Raw vs JPEG

B

Bruce120

Suspended / Banned
Messages
518
Name
Bruce
Edit My Images
Yes
Much is made of post processing and people getting shots straight out of the camera without processing.

Is converting a RAW file and adjusting it the same or is this viewed as a more purist approach.

I have only just started shooting in RAW so don't have much biased either way.

Hope this makes sense?
 
raw gives you much more flexibility. as long as the shot is focussed, it's a lot easier to correct errors with a raw image as opposed to a jpeg. obviously we try no get things right when we take the shot, but sometimes this doesn't happen and RAW can be a saviour.

once you get into it, you won't go back to jpeg.
 
yeah it can be great, if you go out and take some pics but then on purpose take a shot thats over exposed, take a few at different shutter speeds then have a play with the exposures back on the PC, its amazing what can be done, i was shocked at first

i always shoot in both RAW and JPEG Fine, it takes more space but when looking at pics i can just click through Jpegs and do it quickly
 
nowler said:
raw gives you much more flexibility. as long as the shot is focussed, it's a lot easier to correct errors with a raw image as opposed to a jpeg. obviously we try no get things right when we take the shot, but sometimes this doesn't happen and RAW can be a saviour.

once you get into it, you won't go back to jpeg.
Click to expand...

i totally and whole heartedly agree! :)
 
RAW is the way to go, for me at least.
With JPEGs any blown highlights are gone forever - with RAW theres maybe a stop or so of leeway, which can be the difference between a binned image and a keeper . . .
 
I always shoot raw. since losing so many images when startying out wih photography and jpg's raw was a god send. I still use it now for the times i slip up and helps with fine tuning.
 
Here we go again :D

Jpeg for me, virtually all the time. I lose more images due to poor focus and composition than I do to poor exposure.
 
It's a doozy :)

All depends - if I'm at a rally, or fast-paced action stuff, I shoot JPEG. More shots per card, faster burst shooting etc. The D300 produces some cracking JPEGs... For a wedding, portraits, landscapes etc, I always shoot RAW, as it gives me more scope in post-processing.
 
I shoot raw all the time event when shoot at rallys and sailing events, I just couldnt live without it! I just dont like the idea of giving the camera the decision to apply a tone curve and throw away the rest of the data.

I usually slightly overexpose as well to capture as much data as possible then bring the exposure to the correct level in the raw conversion.
 
I shoot both RAW+JPEG together, yes it cuts the size of your card down but it give's a lot more scope, ie view the JPEG quicker if it's ok just tweak a tad and keep it as a TIFF, if it's got something a bit more major like blown highlights then process the RAW file and make it a keeper, the best of both worlds i reckon ;)
 
RAW and JPEG here too. If I had to choose one or the other then it would be RAW untill the cows come home. 12 months ago, I would have said the opposite. Once you start using raw, you couldnt live without it!
 
dod said:
Here we go again :D

Jpeg for me, virtually all the time. I lose more images due to poor focus and composition than I do to poor exposure.
Click to expand...

Ha ha! ~~~~~ I thought the same!

JPEG is an 8bit image - RAW is a 12bit or 14bit image (depending upon which camera/settings are made).

I doesn't take too much to work out that with a jpeg you or the camera's processor is throwing away 33% of the possible colour range with chunkier gradations!

JPEG is a no brainer for absolute quality..... sorry dod!
 
Ever since buying my D80, I've only shot RAW, and can't think of a reason to turn back to .jpg .
 
chuckles said:
JPEG is a no brainer for absolute quality..... sorry dod!
Click to expand...

I'm assuming you mean RAW ;)

We've been here before. Post up two images, one taken in RAW and one in Jpeg and people won't be able to tell which was which. Same thing if you get the same images printed.

I'm not denying that RAW does give you more latitude when correcting bad exposure but realistically how often does the built in metering get that wrong nowadays? If you know your camera and meter you really should be able to compensate for the difficult exposures.
 
nowler said:
raw gives you much more flexibility. as long as the shot is focussed, it's a lot easier to correct errors with a raw image as opposed to a jpeg. obviously we try no get things right when we take the shot, but sometimes this doesn't happen and RAW can be a saviour.

once you get into it, you won't go back to jpeg.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing I stopped at the JPEG + RAW setting then :)

I shoot in both. I like using windows to quickly browse my pictures (hence the jpeg) and then using the RAW format if I want to tweak something here and there.
 
If your lucky enough to have Photoshop CS3 (I believe it was a new feature) you can open JPEG's in Adobe camera RAW and have access to the same adjustments that you have with a RAW file. For example you can adjust the exposure sliders, shadows, highlights etc.

That being the case, for CS3 users is there still any benefit in shooting RAW ?
 
bully74uk said:
If your lucky enough to have Photoshop CS3 (I believe it was a new feature) you can open JPEG's in Adobe camera RAW and have access to the same adjustments that you have with a RAW file. For example you can adjust the exposure sliders, shadows, highlights etc.

That being the case, for CS3 users is there still any benefit in shooting RAW ?
Click to expand...

That seems absolutely impossible. Jpegs are flattened compressed images.
 
EdinburghGary said:
That seems absolutely impossible. Jpegs are flattened compressed images.
Click to expand...

http://kb.adobe.com/selfservice/viewContent.do?externalId=kb404656&sliceId=1

http://www.communitymx.com/abstract.cfm?cid=697C8

I have opened and adjusted many JPEGS in Adobe Camera RAW but have only shot/processed in RAW once so im not sure whether there are any limitations/differences

It seems to me though that the same sliders etc (for exposure etc) can be used when processing a JPEG.
 
dod said:
I'm assuming you mean RAW ;)

We've been here before. Post up two images, one taken in RAW and one in Jpeg and people won't be able to tell which was which. Same thing if you get the same images printed.

I'm not denying that RAW does give you more latitude when correcting bad exposure but realistically how often does the built in metering get that wrong nowadays? If you know your camera and meter you really should be able to compensate for the difficult exposures.
Click to expand...

Dunno how you understood it..... JPEG is completely in the bin as far as quality is concerned is what I meant! .... RAW wins everytime.

It's not just about exposure.... white balance too can be upset and this can be adjusted in RAW. This is not the same as twiddling sliders in CS3 to simulate working in RAW. Sorry, it just is not the same :( Even then, whatever processing you perform in CS(x) you will eventually have to save the file. This involves the use of the algorithm to produce a JPG which, by it's very nature, will alter the original image. That includes saving at the highest (lowest compression) quality setting. We know what JPG artefacts are. They're the chunks of the image that are compromised through the algorithm which, in turn, leads to pixellation. Whether is a large or small amount it is still something introduced by saving as a JPG. No way can that be better than a properly processed RAW image.

As far as posting here for a comparison..... impossible! Browsers (mostly) only work to jpgs, gifs and pngs (only a couple support viewing a tiff). Nearly all are 8bit (8 bits per R, G and B channels = 24bits) formats so you have to convert to 8 bit image file to get to view it on the interweb!

I agree that quite a lot of photo-finishers produce prints from JPEGs so again the quality is compromised. However, get a print produced from a RAW image, on a properly profiled photo-printer, printed on first class paper then you will see the difference!

Only when we get JPG2000 (greater colour depth) will there start to be an almost reasoned argument as to whether you will see a diffence.
 
EdinburghGary said:
That seems absolutely impossible. Jpegs are flattened compressed images.
Click to expand...

Both Photoshop and Lightroom allow the user to edit JPEG images in a similar fashion to RAW files . . .
 
Stevieboy378 said:
Both Photoshop and Lightroom allow the user to edit JPEG images in a similar fashion to RAW files . . .
Click to expand...

But do you get the same control in terms of flexibility? Surely blown highlights in a JPEG for example are completely lost? Where in RAW you can often recover? Take the S5 and its dual sensors for example, how could you get that flexiblity in a single flat jpeg?

I dont get it.

Must try I guess :)

Gary.
 
Stevieboy378 said:
Both Photoshop and Lightroom allow the user to edit JPEG images in a similar fashion to RAW files . . .
Click to expand...

Sorry, but in a similar fashion to RAW files is not the same as editing a RAW file. No matter how you wrap it up JPGs are still 8bit images and not of the same quality as RAW images.... :(
 
EdinburghGary said:
But do you get the same control in terms of flexibility? Surely blown highlights in a JPEG for example are completely lost? Where in RAW you can often recover? Take the S5 and its dual sensors for example, how could you get that flexiblity in a single flat jpeg?
Click to expand...

No - This is where RAW wins every time IMO - even though JPEGs can be edited in Photoshop or Lightroom as if they were RAW images, blown highlights are just that - blown, and lost forever.
With a RAW file it is possible to recover around a stop or so of blown highlights, and as I tend to expose to the right this is sometimes life saving . . ..
 
Stevieboy378 said:
Both Photoshop and Lightroom allow the user to edit JPEG images in a similar fashion to RAW files . . .
Click to expand...

Yes you can edit a jpeg but there is no where near as much information contained within the jpeg file as there is in a RAW file, also every time you edit and save a jpeg you will lose more information as the file is compressed again each time you save it.
 
chuckles said:
Sorry, but in a similar fashion to RAW files is not the same as editing a RAW file.
Click to expand...

Which is why I used the word similar . . . . :D

Don't get me wrong here - I'm a staunch RAW supporter, ever since I first opened a RAW file in Canon's editing software, and was blown away by the amount of adjustment available to me . . .
 
When I had a Nikon D70 I could use The bridge in CS2 to open the RAW images. I now have a D300 and in The Bridge, the images will not now open. Digital Photo last month actually mentioned this camera and said that an Adobe plug-in should be downloaded which includes the D300. I have done this and still cant open RAW files for some reason. Any comments
THANKS
 
How many of you shot raw for motor sport I do but find it a pain converting to jpeg for websites. I think most pros do jpeg.

The main reason for me doing it raw is for editing after.
:thinking:
 
Sorry dod did not see this
just trying to find out for motorsports
 
mervyn said:
When I had a Nikon D70 I could use The bridge in CS2 to open the RAW images. I now have a D300 and in The Bridge, the images will not now open. Digital Photo last month actually mentioned this camera and said that an Adobe plug-in should be downloaded which includes the D300. I have done this and still cant open RAW files for some reason. Any comments
THANKS
Click to expand...

read this
 
Thanks for all the replies, I am headed the way of shooting everything in RAW:)
 
A late entry from me... :lol:

Raw where it matters most, i.e. Weddings or for Fine Art work where big prints and tonal/colour range matters most

Jpeg fine/large for everything else - except holiday snaps, where jpeg's smallest setting is also fine (having had tiny jpegs printed nicely at A4 I can attest to this)

This is a bit like the colour space argument - choose the right format for the job is all that matters

DD
 
EdinburghGary said:
what's the best colour space?
Click to expand...

Hi EG

I thought I'd covered this one... the right Colour Space is... (like the raw/jpeg question)... the right one for the job !!!

I'm sure we covered this one to death recently on another thread

:thinking:

DD
 
chuckles said:
..... JPEG is completely in the bin as far as quality is concerned is what I meant! ....
Click to expand...

That implies jpeg's are rubbish which just isn't true.

I'm not advocating for a second that everone uses only jpeg, nor am I denying that RAW does obviously capture more information and gives you more processing flexibility.

It just get's my goat that people religiously stick to RAW, and say others should too, when it's not always needed or in some cases desirable. If it was then why would Canon, Nikon et al even bother to include not just a jpeg option on their cameras, but a whole bunch of them?
 
If you want to spend hours PP ing, rather than gibbering away on here..........:D........,then RAW all the way.

If you want to take pics and look at them quickly, jpegs.

For wildlife I shoot RAW, cos i`m crap at it and find it very hit and miss........:lol:

Your choice really........:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top