Raw and jpeg

barratt1988 said:
I love how everyone has taken the attitude that is was stated the exposure doesnt matter. I cant see where this was written to never be the number one priority. But im pretty certain each and every peeson here has taken a shot forgetting they have exposure comp on from there last shot. If that shot where taken at -0.7 ev for example and that subject is now gone what would you rather have shot in? Jpeg or raw? They are both tools I agree and I would never rely on raw to save a s***ty picture but the fact is it allows me creative freedom and thus for more mistake leeway
Click to expand...

I'd rather have got it right in camera and not cocked up the exposure in the first place , that said you could recover a -0.7 ev jpeg using the levels sliders if you were so minded.

On the flip side if something amazing happened just as your buffer filled up , you'd be knackered shooting raw .. not an issue with jpeg.

I shoot raw a fair bit , but proffesing it to be the one true format because you can rescue shots you've stuffed up is just silly
 
philthejuggler said:
I shoot RAW the vast majority of the time, but I often read about professionals who shoot jpg, and a colleague who I sometimes shoot weddings for ALWAYS uses jpg.

I'd be really interested if the debate could be 'settled' by an image that wasn't grossly under or overexposed in the first place but was rendered significantly poorer due to being shot in jpg. I guess the ideal would be an image that was shot in jpg + RAW and the two shots optimally processed and the outputs showing a significant advantage in favour of RAW.
Click to expand...

That's easy. Shoot anything with plenty of highlights, like a landscape with sky. Set correct exposure and the sky will almost certainly blow, at least in parts, but the Raw will have about one stop more highlight detail that just gets chopped off with an in-camera JPEG. It's the biggest single IQ problem I have shooting JPEG.

On the other hand, the biggest single advantage of JPEGs is you don't need to even go near a computer. They're good to go SOOC. But if you do use a computer anyway, and that's most of us I guess, then it makes sense to shoot Raw. They're exactly the same to handle in post-processing terms, but Raw gives you more. The only time I use JPEGs these days is when shooting a lot of long action sequences in continuous mode and there's a danger of the camera filling the buffer and locking up in Raw.

That's pretty much all there is to the Raw vs JPEG debate IMHO.
 
Last edited:
philthejuggler said:
I shoot RAW the vast majority of the time, but I often read about professionals who shoot jpg, and a colleague who I sometimes shoot weddings for ALWAYS uses jpg.

I'd be really interested if the debate could be 'settled' by an image that wasn't grossly under or overexposed in the first place but was rendered significantly poorer due to being shot in jpg. I guess the ideal would be an image that was shot in jpg + RAW and the two shots optimally processed and the outputs showing a significant advantage in favour of RAW.
Click to expand...
It'd be impossible to show a 'significant' difference in those circumstances, in fact you'd be lucky to get more than a very subtle difference.

But isn't that what the technical side of photography is all about, is a canon 70-200 'significantly' sharper than a 50-250? but that doesn't stop people striving to take advantage (even at a huge £ premium).
 
HoppyUK said:
That's easy. Shoot anything with plenty of highlights, like a landscape with sky. Set correct exposure and the sky will almost certainly blow, at least in parts, but the Raw will have about one stop more highlight detail that just gets chopped off with an in-camera JPEG. It's the biggest single IQ problem I have shooting JPEG.
Click to expand...

Correct exposure for what?

The simple answer to avoiding over exposing anything is to expose for that and recover the shadows in PP.

There's far more chance to recover the shadows than people realise.

This is an HDR shot using 3 photos combined in an HDR program:

This one is a single shot exposing for the highlights (the sky) then put through an HDR program (EasyHdr Pro):

.
 
Last edited:
philthejuggler said:
I shoot RAW the vast majority of the time, but I often read about professionals who shoot jpg, and a colleague who I sometimes shoot weddings for ALWAYS uses jpg.

I'd be really interested if the debate could be 'settled' by an image that wasn't grossly under or overexposed in the first place but was rendered significantly poorer due to being shot in jpg. I guess the ideal would be an image that was shot in jpg + RAW and the two shots optimally processed and the outputs showing a significant advantage in favour of RAW.
Click to expand...

I am afraid even that will not give a definitive answer as it still relies on the intentions and skill levels of the photographer and even the suitability of the raw processor used.
You can find very similar arguments about which is the best raw processor for a particular camera.

the output of a raw file starts from the same captured data from the sensor. in the case of a jpeg the camera manufacturer has made all the decisions on how it should be processed... creates the Jpeg and discards the rest of the data.

A jpeg made from the raw file at a later date by the User, allows him to impose his own preferences on how the resulting image should be displayed.
He can then.... create his jpeg. but keep all the camera data in the form of the original raw file.

Every time a Jpeg is re saved or reprocessed, it is compressed and artifacts added. The image is degraded.
This is not so with a raw file, as it is only used to create a new first generation Jpeg or Tiff, it is never altered itself.

From any raw file we can produce an infinite number of different new first generation files all as good as the first.

All your solution would test, is the relative abilities of the manufacturer to create that first Jpeg in a way that suits the subject, and to your taste.
And your own skills to process a raw file and to produce a jpeg from it, that better suits the subject and your own preferences.

However using a raw file also gives you the option of producing a uncompressed tiff file with a higher bit rate, for those occasions when you want to manipulate the image further in a program like photoshop, or for the production of extremely large images.

Better can mean many things ... including better for what.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
petersmart said:

​
This one is a single shot exposing for the highlights (the sky) then put through an HDR program (EasyHdr Pro):

.
Click to expand...

Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd rather have a few clouds hitting RGB255 than tear my images to shreds with processing like this.

To be honest I don't really see what HDR has to do with a discussion about technically correct exposure, it's a different thing entirely.
 
petersmart said:
Correct exposure for what?

The simple answer to avoiding over exposing anything is to expose for that and recover the shadows in PP.

There's far more chance to recover the shadows than people realise.

This is an HDR shot using 3 photos combined in an HDR program:

This one is a single shot exposing for the highlights (the sky) then put through an HDR program (EasyHdr Pro):

.
Click to expand...

There is a definition of 'correct' exposure. That is when tones in the subject are recorded as same tones in the image, ie mid-grey in the subject sits in the middle of the histogram. That's not the same as 'optimum' or 'best' exposure though, that can be very different and defined any way you like really.

My point was about dynamic range though, and the fact is there's a stop less highlight detail retained by an in-camera JPEG, however it is exposed. That's reason enough not to shoot JPEG.
 
PMN said:
Don't take this the wrong way, but I'd rather have a few clouds hitting RGB255 than tear my images to shreds with processing like this.
Click to expand...

Really? How extraordinary :D

PMN said:
To be honest I don't really see what HDR has to do with a discussion about technically correct exposure, it's a different thing entirely.
Click to expand...

Really? How extraordinary. - But I do think I already said "correct exposure for what?"

Consider a beach scene, a night scene, an indoor scene under fluorescent lights, or incandescent lights, a landscape at noon on a really bright summer day; what id the "technically correct exposure" for any of those?

The fact is that there is no "technically correct exposure" for a wide range of subjects, all we can do is try to get the image that looks best for us under whatever circumstances we may meet.

The only thing which could be considered "technically correct" is where the entire scene can fit onto the straight line portion of the characteristic curve and that rarely happens with any of the scenes already described.

So what is a "technically correct exposure"?

HoppyUK said:
There is a definition of 'correct' exposure. That is when tones in the subject are recorded as same tones in the image, ie mid-grey in the subject sits in the middle of the histogram. That's not the same as 'optimum' or 'best' exposure though, that can be very different and defined any way you like really.

My point was about dynamic range though, and the fact is there's a stop less highlight detail retained by an in-camera JPEG, however it is exposed. That's reason enough not to shoot JPEG.
Click to expand...

But the only time you could have a "correct" exposure then is if the subject has very limited dynamic range - exceed it and you lose detail somewhere which may be why cameras are beginning to include an HDR option.
 
Last edited:
@petersmart I'm having real trouble figuring out exactly what you're arguing about. We're talking about JPEG and RAW and the differences between the two, no-one's mentioned HDR because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the differences between JPEG and RAW.

Also, trying to define what a 'technically correct exposure' is won't change the technical differences between JPEG and RAW. They're unequivocal characteristics of each type of file, we could discuss that alone in a purely technical sense without even thinking about photography in just the same as we could discuss the differences between WAV and MP3 audio files without talking about music.
 
PMN said:
@petersmart I'm having real trouble figuring out exactly what you're arguing about. We're talking about JPEG and RAW and the differences between the two, no-one's mentioned HDR because it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the differences between JPEG and RAW.

Also, trying to define what a 'technically correct exposure' is won't change the technical differences between JPEG and RAW. They're unequivocal characteristics of each type of file, we could discuss that alone in a purely technical sense without even thinking about photography in just the same as we could discuss the differences between WAV and MP3 audio files without talking about music.
Click to expand...

Oh I never argue with people I just explain why they're mistaken and I (usually) am not. :D

And if it can be argued that RAW is better because it allows the recovery of over exposed images my simple answer is, and always has been, "don't over expose".

Which is why I showed that you can, by under exposing, capture a larger range of exposure than most people realise is possible.

And that technique applies equally to RAW or JPEG.

And even more so with the newer cameras now coming out.

Personally I don't care what format people shoot in but by experimenting with various techniques you can learn a lot more about photography than by sticking ruthlessly to one format while parroting "RAW is better; RAW is better; RAW is better."

Experiment and find out what is better FOR YOU.

Apart from that my participation in this thread is now finished so thank you all for a most interesting discussion (not an argument:D)

.
 
Last edited:
HDR almost always looks awful, particularly if you try to imitate it with a single image.

The second Muckross House image above is a massive advert for RAW as it shows what can go eye-wateringly wrong with jpg shadow recovery and how it can end up making a photo look like a dog's dinner.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: PMN
ghoti said:
The second Muckross House image above is a massive advert for RAW as it shows what can go eye-wateringly wrong with jpg shadow recovery and how it can end up making a photo look like a dog's dinner.
Click to expand...
The grass looks a bit patchy too.
 
I think the subject of raw images versus jpeg is a moot point - it's hardly relevant to pit these formats against each other. The choice you make as to which format to use, is also largely academic.

Raw files need to be processed, jpegs don't. Granted, you will most likely want to process whichever one you choose in some way or another - it's just you will have to process the raw one. It just so happens that if you are the kind of photographer who wants to process their images, then you might as well shoot raw instead of jpeg. Raw is the undisputed winner when it comes to processing versus jpeg.

I shoot raw to primary slot and jpeg to secondary slot - more for backup purposes and the ability to quickly share the images without processing them (if I need to). I always process the raw images and never end up using the in-camera jpegs.
 
petersmart said:
<snip>
So what is a "technically correct exposure"?
Click to expand...

As per post #127.

But the only time you could have a "correct" exposure then is if the subject has very limited dynamic range - exceed it and you lose detail somewhere which may be why cameras are beginning to include an HDR option.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. Correct exposure is not the same as perfect exposure (which doesn't exist). But if you are outputting JPEGs straight from the camera (or shooting slide film) then any deviation from 'correct' will result in a too dark or too light result.

Of course, post processing changes all that but in debates like this, if nothing else, it's helpful to use that as a reference point we can all agree on.
 
Hasnt this been done to death.. dug up and killed once again?

If you shoot and require every bit of dynamic range shoot raw if not shoot jpeg. If you enjoy pc time and butchering images do hdr... all settled at last
 
Last edited:
I can't believe it took 139 posts for Godwin's Law to be invoked!
 
I can't believe this thread got that far.
 
ianp5a said:
Hitler used raw, I understand.
Click to expand...

yeah but he liked dogs and not burning out the whites on a bicon frieze lying on a swatstika is a b****r
 
hollis_f said:
Emma - here's the most useful information in this thread.

If you click on somebody's user name, under their picture next to a post, then a box with loads of info and options will appear. One of those options is 'Ignore'. Click on that and you'll never have to read the moronic ramblings of your chosen idiot again.
Click to expand...
I don't think there have been any moronic posts here have there? Just honest advice some people took offence to (excluding the last page or so...)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top