm only stating my preference, I'm outta here :D
Click to expand...

I AM BEGINNING TO come round to just taking pictures.


HONEST.

The darkroom never held any attraction to me.

BUT. Since retiring the mucking about has drawn my attention.

Still room for both. OHH YES!!!
 
I'm a RAW convert. Once I would have stood shoulder to shoulder with Dod and argued for jpeg. Now I just like the safety factor of knowing I have the best data possible and the leeway it gives.

I still do very little editing. I put everything through Rawshooter and output to best jpeg - end of story. Those jpegs get printed if prints are wanted and get browsed when looking back at the shots. No tiffs and no photoshop 99.9% of the time.
 
The raw file is the best possible source for the information your camera has just recorded. If you set your camera to record JPG it does process the image as well as compress it. A simple run through your camera's set-up menus will confirm this.

Therefore the choice is yours. If you can afford the memory or may need to post process a file to recover or enhance any detail you will have a (much) better chance of doing so with RAW. If this is not important to you then use JPG and be happy.

The advice you have seen elsewhere may be aimed at people who have no intention of getting into the technical aspect of digital photography. This is not meant to sound superior in any way. Photography should be what the photographer wants it to be and if jpg fits the bill then use it.

Finally I suspect that just by you asking the question ( and I remember when I first asked it) you may well have a reason to believe that RAW may be better for you.

Phew!.... I go on a bit don't I! :lol:
 
You're right RAW would be pointless if you never transfered your pics off your card but why would you want to do that? :shrug:

For me RAW is most useful for 2 reasons, recovering highlights when over exposing (this wont always work if you overexpose too much) and noise handling at higher ISOs. My in camera noise reduction at 800iso and above is nowhere near as good as my RAW converter's noise reduction. There are many other reasons, but these (to me) are the most useful.
 
I came in here expecting to see some glorious landscapes to peruse :(
 
RAW data is what the camera makes the JPG images from, if you choose to shoot RAW all you are doing is taking the image making process away from the camera and using external software to do the job.

You can 'convert' a raw file into an image many times over making different adjustments each time till you get a finished article that suits you.

People think of RAW as an image when it's not, it's the 'raw' data that the image is made from.
 
Steep said:
RAW data is what the camera makes the JPG images from, if you choose to shoot RAW all you are doing is taking the image making process away from the camera and using external software to do the job.
Click to expand...

And this is no bad thing, particularly if you want control over the final image.

It is also much easier to tweak out problems such as Chromatic Aberration and White Balance goofs. Sharpening, and channel mixing, I also find is much more accurate in RAW.

The only real advantage of .jpg is for generating web based images and smaller file sizes.
 
ok people. let's continue a little with the idea of holding RAW and JPG ONLY on your camera (albeit temporarily). Assume I shoot a cracker of a landsacpe firstly in RAW and then again as JPG. From what I can gather you wouldn't technically see any difference if they were both viewed,one after another, on the preview screen on the back of your camera?
 
That's because the preview is a jpg thumbnail, as I said above, RAW is not an image format, it cannot be viewed as a picture.
 
No it's not Slapo, it's a matter of conversion.

Think of jpg as the polaroid of the digital age, a one shot deal, RAW is the film that you develop and make the prints from.
 
Steep said:
it's a matter of conversion.

Think of jpg as the polaroid of the digital age, a one shot deal, RAW is the film that you develop and make the prints from.
Click to expand...

That I agree with, but raw of ccds and cmos sensor cameras is just bits of data you get to interpolate yourself (we tend to use raw converters to do this), which happens to contain some extra information which also leaves more room for manipulation.
So a raw file in this case would be a half done image - you still have to do something to make it look the way you want it to, but the data is there, like in jpegs, but stored in a different way.
 
I shoot raw 100% of the time. To me there is no point shooting a picture to have the camera apply a generic tone curve to throw away about half the originally recorded data.

Some people have good reasons for shooting jpeg's but personally I prefer shooting raw and converting later but I tend not to shoot lots of photos in one session, even shooting events I rarely walk away with more than 150 photos. This makes processing each individual image possible, lots of people shoot 1k photos at events, you can understand why they would shoot jpeg.
 
I shoot raw for everything except when I'm doing sports/race photography then it's jpg because I don't want to process a few thousand images!
 
Jpegs for work, although we're trying to head towards a RAW workflow because of the possibilities for clean shadow recovery.

Jpegs are all well and good, but if our image processors get given an underexposed image it's easier to try and recover the shot than it is to send somebody back to take the shot again!

Jpegs are fine providing you totally nail the exposure/white balance/colour balance/tone & contrast. Sometimes that just isn't possible, so RAW for those times!


Editing at the RAW stage is non-destructive too, So any adjustments you make will have little, if any, detrimental effect on the image quality, save for exposure compensation on the positive side, when all you are doing is revealing the noise apparent in the image anyway.
 
we use raw for the ability to alter , post shot without losing quality.ok , theyre bigger files , but the advantages for us , outway the dissadvantages.we do mostly wedding work , and manipulating that, not quite perfect shot is better in raw .as sprog says , sharpening is easier in raw,as is white balance.
 
Steep said:
RAW data is what the camera makes the JPG images from, if you choose to shoot RAW all you are doing is taking the image making process away from the camera and using external software to do the job.

You can 'convert' a raw file into an image many times over making different adjustments each time till you get a finished article that suits you.

People think of RAW as an image when it's not, it's the 'raw' data that the image is made from.
Click to expand...

In principle this is very true...... RAW is a format which carries all the data of the captured image.... and you do need software to interpret this data so as to see the image.

However, as constantly gets missed in this debate, jpg images are only 8 bit images, RAW files are generally 12 bit images (I believe the new Nikon D3 and D300 will have the ability to create 14 bit images) so there is a greater opportunity to record and save an improved, finer colour gamut.

You can argue all you like as to whether there is anything to which you can output this improved image as a final print etc, but the bottom line is RAW has to be better than a jpg. A jpg can't even be as good as a RAW image converted to a tif (a tif can be up to 16 bits).

There really is no argument when you look at the facts from a technical viewpoint. Where you can have a discussion is over conversion software and data handling..... but a RAW file is always going to be better than a JPG. ;)

Let's face it.... if you want to throw away 33% of your image data, use JPG! :lol:
 
albedo_0_39 said:
I know that RAW carries a lot more info than JPG but surely if you dont export or transfer these off your camera's memory card then the issue of RAW being superior is nullified, yes?
Click to expand...

I am not sure what you are asking. If you are just going to delete pictures after taking them then why take them in the first place?

As chuckles said, raw is superior in every technical way. The advantages of JPG are practical ones; the files are smaller and you can make use of your shots more quickly if you got everything right in camera.

Michael.
 
right. I'm gonna stick mi' neck out and switch to RAW for now....I've now got Adobe Photoshop aswell...so why not!

I've got four days in Wales very shortly so I can prattle about with it then.

thanks everybody.
 
Any problems, post and ask :)
 
Only ever shoot jpeg here for several reasons....

1) I try and get exposure & WB right in camera
2) I have neither the time nor the inclination to spend so long doing post processing - maybe if I was a professional I would bother
3) My eyes are not good enough to tell the difference between the quality of a RAW file and a fine JPEG at decent resolution
 
If you know how to nail exposure every time i don't see why you need to shoot RAW. If you don't want to worry about white balance, and give yourself some room for error then RAW.

Jeff Ascough shoots Jpeg for his weddings, he does ok. :p
 
If you are just going to delete pictures after taking them then why take them in the first place?--- from a previous post

Er, mij I have just deleted 85% of shots (in RAW) of a session of taking dolphins jumping out of the water, i was shooting at 4fps and there is no way I could determine how good each shot would be, matter of see what comes up, you can't legislate for the fact that one dolphin would come up with a salmon in it's mouth for a really great shot.

I can't see the point in shooting in jpeg unless it's for eg my daughter's birthday when you know that you'll not be seriously modifying/sharpening etc.

let's face it, a large jpeg isn't much smaller than a raw anyway, and storage (ie backup) is pretty cheap nowadays.

George
 
Raymond Lin said:
If you know how to nail exposure every time i don't see why you need to shoot RAW. If you don't want to worry about white balance, and give yourself some room for error then RAW.

Jeff Ascough shoots Jpeg for his weddings, he does ok. :p
Click to expand...

But it's not always all about just exposure is it? White balance? Contrast? Control? They are all variables which it's nice to have control over.

Thanks for getting me to look at Jeff's site.... some excellent work there and he deserves the accolades and recognition he's receiving.

His trademark, as I see it - around 70% is Black and White. I hardly think you need RAW for the kind of shots like this :shrug: As for the few colour shots, I really do think he could benefit from some control over the White Balance. Maybe it's my monitor, who knows? Some of the colours seem a bit exaggerated or poorly corrected/balanced.

Do we know for certain he uses only JPGs? I'd like to know..... :thinking:
 
chuckles said:
Do we know for certain he uses only JPGs? I'd like to know..... :thinking:
Click to expand...

I read it here, its near the bottom.


Jeff Ascough - Derbyshire, UK, May 24, 2007; 05:26 p.m.

Looks like this interview has caused a bit of a stir on DPReview...and the RAW v jpeg debate has raised its ugly head again...LOL

I'm going to give my reasons for shooting jpeg. There is also a bit on my blog concerning shooting RAW and jpeg

http://jeffascough.typepad.com/wpj_resource/2007/02/if_you_shoot_ra.html

OK a bit of background first of all. I shot RAW for the first year of being a wedding photographer. I've tried every RAW processing software on the market in that time. I understand how to get the best from a RAW file, and I understand the technical aspects of 8 bit vs 16 bit files.

I still shoot the odd job in RAW and process it in the latest software to see if there is any advantage *to me* in shooting RAW.

I prefer to shoot jpeg. I shoot the highest level jpeg my camera will give me. I use preset WB and back the contrast off in camera. I use no sharpening in camera.

Now then, the reasons behind what some people have said as being 'irresponsible' behavior for a pro photographer....:))

I do a lot of work on my images. I run a lot of actions on the files. The end result is nothing like what comes out of camera. All my images are seen as album ready images. I don't do proofs. The clients only see finished images.

So if I shot RAW I would have to do the corrections for WB, density etc. I would then have to convert those images to jpeg in order to take them into Photoshop to do my thing with the files. Err...hold on...I'm enhancing jpegs....so why not skip the RAW conversions and get straight on with enhancing the jpegs??

Ahh...I hear you say...but you can convert RAW files to 16-Bit Tiffs. You can...except processing tiffs is like walking in mud. It's sloooowwww. Everything takes too long.

But...you will get a higher quality image as you won't be throwing away all that extra data that RAW gives you. Well if that's true, its only on a theoretical level. In practice there is no 'real world' difference between a print from a jpeg and a print from a RAW file that has been converted to jpeg and then has undergone the same post processing.

I can't emphasise this enough. Because of the amount of post that I apply to my images, it makes no sense whatsoever to shoot in RAW to add three to four hours to my workflow in order to end up with the same quality of print as I would get from jpeg.

Hopefully that has cleared a few things up....
Click to expand...
 
I like this guy :D
 
I have to say.... if I was gonna end up doing all that p-processing (which really doesn't require such technical accuracy) to end up with just JPGs then I'd probably do the same ;)
 
Interesting stuff guys! I have recently started shooting everything in RAW after following another thread
I must say that it gives a lot of scope for manipulation but its a hell of a lot of faffing about too! so for now I will sit comfortably on the fence on this one as I can see both sides. :D
 
Err...hold on...I'm enhancing jpegs....so why not skip the RAW conversions and get straight on with enhancing the jpegs??
Click to expand...

That is only true if you convert your raw files to JPG ones though, and even then it is not true. In Photoshop you are enhancing bitmap image, a JPG is used by applying an algorithm to create a bitmap.

If you work with JPG files it creates a bitmap when it is loaded, having already lost some image data when originally saved in that format, and then when you save your work the algorithm is applied to the bitmap to create a JPG file, having lost more image data.

This is the reason why you are supposed to never 'work' in JPG but instead use a lossless format like TIFF. You can repeatedly load then save a JPG and see it deteriorate despite making no changes to the image.

You can argue whether the detail lost is important - the same as you can with the benefits of 8-bit vs 16-bit or AdobeRGB/sRGB vs ProPhoto RGB - but the fact remains that image data has been lost by starting with a JPG (whether created in camera or via a convertor) rather than by initially converting to a TIFF or PSD.

Michael.
 
I do think it depend on what you shoot.

Why do I say that, well at weekend I had a press pass for the Manchester Pride festival and I always shoot in raw. I came away with 600+ images which is a lot to convert and process. At the end of the event all the togs were chatting about software and the usual stuff with 2 using raw (myself and 1 pro) the rest of the pros shooting in jpeg. I gave a puzzled look and the answer came that one of them has shot 2000 images for the parade alone (which was 2-3 hours long) and was shooting more at the concerts each night.

So if your doing landscape or wedding where the shot has to be perfect then yes raw, but maybe for photo journalism then jpeg is fine.

Horses for courses as they say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top