Wanted JPG and RAW comparison photograph.

joescrivens said:
Apology accepted :D:D:D:D
If I take a well exposed shot as a jpg and as a raw would you be able to spot the difference at a 10x8 inch print? If the answer is no then what's the reason to have shot it in raw?

This is the question I am struggling with for whether to continue with raw or not.
Click to expand...

This is it for me, although I have been saying that I haven't noticed too much difference in the quality between the two (but this is for normal photos), until you start looking closely, so I have been sticking with lightroom/jpeg.
 
joescrivens said:
Apology accepted :D:D:D:D



I don't think anyone is saying this. The facts you present are well known.

The question being asked is - does it really matter that you are throwing that data away and is the perceptible difference visible to the naked eye at the standard formats people are using.

Example, I used to save all my photographs at quality 12, I asked if there was much difference to saving at quality 10. The file size is sometimes half so I'm throwing away data - can I see the difference? Can I boot.

If I take a well exposed shot as a jpg and as a raw would you be able to spot the difference at a 10x8 inch print? If the answer is no then what's the reason to have shot it in raw?

This is the question I am struggling with for whether to continue with raw or not.
Click to expand...

So your basing your choice of format on the fact that as yet you have never printed larger than 10x8 and never will in the future? And you always have a well exposed shot OOC.
I can't help wonder what camera you have, most half decent compacts can produce a 10x8, do you really need anything better then? I suspect you do have a better camera than that though.
I find your argument shaky, lets turn this around. Why not use the best quality you can get???
 
All good if all you ever need is a 10x12 print.
My earlier point still stands: in the future I might want those images for something else.
 
joescrivens said:
Out of interest though, did you see how much detail was also in the jpeg? Posting the example at the size you have hasn't totally sold your argument, because if I take your underexposed jpg and adjust it I can get a result very close to what you did with the raw file. Obviously it's not identical because I don't know what adjustments you made but here's what I mean:

edit-3.jpg
Click to expand...

Yes that's not bad - not that different to what I get using RAW - Maybe it's just that I feel I need that safety catch :)

Having tread the rest of the post I'm concerned that some are saving their RAW images as TIF files and not JPG files?!

Can I ask why? Now I know that jpg is lossy and tif isn't but when you are finished editing the RAW, you may edit in photoshop and then save as a JPG or TIF. For the JPG there is no further editing so further loss of data - I've printed jpg images at up to 30"x20" and can't see that printing from the tif would be any better - If you do need to re-edit, just export the image from the RAW again.... Why save 20Mb tifs? I used to do that but see no benefit to tif files any more.

The only reson to save as a tif would be if you were editing and saving the layered doc, but then the file sizes would likely be a lot bigger than 20Mb.
Any thoughts?
 
Last edited:
If you are going to do any processing on the images, why not shoot RAW? Seems silly to cast RAW aside if you are.
 
EOS_JD said:
Yes that's not bad - not that different to what I get using RAW - Maybe it's just that I feel I need that safety catch :)

Having tread the rest of the post I'm concerned that some are saving their RAW images as TIF files and not JPG files?!

Can I ask why? Now I know that jpg is lossy and tif isn't but when you are finished editing the RAW, you may edit in photoshop and then save as a JPG or TIF. For the JPG there is no further editing so further loss of data - I've printed jpg images at up to 30"x20" and can't see that printing from the tif would be any better - If you do need to re-edit, just export the image from the RAW again.... Why save 20Mb tifs? I used to do that but see no benefit to tif files any more.

The only reson to save as a tif would be if you were editing and saving the layered doc, but then the file sizes would likely be a lot bigger than 20Mb.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

A tiff file can support 16 bit and layers, thats the reason some people use them fro printing from.
 
EOS_JD said:
The only reson to save as a tif would be if you were editing and saving the layered doc, but then the file sizes would likely be a lot bigger than 20Mb.
Any thoughts?
Click to expand...

When I have been out on a shoot or had a day out with the camera I upload all the RAW images to lightroom, decide on the keepers, and discard the rest.

If I just need to do a quick edit for a web based file (up to 1024 pix), I'll export to JPG directly from LR. However, if it needs or I want to do additional PP, I will generally export as a TIFF for use in PS. I may, or may not keep a layered TIF image. Generally if I feel I may come back to it for further PP work I'll save the layered file, if not, I'l save to JPG and discard the Tiff.

However I always start with a RAW as the base file.

Steve
 
swanseamale47 said:
So your basing your choice of format on the fact that as yet you have never printed larger than 10x8 and never will in the future? And you always have a well exposed shot OOC.
I can't help wonder what camera you have, most half decent compacts can produce a 10x8, do you really need anything better then? I suspect you do have a better camera than that though.
I find your argument shaky, lets turn this around. Why not use the best quality you can get???
Click to expand...

I don't always have it right straight out of camera but the level of tweaking I have to do is never to the extent shown in these examples. My impression is that for the tweaking I do it wouldn't matter if it were raw or jpeg.
A half decent compact can produce 10x8 images sure, but i don't need to explain why my 5d can produce better 10x8 images surely?

Arkady2 said:
All good if all you ever need is a 10x12 print.
My earlier point still stands: in the future I might want those images for something else.
Click to expand...

I see this argument, it does make sense and this combined with the 'just in case you screw it up' scenario is maybe enough reason for me to continue with the raws over jpeg, I'm certainly giving it careful thought. If I were pro I certainly would bare this in mind because I wouldn't know what a customer might want in the future.

but for my own personal stuff. I can't really see why I'd need anything better than my 50 inch plasma hd size of an image and for the kind of tweaking I do I doubt a raw or a jpeg to start with would make any difference at that size.

My only reason for not shooting raw is the extra time it takes to thumbnail through my images when choosing keepers, the few seconds to render the image to see if i want it get on my nerves if i'm honest - that's my sole reason I think
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
My only reason for not shooting raw is the extra time it takes to thumbnail through my images when choosing keepers, the few seconds to render the image to see if i want it get on my nerves if i'm honest - that's my sole reason I think
Click to expand...

That's not a problem with my workflow. Everything is imported into Lightroom and 1:1 previews generated. That takes quite a while, but I don't need to sit and watch it - I can do other things while it churns away. Once they've been imported I view the first image full screen and, with Caps Lock on I press 'X', 'P' or the right arrow key. That marks the image for deletion, keeping or 'dunno'. It then immediately shows the next image. At the end of that process, Ctrl-Backspace deletes all those marked with an 'X'.

Even if I were working on jpegs I'd use the same process.
 
Some people don't understand the benefits of raw files - some don't want to understand - and some do but won't admit it because they prefer to keep the argument going. The whole discussion on here is a complete waste of time - if you're happy with jpeg - that's fine - but you can't dispute the fact that you are losing quality never to be regained. If that doesn't matter to you - fine - but for some of us - standards are higher than that.
 
awp said:
Some people don't understand the benefits of raw files - some don't want to understand - and some do but won't admit it because they prefer to keep the argument going. The whole discussion on here is a complete waste of time - if you're happy with jpeg - that's fine - but you can't dispute the fact that you are losing quality never to be regained. If that doesn't matter to you - fine - but for some of us - standards are higher than that.
Click to expand...

some good points vic, you missed one other set of people though. some who are confused about those benefits and need clarification. for them a thread like this is very helpful :thumbs:
 
I really love this place, because it is the only time I get a chance to talk about Raw/JPEG (some "outsiders" know what a JPEG is !) and TIFF.
Anyway, my next task is to convert a few files from RAW to JPEG (instead of TIFF as I have been doing), and then see the difference (If any). I will try to use the same settings whilst editing the images.
 
awp said:
Some people don't understand the benefits of raw files - some don't want to understand - and some do but won't admit it because they prefer to keep the argument going. The whole discussion on here is a complete waste of time - if you're happy with jpeg - that's fine - but you can't dispute the fact that you are losing quality never to be regained. If that doesn't matter to you - fine - but for some of us - standards are higher than that.
Click to expand...


I think that is exactly the reason why I started shooting RAW, to enable me to save the original RAW (like a negative), and to then create as many new images from it as and when I need to.
 
Why is everyone banging on about underexposing shots? Are you guys actually looking at your LCD, blinkies and histogram as and when you take a shot?....
 
joescrivens said:
A half decent compact can produce 10x8 images sure, but i don't need to explain why my 5d can produce better 10x8 images surely?

but for my own personal stuff. I can't really see why I'd need anything better than my 50 inch plasma hd size of an image and for the kind of tweaking I do I doubt a raw or a jpeg to start with would make any difference at that size.
Click to expand...

Can anyone REALY tell the difference in a 10 x 8 image? perhaps you do need to explain, as you have really lost me here.
The 5D Mk11 is understandably much better than ANY compact camera for lots of reasons, but can you see that in a 10 X 8 image?

A full HD screen regardless of screen size is only 2 Megapixels, I thought the 5D Mk11 had 21 Mp ?????????

My first digital camera was a Canon Ixus with 2Mp, I just loved that little camera and produced some great (in my opinion I might add) 10 X 8 prints.
They would have the same level of detail as those from a 5D Mk11 on a HD TV......
 
Is it really worth sticking to RAW guys? I am only just starting to use my DSLR and now confused!! JPEG / RAW?
 
Howi said:
Can anyone REALY tell the difference in a 10 x 8 image? perhaps you do need to explain, as you have really lost me here.
The 5D Mk11 is understandably much better than ANY compact camera for lots of reasons, but can you see that in a 10 X 8 image?

A full HD screen regardless of screen size is only 2 Megapixels, I thought the 5D Mk11 had 21 Mp ?????????

My first digital camera was a Canon Ixus with 2Mp, I just loved that little camera and produced some great (in my opinion I might add) 10 X 8 prints.
They would have the same level of detail as those from a 5D Mk11 on a HD TV......
Click to expand...

i tell you what, you put up an image taken with your canon ixus at 10x8 and i'll put up one from my 5d and we'll see which has the better iq.

you can see the difference in quality from those cameras in a 7x5 or even a 6x4. its not all about pixel density, access to lenses that allow shallow dof, ultra sharp focus etc etc.

put it this way, if we did it annonymously i'm pretty sure 100% of the people on this forum would be able to tell which photo was taken with which camera
 
Last edited:
Legarm, stick to Raw mate. As Swansealmale47 says, get the best from your gear has to offer. I only use jpeg for unimportant stuff to make things easy on me with regards to old softwware and a sluggish computer dealing with 21mp files.
 
joescrivens said:
i tell you what, you put up an image taken with your canon ixus at 10x8 and i'll put up one from my 5d and we'll see which has the better iq.

you can see the difference in quality from those cameras in a 7x5 or even a 6x4. its not all about pixel density, access to lenses that allow shallow dof, ultra sharp focus etc etc.

put it this way, if we did it annonymously i'm pretty sure 100% of the people on this forum would be able to tell which photo was taken with which camera
Click to expand...

Hi Joe

I've been reading through this thread and don't disagree with what you're saying, but surely all images posted here are in jpeg format? :thinking: .... Is it really useful to compare images on the Internet anyway? .. too many variables IMHO .. monitors, settings, screen size, calibration etc :shrug:
 
Splog said:
Hi Joe

I've been reading through this thread and don't disagree with what you're saying, but surely all images posted here are in jpeg format? :thinking: .... Is it really useful to compare images on the Internet anyway? .. too many variables IMHO .. monitors, settings, screen size, calibration etc :shrug:
Click to expand...

yeah, can be very true
 
Joe you bought a 5d full frame camera to produce a 10x8, why not buy a 300d?, at 10x8 I doubt theses any noticable quality difference.
If your happy with jpeg stick with it. I'll stick with raw, I want and need the best quality from my gear, I'm not happy with second best.
 
specialman said:
Why is everyone banging on about underexposing shots? Are you guys actually looking at your LCD, blinkies and histogram as and when you take a shot?....
Click to expand...

Well, I did think about getting out of the vehicle and asking the leopard to walk past again. But then I thought I'd better not!
 
hollis_f said:
Well, I did think about getting out of the vehicle and asking the leopard to walk past again. But then I thought I'd better not!
Click to expand...

:lol: Good one!
 
NigelPaul said:
:lol: Good one!
Click to expand...

Hmmmmmm........ yep, good one, he got on over me. I'm stupid. Look at stupid me. Oh I feel stupid.....

hollis_f said:
Well, I did think about getting out of the vehicle and asking the leopard to walk past again. But then I thought I'd better not!
Click to expand...

Very droll. Your shot is overexposed by the way ;)


(realises that the TP disease is incureable so gives up.....)
 
Last edited:
Anybody who feels they might be unsure about what a raw file actually is can read this;
http://www.arridigital.com/creative/camerabasics

Its about video cameras, but explains very well how a sensor works and what a raw file is.
Raw is not a lossless image format, its not even an image, its scientific data. To be viewable (in any way), all that data has to be interpreted using algorithms so our eyes can see what we perceive as a cohesive image. This raw data can be interpreted in different ways, depending on the technology that is interpreting it. The way Raw files could be interpreted in the future may lead to a better 'image' file from an old raw file taken 10 years previously. Any image that is saved as a viewable image i.e jpeg, tiff etc is limited purely buy the fact that it is a standardized file type.

I've got it!!! (the perfect analogy that is, just came to me)

Raw files are the evidence, jpegs are the verdict.

Ade




.
 
Last edited:
swanseamale47 said:
Joe you bought a 5d full frame camera to produce a 10x8, why not buy a 300d?, at 10x8 I doubt theses any noticable quality difference.
If your happy with jpeg stick with it. I'll stick with raw, I want and need the best quality from my gear, I'm not happy with second best.
Click to expand...

i dont use jpeg, i use raw but im wondering if i should use jpeg.

and 5d for my shots was nothing to do with the pixels it offers, it was the shallower dof, better noise, video capabilities and everything else that puts a 5d over a 300d.

you guys who think its all about the number of pixels, you need to do some reading, seriously
 
Pat, don't take things to heart mate, tis only the internet. You're not stupid and like others, you have valids points :thumbs:
 
swanseamale47 said:
A tiff file can support 16 bit and layers, thats the reason some people use them fro printing from.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate that buit a layered tif would be far bigger than 20Mb. Not realy sure that 16bit for printing is a huge bonus as most printers convert to 8bit I believe?
 
Jelster said:
When I have been out on a shoot or had a day out with the camera I upload all the RAW images to lightroom, decide on the keepers, and discard the rest.

If I just need to do a quick edit for a web based file (up to 1024 pix), I'll export to JPG directly from LR. However, if it needs or I want to do additional PP, I will generally export as a TIFF for use in PS. I may, or may not keep a layered TIF image. Generally if I feel I may come back to it for further PP work I'll save the layered file, if not, I'l save to JPG and discard the Tiff.

However I always start with a RAW as the base file.

Steve
Click to expand...

Yes I can see thatand sort of did that myself but very rarely do I save tif files these days. If I'm going to do additional Ps work I do export as a tif but usually save as jpg when done and delete the tif unless I want to keep the layered doc for some reason although rare now.
 
joescrivens said:
I don't always have it right straight out of camera but the level of tweaking I have to do is never to the extent shown in these examples. My impression is that for the tweaking I do it wouldn't matter if it were raw or jpeg.
A half decent compact can produce 10x8 images sure, but i don't need to explain why my 5d can produce better 10x8 images surely?



I see this argument, it does make sense and this combined with the 'just in case you screw it up' scenario is maybe enough reason for me to continue with the raws over jpeg, I'm certainly giving it careful thought. If I were pro I certainly would bare this in mind because I wouldn't know what a customer might want in the future.

but for my own personal stuff. I can't really see why I'd need anything better than my 50 inch plasma hd size of an image and for the kind of tweaking I do I doubt a raw or a jpeg to start with would make any difference at that size.

My only reason for not shooting raw is the extra time it takes to thumbnail through my images when choosing keepers, the few seconds to render the image to see if i want it get on my nerves if i'm honest - that's my sole reason I think
Click to expand...

Your 50" plasma sows 2Mp images (1920x1080 = 2073600 pixels) so you could shoot RAW + small jpg and still show them at high res on your plasma.
 
Howi said:
My first digital camera was a Canon Ixus with 2Mp, I just loved that little camera and produced some great (in my opinion I might add) 10 X 8 prints.
They would have the same level of detail as those from a 5D Mk11 on a HD TV......
Click to expand...



That is just not true. THe small sensors issue is more the way they capture light and with the tiny sensor used they just can't hack it - the 5DII captures a huge level of detail over any compact (no matter the resolution) and that is obvious even when the images are reduced in size.

Small compacts are generally just not capable of capturing the same quality of images and even if depth of field and speed were the same they would still fall mightily short.
 
Splog said:
Hi Joe

I've been reading through this thread and don't disagree with what you're saying, but surely all images posted here are in jpeg format? :thinking: .... Is it really useful to compare images on the Internet anyway? .. too many variables IMHO .. monitors, settings, screen size, calibration etc :shrug:
Click to expand...

You cannot actually view a RAW image other than in your RAW software. You can export the RAW as a jpg (or other format). The argument is can the RAW produce a better end file (be that JPG, TIF etc) than one straight from the camera.

I agree about the variables though. Calibration is essential imo.
 
This link explains it much better than I can, you should now have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision on whether to shoot RAW or JPEG (or ideally both).
The pros and cons are laid out for you, there is NO right or wrong decision here.

You now have the information to make that decision without someone telling you what you should be doing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml
 
EOS_JD said:
That is just not true. THe small sensors issue is more the way they capture light and with the tiny sensor used they just can't hack it - the 5DII captures a huge level of detail over any compact (no matter the resolution) and that is obvious even when the images are reduced in size.

Small compacts are generally just not capable of capturing the same quality of images and even if depth of field and speed were the same they would still fall mightily short.
Click to expand...

Exactly, not sure what camera Howi has now but it surprises me to read that someone thinks that a small print from a compact is going to compare to that of a dSLR sensor :cuckoo:
 
Through my own testing I have decided to stick with RAW. My reasons aren't for future proofing in case I want to print massive down the road or even go back and re-edit a photo- I just don't have the time or inclination for this.

On experimenting over the last few days it's the control of white balance that has stuck me as a must have from my raw files. I took some photos of my son under tungsten light but I couldn't replicate his skin tone anywhere near as accurately with my jpeg as I could with my raw.

This has sold it to me so I'll stick with it :thumbs:
 
Howi said:
This link explains it much better than I can, you should now have sufficient information to make an intelligent decision on whether to shoot RAW or JPEG (or ideally both).
The pros and cons are laid out for you, there is NO right or wrong decision here.

You now have the information to make that decision without someone telling you what you should be doing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml
Click to expand...

Your link's not working.
 
Personally I think it depends what you are shooting. :)

If I was shooting personal stuff that was never likely to be printed at any great size then I'd happily be shooting jpegs.

But I don't. Shooting weddings means that I shoot RAW for several reasons.

1) RAW is my neg. It has the maximum amount of information and it is sacrosanct. It gets backed up three times and is extremely valuable.

2) There are times where something happens that you simply don't have too much time to fiddle with settings and I would much rather have a shot a stop or two out that records a precious moment knowing that I can correct that later. That's not incompetence but just using the technology at my disposal.

3) White balance. Often I will custom white balance the shots from the church. If I WB them in LR using something white in shot then often, while technically correct, it is not such a pleasing image as one that is processed slightly warmer. The RAW in LR allows me to choose what white balance I want to apply to the whole set for consistency.

4) All my images are edited. With jpeg, each edit you do makes that file smaller and smaller, that's all information going in the bin. I'd rather keep all my info right there in the image. Once out of LR as jpegs they only ever have two actions run on them and one of those is sharpening so it's kept to a minimum.

5) I pay attention to the album sizes I use. I process all my album images to fit the maximum possible page size and no more. There is no point in having images clogging up disc space that are 3ft x 2ft. Most of my images can happily be 12 x 8. I can always go back to the original RAW file if someone does want a huge wall canvas but it is a waste to process images above the requirement I have for them. Most of them end up about 4-6Mb each.

But I CAN always go back to the RAW, even a couple of years later it is still there with all that information in it and that, to me, is priceless. That's why I shoot RAW.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Through my own testing I have decided to stick with RAW. My reasons aren't for future proofing in case I want to print massive down the road or even go back and re-edit a photo- I just don't have the time or inclination for this.

On experimenting over the last few days it's the control of white balance that has stuck me as a must have from my raw files. I took some photos of my son under tungsten light but I couldn't replicate his skin tone anywhere near as accurately with my jpeg as I could with my raw.

This has sold it to me so I'll stick with it :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Yes one of the main reasons I use it. Very easy to batch process all your images in lr (or your favoured software). This is one of the major + points for RAW.

I also like that you can crop images, add filter effects, create virtual files etc etc without affecting the original one..... I guess you can do that with jpg too in your RAW software but the effects seem different.....
 
AliB said:
Personally I think it depends what you are shooting. :)
Click to expand...


Agree 100%. It ALWAYS has. If I shot weddings, then of course I'd shoot RAW. Same if I did reportage, or sports - basically, anything with the need to pick up and shoot instantly, without checking all your settings first.

As I am a studio togger, my exposures ooc are pretty damned close to where they should be, and I have very accurate wb's pre set for each of my lighting conditions. Why should I shoot RAW?

Yes, I KNOW I am discarding data (:bang:) - everyone knows this already -but seeing as I have blown up jpeg images to 60x40 (inches) with NO problems, and my customers are more than happy with what I produce...well, I'll continue to my produce 'second rate images' which seem to sell remarkably well.

However, there are some very patronising comments here, along with one guy who seems to think his opinion is the ONLY correct one...and I really can't be bothered to listen to some b*****d who genuinely seems to think his opinion is 100% correct, and anything else is 'absolute rubbish.' so I'll leave you to bicker amongst yourselves, I have some jpegs to shoot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top