Raw vs jpeg?

frod said:
Just wanted to add - with mirrorless and fuji in particular there are a few features that move some of the things we might normally do during pp to before the shot is taken; DR, exposure preview, film simulation, contrast etc. I have a bunch of presets with different values for these set up. It's still effectively pp, just done in advance ☺ (oxymoron? ).
Click to expand...

Just call it pre-processing, then we can still use the PP abbreviation...:D
 
Pre-processing is impossible. All processing is post. That's why the term pp is ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
ianp5a said:
Yes. As the camera is basically a computer, it might be better to define "post processing" as pictures changed "after seeing the initial result". So a straight jpeg is not PP'd. But by that definition, nor is a DR or film or art mode PP'd either. As the influence was set at the factory. Even if you can predict the effect. Much like predicting a slight overexposure with +1. Which is not considered PP.

Is this a helpful definition?
Click to expand...
I think we should say everything is PP'd (as it is!) to avoid ridiculously pedantic arguments coming from certain people :)
 
Last edited:
droj said:
Pre-processing is impossible. All processing is post. That's why the term pp is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The term 'post processing' has been a term used for a long time. In film you'd process the film, and the photograph was made 'post' the film processing, ie, after the negatives had been produced. It makes more sense when you look at it like that.
 
Last edited:
Yes. But people have the need to differentiate between stuff that's been manually messed with, and stuff straight out of the camera. Where "Post having-seen-it Processing" is different from a straight JPEG.
 
Last edited:
Since we started to use computers for photographic purposes, way back now it seems, I've referred to operations in software as 'editing'. Explicit in that it infers manual intervention, and economical (one word instead of two!).

Language is a funny thing. Think of the term 'world music', for instance - as if there could be any other kind ...
 
I never knew you could divide a hair into so many tiny filaments. WOW! ;)

But seriously guys, why all the snipey, sarcastic remarks? It doesn't solve the argument and it only makes everyone look equally bad instead of just the troll.
 
droj said:
Since we started to use computers for photographic purposes, way back now it seems, I've referred to operations in software as 'editing'. Explicit in that it infers manual intervention, and economical (one word instead of two!).

Language is a funny thing. Think of the term 'world music', for instance - as if there could be any other kind ...
Click to expand...
I've never liked the term 'editing' for PP work, though it's a perfectly legitimate word for it. For me it suggests subtracting and / or adding items to the shot which for me suggests manipulation rather than 'developing' as you'd do with a raw file (ie, working with stuff that's already there in the shot).
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
I've never liked the term 'editing' for PP work, though it's a perfectly legitimate word for it. For me it suggests subtracting and / or adding items to the shot which for me suggests manipulation rather than 'developing' as you'd do with a raw file (ie, working with stuff that's already there in the shot).
Click to expand...
Well yes, there is that aspect to it as well, Jim ...
 
ancient_mariner said:
I never knew you could divide a hair into so many tiny filaments. WOW! ;)

But seriously guys, why all the snipey, sarcastic remarks? It doesn't solve the argument and it only makes everyone look equally bad instead of just the troll.
Click to expand...
Yes indeed, if it was my remark earlier I've toned it down :)
 
ancient_mariner said:
I never knew you could divide a hair into so many tiny filaments. WOW! ;)

But seriously guys, why all the snipey, sarcastic remarks? It doesn't solve the argument and it only makes everyone look equally bad instead of just the troll.
Click to expand...

The OP hasn't been back since last Thurs & IF they read through the thread, I can't see em sticking around to ask too many more questions. :LOL:
 
OldCarlos said:
The OP hasn't been back since last Thurs & IF they read through the thread, I can't see em sticking around to ask too many more questions. :LOL:
Click to expand...
I hope its all helped though!
 
Not long after I bought a digital camera I read this; (my Bold)

`Only you can come to the final conclusion of what works for you - if you try to gather the opinions of the masses, you're going to end up feeling the pressure to be just like them - the masses will always tell you a certain brand is best, you should aspire to full frame, and you should never ever shoot in anything but RAW. They'll tell you which RAW editor is best, and what to take photos of, if you want them to!

`My opinion is: have your own opinion, and do what gets you the results, what makes you happy, and what makes photography everything you need it to be. If that can be done by shooting JPG, and using a decent entry-level body, and no post-processing, then why not? In my opinion, the reason to change anything you're doing, the ONLY reason that matters, is because you're not happy with the results you're getting the way you do it now. A great reason to move to RAW shooting is because it offers much wider latitude to adjust and process your photo after you shoot, and offers a higher degree of recovery to fix errors if you make them...so if you're finding your results are not pleasing you, not meeting your needs, or just need more work to look good, then RAW is a good option to learn how to use. But if you find yourself happy with what you're getting out of your camera now, if you find your photos meet all you need them to, and you find yourself pretty good at nailing everything in the camera to where you don't feel you need much post-processing alterations, then keep shooting JPG.

Let me put it another way: I know some folks who shoot in JPG and can get vastly superior results and much better photos than some folks I know who shoot in RAW. Part of that is the skill of the photographer, part of it is knowing how to set up the JPG output of the camera and choose the right settings while shooting to nail the look you are going for, and part of it may have to do with the RAW skills of the other shooters and their skill level when shooting. But the fact remains: those JPG guys get what they need from JPG, the results are pleasing, and meet all their needs. One of them is a pro shooter...the others amateurs. Do you REALLY want to shoot RAW, or does peer pressure from all you hear and see on the boards telling you that you're inferior or will never be a pro if you don't shoot RAW cause you to think you need to do it? Wanting to shoot RAW to learn more about post-processing, take more control over the final output of your photo after you shoot it, or the need to fix or recover your photos for optimal results are all fine reasons to shoot RAW. Caving in to peer pressure when you were already happy is not a good reason to shoot RAW.

I can offer you my own personal choice, not to pressure you with what to do, but just offer perspective. I'm a semi-pro shooter, have been in SLR photography since 1977 and digital photography since 1997. I get paid for some of my work and do hired shoots, and also shoot purely for pleasure. I shoot in JPG roughly 95% of the time overall, with RAW mostly being used when I shoot hired jobs. Even then, I tend to shoot RAW+JPG, so I can use the JPGs most of the time when I nail the shot, but have the RAW there to back me up in case I flub anything, since I am no longer the only one relying on the photo - I have a client I need to please, so the RAW is insurance. When I shoot any personal photography, I shoot JPG - I enjoy photography much more that way, because I like being out in the world, taking the photos, and working as hard as I can to get everything right when I shoot - the interface between man and machine, turning dials and getting settings right, adjusting the parameters of the camera's JPG engine just-so, that's the part I enjoy. Sitting in front of a computer is something that feels more like a task or job - I don't enjoy that as much as I feel I just need to. So I try to limit the amount of time I spend there. JPG, shot correctly, avoids the need to do any post processing. Get the exposure right, tune the JPGs for just the right color output, contrast curve, saturation, and sharpness, use dynamic range optimization software in camera to control highlights and shadows, focus correctly, and compose correctly, and the shot can come out of the camera ready to hang on a wall or sell to a client, or publish in a National magazine. And of course, you can still post-process a JPG - lots of things can be fine-tuned, just not with the extreme flexibility of RAW. You need to be much closer to right than wrong with the JPG - with the RAW, you can be wildly off and still get a decent shot out of it. Some things RAW can do that JPG cannot, such as setting white balance...while white balance can be 'adjusted' with the JPG, some colors can be irreparably thrown off even after adjustment - so if you're not into setting the correct white balance when you shoot, that could be a big advantage of RAW, because you can correctly tune it later. I like setting it when I shoot, so this isn't an issue for me.

Neither method is wrong or right, so don't let people sway you on that argument. Just decide what it is you want from photography, what parts of the process you enjoy the most, decide whether you are happy with the output you're getting now, whether you could improve your JPG results to the point where you can be happy, or whether RAW is the better choice for maximum flexibility, enjoyment, or optimal final results. Then choose for yourself, and care not what others opine.`

Justin Miller
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Yes indeed, if it was my remark earlier I've toned it down :)
Click to expand...

It's just been all the way through from lots of us really - not aimed at any one person, and I might have been more polite too. :)
 
OldCarlos said:
Not long after I bought a digital camera I read this; (my Bold)
`My opinion is: have your own opinion, and do what gets you the results, ...
Click to expand...
Written by an American. The verbosity is a giveaway ...

Though come to think of it .... where are you, Mike?
 
Last edited:
OldCarlos said:
Not long after I bought a digital camera I read this; (my Bold)

`Only you can come to the final conclusion of what works for you - if you try to gather the opinions of the masses, you're going to end up feeling the pressure to be just like them - the masses will always tell you a certain brand is best, you should aspire to full frame, and you should never ever shoot in anything but RAW. They'll tell you which RAW editor is best, and what to take photos of, if you want them to!

`My opinion is: have your own opinion, and do what gets you the results, what makes you happy, and what makes photography everything you need it to be. If that can be done by shooting JPG, and using a decent entry-level body, and no post-processing, then why not? In my opinion, the reason to change anything you're doing, the ONLY reason that matters, is because you're not happy with the results you're getting the way you do it now. A great reason to move to RAW shooting is because it offers much wider latitude to adjust and process your photo after you shoot, and offers a higher degree of recovery to fix errors if you make them...so if you're finding your results are not pleasing you, not meeting your needs, or just need more work to look good, then RAW is a good option to learn how to use. But if you find yourself happy with what you're getting out of your camera now, if you find your photos meet all you need them to, and you find yourself pretty good at nailing everything in the camera to where you don't feel you need much post-processing alterations, then keep shooting JPG.

Let me put it another way: I know some folks who shoot in JPG and can get vastly superior results and much better photos than some folks I know who shoot in RAW. Part of that is the skill of the photographer, part of it is knowing how to set up the JPG output of the camera and choose the right settings while shooting to nail the look you are going for, and part of it may have to do with the RAW skills of the other shooters and their skill level when shooting. But the fact remains: those JPG guys get what they need from JPG, the results are pleasing, and meet all their needs. One of them is a pro shooter...the others amateurs. Do you REALLY want to shoot RAW, or does peer pressure from all you hear and see on the boards telling you that you're inferior or will never be a pro if you don't shoot RAW cause you to think you need to do it? Wanting to shoot RAW to learn more about post-processing, take more control over the final output of your photo after you shoot it, or the need to fix or recover your photos for optimal results are all fine reasons to shoot RAW. Caving in to peer pressure when you were already happy is not a good reason to shoot RAW.

I can offer you my own personal choice, not to pressure you with what to do, but just offer perspective. I'm a semi-pro shooter, have been in SLR photography since 1977 and digital photography since 1997. I get paid for some of my work and do hired shoots, and also shoot purely for pleasure. I shoot in JPG roughly 95% of the time overall, with RAW mostly being used when I shoot hired jobs. Even then, I tend to shoot RAW+JPG, so I can use the JPGs most of the time when I nail the shot, but have the RAW there to back me up in case I flub anything, since I am no longer the only one relying on the photo - I have a client I need to please, so the RAW is insurance. When I shoot any personal photography, I shoot JPG - I enjoy photography much more that way, because I like being out in the world, taking the photos, and working as hard as I can to get everything right when I shoot - the interface between man and machine, turning dials and getting settings right, adjusting the parameters of the camera's JPG engine just-so, that's the part I enjoy. Sitting in front of a computer is something that feels more like a task or job - I don't enjoy that as much as I feel I just need to. So I try to limit the amount of time I spend there. JPG, shot correctly, avoids the need to do any post processing. Get the exposure right, tune the JPGs for just the right color output, contrast curve, saturation, and sharpness, use dynamic range optimization software in camera to control highlights and shadows, focus correctly, and compose correctly, and the shot can come out of the camera ready to hang on a wall or sell to a client, or publish in a National magazine. And of course, you can still post-process a JPG - lots of things can be fine-tuned, just not with the extreme flexibility of RAW. You need to be much closer to right than wrong with the JPG - with the RAW, you can be wildly off and still get a decent shot out of it. Some things RAW can do that JPG cannot, such as setting white balance...while white balance can be 'adjusted' with the JPG, some colors can be irreparably thrown off even after adjustment - so if you're not into setting the correct white balance when you shoot, that could be a big advantage of RAW, because you can correctly tune it later. I like setting it when I shoot, so this isn't an issue for me.

Neither method is wrong or right, so don't let people sway you on that argument. Just decide what it is you want from photography, what parts of the process you enjoy the most, decide whether you are happy with the output you're getting now, whether you could improve your JPG results to the point where you can be happy, or whether RAW is the better choice for maximum flexibility, enjoyment, or optimal final results. Then choose for yourself, and care not what others opine.`

Justin Miller
Click to expand...

That's a good quote. Before I had a camera capable of producing RAW output I would still process my images, and when RAW became available I loved the extra flexibility and latitude. While it might be possible to organise many shots to get EXACTLY everything right for the camera to create a good jpg image, I'd rather put more attention into other aspects of the picture and worry less about the what the camera requires.
 
I had an old photo that I was looking at the other day, I only thought about bringing out the shadows the other day, and the detail that came out. It was amazing the detail that was hidden in the shadows. Just a pity it was a jpeg and not a RAW file. But the camera I had at the time did not do RAW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top