The great RawPeg Debate !

Andrew Davies Photography said:
If i am going to correct a raw to produce a jpeg , then if the jpeg is correct in the first place how does that make jpeg a lossy format ?
Click to expand...
You are assuming that there is only one ideal output for each shot. That isn't the case. I can see that for some uses it may be, but not for all by a long way. There is also the possibility that the photographer might not want to decidewhich of two (or more) options is going to be "the one image" before it is taken.
 
I like it RAW.

Seriously, I choose RAW because of the flexibility. Sure I could shoot it right the first time, the way I had imagined it. But what if down the road I wanted a different look of the same shot?
 
@Andrew Davies Photography.

Why not research the two formats and decide for yourself which is best for you, because threads like this achieve nothing. Those who shoot JPEG will insist it's best for what they do, and those who shoot RAW will insist it's best for what they do.

Can you work within the limitations of JPEG without any problems? If so, then maybe RAW will be offering no benefit for you. Who knows except you? JPEG, is 8bits deep, and limited to 256 levels per channel... and is locked into a fixed 256 colour palette per pixel, and for some, that causes issues. RAW is not. You need to work out if that gives you any advantage or not.

I see no point in debating what I use, as I'm not you. I know what's right for me.

Do the research.
 
Pookeyhead said:
@Andrew Davies Photography.

Why not research the two formats and decide for yourself which is best for you, because threads like this achieve nothing. Those who shoot JPEG will insist it's best for what they do, and those who shoot RAW will insist it's best for what they do.

Can you work within the limitations of JPEG without any problems? If so, then maybe RAW will be offering no benefit for you. Who knows except you? JPEG, is 8bits deep, and limited to 256 levels per channel... and is locked into a fixed 256 colour palette per pixel, and for some, that causes issues. RAW is not. You need to work out if that gives you any advantage or not.

I see no point in debating what I use, as I'm not you. I know what's right for me.

Do the research.
Click to expand...
Andrew knows all about it, but seems to believe that this would be useful to new users.:p
 
Well.. I'd suggest typing "RAW vs. JPEG" into Google, and doing some research would be more useful. This will just be a "I'm right"... "No.. I'M right" kind of thread.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well.. I'd suggest typing "RAW vs. JPEG" into Google, and doing some research would be more useful. This will just be a "I'm right"... "No.. I'M right" kind of thread.
Click to expand...

Just as I suggested in my original post " Been done to Death" a simple search within this very forum would reveal many threads on this un-answerable topic

Personal preference whatever you choose to use, No right or wrong method

Les ;)
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well.. I'd suggest typing "RAW vs. JPEG" into Google, and doing some research would be more useful. This will just be a "I'm right"... "No.. I'M right" kind of thread.
Click to expand...

Some people like to interact rather than read back. If those people want to discuss this again and you don't then that's fine.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Then they can search for the many, many threads already on here.
Click to expand...

So you missed the bit about some people liking to interact then. If you don't like it don't read the threads. Leave people to talk about whatever they chose. :)
 
Last edited:
Perhaps we need a separate forum, where people who feel the need to 'interact' by pointlessly wittering on and on like a bunch of washerwomen (no offence to washerwomen intended) can endlessly discuss the modern equivalent of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.
 
There is only one significant reason to shoot JPEG these days, and that is because you don't have access to a computer (for whatever reason). JPEGs are good to go straight out of the camera, but if you do use a computer (for whatever reason) then you'll often get a better result from a Raw file (but not always) and there's no more work involved.

FWIW, I shoot Raw and process in LightRoom.
 
Since raw* files are, in the majority of cases, glorified TIFFs (the camera produces a TIFF file that is wrapped in creamy, proprietary goodness**) and since JPEGs are downsampled TIFFs, you can end this madness now by shooting TIFF if your camera allows it. You'll take a hit on card space and buffering of course but hey, you free yourself of that pesky raw vs JPEG shall I?/shan't I? cognitive dissonance.

As a side note, if you shoot with a Nikon, there's no need to shoot raw+JPEG as the NEFs contain the JPEG preview that you specified in the menu. Just shoot raw and specify Large, Fine, optimised for quality JPEGs along with any special sauce you want to apply in Picture Controls and it is easy*** to extract the JPEG from the glorified TIFF NEF file. This may well be the case for other toy manufacturers camera makers like Canon.**** Unfortunately, Fuji put a downsized JPEG in their RAF files as previews so it won't work with them.





*RAW is incorrect; it is neither a TLA nor an acronym and so shouldn't be capitalised. The word literally comes from the concept of it being raw data. So stop it. Stop it, now.
** Which is why there's usually a delay in being able to process raw files from new cameras as software companies either have to reverse engineer the raw file to decode it or if the camera makers release the code, find a way of shoehorning it in to existing code without making the software throw a wobbly.
*** Software required, much of it free, at least on the superior platform of the Mac*****
**** See what I did there?
***** See what I did there again?
 
Last edited:
chromatin64 said:
Since raw* files are, in the majority of cases, glorified TIFFs (the camera produces a TIFF file that is wrapped in creamy, proprietary goodness**)
Click to expand...

Er, nope.

A tiff file has had demosaicing applied to the raw data.

Here's what Chuck Westfall says about raw vs tiff. LINK
 
Last edited:
chromatin64 said:
it is easy*** to extract the JPEG from the glorified TIFF NEF file.
Click to expand...

It is easy to extract a highly compressed (and, therefore, lower quality) jpeg from the raw file. This jpeg is only there to make it easy for software to display the raw image without having to do a full-blown conversion each time.
 
hollis_f said:
Perhaps we need a separate forum, where people who feel the need to 'interact' by pointlessly wittering on and on like a bunch of washerwomen (no offence to washerwomen intended) can endlessly discuss the modern equivalent of 'how many angels can dance on the head of a pin'.
Click to expand...

As long as we have a separate forum for people who feel the need to moan and criticize everything other people do. Imagine how peaceful this place will be...
 
hollis_f said:
It is easy to extract a highly compressed (and, therefore, lower quality) jpeg from the raw file. This jpeg is only there to make it easy for software to display the raw image without having to do a full-blown conversion each time.
Click to expand...

You missed the bit where I said, "If you shoot Nikon...". Nikon put a high quality JPEG in their NEFs if you have specified such in your Picture Controls. As I said, Fuji associate a low resolution JPEG with the RAF format and I'm not sure what Canon do.
 
hollis_f said:
Er, the article that says - "Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a wide-gamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFF"
Click to expand...

Er, that's just before the bit that you obviously didn't reach where it says,

"Many raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CR2 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), are based on the TIFF file format.[4] These files may deviate from the TIFF standard in a number of ways, including the use of a non-standard file header, the inclusion of additional image tags and the encryption of some of the tagged data.

<snipped irrelevant bit>

DNG, the Adobe digital negative format, is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 format and is compatible with TIFF/EP, and uses various open formats and/or standards, including Exif metadata, XMP metadata, IPTC metadata, CIE XYZ coordinates, ICC profiles, and JPEG.[10]"
 
135.gif
 
Hmm, Android. (Even though i have an iphone.....).

Next:- Catholocism vs Judaism vs Islam.
 
Buddhism. Everyone wins.

Buddha shot JPEG 2000, by the way.

He never shot film because of the gelatine.
 
chromatin64 said:
*RAW is incorrect; it is neither a TLA nor an acronym and so shouldn't be capitalised. The word literally comes from the concept of it being raw data. So stop it. Stop it, now.
Click to expand...

No. raw looks stupid, RAW all the way. There's a time and a place for being overly pedantic with grammar, this isn't it!!

I included a double exclamation mark there just to annoy grammar pedants... :D
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yup. But in the real world you can't get it right in camera all the time and with the JPEG that's it... you're stuck with it :D and if you want to make changes later for whatever reason the quality may start to fall apart.
Click to expand...

this is one of the great urban myths - yes jpeg is a lossy format , but according to tests Mr Rouse carried out it takes at least 10 resaves for any artifacting to start becoming visibly apparent - therefore if you take a jpeg , resave it as a PSD or Tiff , do all the work you want to do in photoshop then resave it as a jpeg the quality will be fine.

Now I'm not saying jpeg uber alles - there are a lot of good reasons to shoot raw , mostly to do with the greater data capture and the ability to more completely recover blown whites or dark shadows , but too many people read the "jpeg is a lossy format" thing and start thinking that one save is going to butcher their photos

as I said on the countless other threads on this extremely tired subject I use which ever format is appropriate at the time - arguing that one is better than the other (as with canon/Nikon, digital/film print/slide etc) is pointless - its like arguing that the Aventador is 'better' than a landrover defender - on a race track or motorway almost certainly , but try taking an Aventador accros a ploughed field, or towing a trailer full of logs with one and the conclusion might be very different
 
big soft moose said:
this is one of the great urban myths - yes jpeg is a lossy format , but according to tests Mr Rouse carried out it takes at least 10 resaves for any artifacting to start becoming visibly apparent -
Click to expand...

Depends how much compression you are using. Use enough and you're ****ing it up after one save, let alone many.
 
:Plusone:
Here's a little experiment for raw users. Take a well exposed shot in both formats then, without looking at the JPEG, process the raw to your taste. Now print both versions of the shot and get a few opinions on the prints without priming the blind viewers.
 
big soft moose said:
this is one of the great urban myths - yes jpeg is a lossy format , but according to tests Mr Rouse carried out it takes at least 10 resaves for any artifacting to start becoming visibly apparent -
Click to expand...

Sorry, but Mr Rouse is wrong. I can see deterioration after one single save, and by the time it's at 5 it's pretty shoddy. This is saving from PS CC with quality setting 12 (maximum).

I opened a 16bit TIFF... saves as JPEG Q12 called 1.JPG closed. Reloeaded 1.. saved as JPEG Q12 as 2.jpg... etc ect until I had 5 resaves. Admittedly this is a very magnified view, but clearly, there's visible artefacting immediately... and very visible artefacting after as few as 5 resaves with maximum quality.


Screen grabs of all 5.. saves as a TIFF before anyone assumes the JPEG of THIS file is muddying the waters.


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/23953768/Untitled-1.tif

It's simple to test. No need to rely on "internet" information... regardless of the apparent quality of the source.
 
Last edited:
Pookeyhead said:
Sorry, but Mr Rouse is wrong. I can see deterioration after one single save, and by the time it's at 5 it's pretty shoddy. This is saving from PS CC with quality setting 12 (maximum).
.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry david but i'll put my faith in the internationally renowned photographer rather than the forum expert - the difference I suspect being that he is talking about real world performance not pixel peeping.
 
Bananas.
 
big soft moose said:
I'm sorry david but i'll put my faith in the internationally renowned photographer rather than the forum expert - the difference I suspect being that he is talking about real world performance not pixel peeping.
Click to expand...


Well.. personal loyalties aside... evidence is evidence. You don't need to trust ME... I'm immaterial to this process... I'm just the one that ran the test. Whether the images come from someone you seem to dislike, or from a well known wildlife photographer: I fail to see what it matters. Trust the images. Feel free to try the same process yourself to no doubt get identical results.

It's also about personal requirements, and also depends whether he qualified his statement with "at reasonable viewing distances" for example, as that puts a whole new light on the situation, as reasonable distances vary, and people's requirements vary. I've just printed a set of images for exhibition at A0.. it matters to me, yes. It may not matter to someone who only publishes online, no. Facts are fact however, and it's always nice to have them.. along with real, actual evidence you can evaluate yourself.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Well.. personal loyalties aside... evidence is evidence. You don't need to trust ME... I'm immaterial to this process... I'm just the one that ran the test. Whether the images come from someone you seem to dislike, or from a well known wildlife photographer: I fail to see what it matters. Trust the images. Feel free to try the same process yourself to no doubt get identical results.

It's also about personal requirements, and also depends whether he qualified his statement with "at reasonable viewing distances" for example, as that puts a whole new light on the situation, as reasonable distances vary, and people's requirements vary. I've just printed a set of images for exhibition at A0.. it matters to me, yes. It may not matter to someone who only publishes online, no. Facts are fact however, and it's always nice to have them.. along with real, actual evidence you can evaluate yourself.
Click to expand...

Its not to do with personal loyalties David , its that I think he's a tiny bit more likely to know what he's talking about - in the real world (no offence), Ive looked at the images - at one save the difference is unnoticeable unless you go to a pixel peeping level. At 5 saves you can see it if you really look for it but who makes 5 jpeg saves in the real world anyway - as I said open it, resave it as a tiff or psd work on it , when you are done save it as a jpeg (that's only one jpeg save different to a raw workflow)

On your set of exhibition A0s - how many viewers will be examing them at 3 inches with a magnifying glass ?
 
I have to add my two-pence as a locally renowned legend in my own bath tub :)

I make galleries often for clients which involves resizing and saving in jpeg from the original jpeg saved from CS5 raw - so two jpeg saves. I can see a difference when the jpeg hits the web but not with the two files side by side in CS5 so i think there is more lost visually when things are published after being saved and the huge differences in the way different browsers and systems see jpegs is far more of an issue than how often the file was saved.
 
big soft moose said:
Its not to do with personal loyalties David , its that I think he's a tiny bit more likely to know what he's talking about - in the real world (no offence)
Click to expand...

It's understandable that you would think so, sure. In this instance, I know for a fact that he's knowledgeable. However.. there are LOTS of internationally renowned photographers that don't know their arse from their elbow. They're internationally renowned for their work.. not their in depth photoshop. Likewise, there are lots of people who will know a great deal more than Andy Rouse, who you've never heard of... like the people who work at Adobe creating the software, or perhaps those working for the Joint Pictures Experts Group who set the standard for the codec?. I'm sure they know more than most photographers It's strange that people think that being a famous photographer suddenly means you've had knowledge imparted regarding everything else as a result. This doesn't apply to Andy Rouse... who does know his stuff BTW... I'm just questioning your faith in someone's reputation as an image maker meaning they therefore have equal facility with every aspect of the image making process. Clearly this is not the case.

big soft moose said:
, Ive looked at the images - at one save the difference is unnoticeable unless you go to a pixel peeping level. At 5 saves you can see it if you really look for it but who makes 5 jpeg saves in the real world anyway - as I said open it, resave it as a tiff or psd work on it , when you are done save it as a jpeg (that's only one jpeg save different to a raw workflow)
Click to expand...

I agree... it wasn't me who brought up the whole resaving JPEGs anyway. I'm just saying there IS a difference after only a few saves. How much, and whether than bothers you... is up to you.... and by using the images I've just provided, you can make up your own mind :)


big soft moose said:
On your set of exhibition A0s - how many viewers will be examing them at 3 inches with a magnifying glass ?
Click to expand...

Not many... but some will.. and indeed have (watched them do it) ... all of them other other photographers BTW :)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top