Wanted JPG and RAW comparison photograph.

Wobbler said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know exactly who you mean! :lol:

Not sure the need for the 'b*****d' bit though :eek:
 
Wobbler said:
...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.
Click to expand...

Best post yet. Yes, there are some great comments in this thread, worthy of quoting. Forums are one of the best sources of opinionated misinformation I've ever come across. Reader beware.

RAW or JPEG? Well, let's face it, there are those who like the Fiat Multipla...

“Both formats are capable of the highest quality images… Unfortunately tech folks push Raw without consideration as to how photographers like to work…” (Rob Sheppard).
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wobbler said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not terribly helpful though, is it...? :shrug:
 
joescrivens said:
I know exactly who you mean! :lol:

Not sure the need for the 'b*****d' bit though :eek:
Click to expand...

:D:D:D Act like a b*****d, get treated like one.


To be fair, it was unnecessary and inappropriate - sorry...and no, not very helpful - almost as unhelpful as someone who tells me what I 'should' be doing, or that I am wrong, ignorant and uneducated if I do not do what they say I should, even though they've never even seen my shots.

What I have tried (and failed, apparently) to point out is that what format you shoot in should be determined by what you are shooting, where, and why - to tell someone else they are 'wrong' to do it is...well, ignorant. :D
 
Wobbler said:
...What I have tried (and failed, apparently) to point out is that what format you shoot in should be determined by what you are shooting, where, and why - to tell someone else they are 'wrong' to do it is...well, ignorant. :D
Click to expand...

...is the Correct Response: go to the top of the class...lol

RAW offers such significant advantages in so many shooting situations that it's become my default setting.
However there are occasions where JPEG-Fine is more than adequate and that setting will be selected for certain tasks.
 
I think the other thing is that just because someone values raw or jpeg over the other doesn't make it fact that one is the best format to shoot in over the other. The raw lovers in this thread are coming across a little bit like it's not personal choice, its just fact that raw should be what everyone uses and you're a fool if you don't use it.

Audrey Woulard for example shoots jpeg only and it hasn't exactly held her back in her career! She's more successful than the majority of people in this thread for example.
 
Arkady2 said:
Utter *******s - sorry mate but you're just plain wrong.

Look it up - don't just take my word for it - this is common knowledge and has been known about for years.
Click to expand...

JPEG can reduce the file size by a factor of 10 without visible quality loss... It does so by taking into account the sensitivities of our eyes, by compressing color information more than information about detail, and by compressing fine detail more than coarse detail.

If you save... an image in JPEG, close it, open it again and save it again in JPEG with the same quality setting, the file size will not reduce further, but quality will have degraded further. So only compress after all editing is done.

Depending on the quality level chosen, information will be lost and the JPEG blocks will be visible, especially when enlarging the image. Saving the file again in JPEG will apply the same process but now on the new data which were already compressed before. Since these data are different, the second compression will be different and will cause additional information to be lost (but without extra space savings), even if the quality level is the same as the first time. So the effect is cumulative, which is why JPEG should not be used if you plan to save the file often.

When editing an image in several sessions, it is recommended that you save the intermediate image in an uncompressed or lossless compressed format such as TIFF or the editing program's native format...


Vincent Bockaert
123di of Digital Imaging
Click to expand...


So, Rob, that's what I've always done. I open JPEGs but they are not edited and saved as JPEGs. It works perfectly well and I’m very pleased with my prints. What more can I say.

:)

Sam
 
doesn't RAW stand for 'Really Awful White balance'?

thats why i use it :D
 
EOS_JD said:
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.
Click to expand...

My point was that people are viewing images in this thread as jpegs yet judging them as raw files :thinking:
 
Splog said:
My point was that people are viewing images in this thread as jpegs yet judging them as raw files :thinking:
Click to expand...

I didn't think they did? I think most know you can't compare a raw online as you can only view them in your raw editing software.
 
Are we still fighting why buying proper RAW meat is better than mechanically reclaimed ready-cooked fatty meat-a-like products? You can still cook crap if you want from RAW but not vice versa.
 
Splog said:
My point was that people are viewing images in this thread as jpegs yet judging them as raw files :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes. Because the whole point of the debate is which method produces the best jpeg files. The jpeg produced by the camera processing the raw data or the jpeg produced by a human processing the raw files.
 
hollis_f said:
Yes. Because the whole point of the debate is which method produces the best jpeg files. The jpeg produced by the camera processing the raw data or the jpeg produced by a human processing the raw files.
Click to expand...

Indeed, which is down to the person processing the raw file as the camera starts out with exactly the same file when IT produces the jpeg so it's a pretty pointless exercise.
 
fabs said:
Indeed, which is down to the person processing the raw file as the camera starts out with exactly the same file when IT produces the jpeg so it's a pretty pointless exercise.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think the discussion is about which jpg is best- the one straight from the camera or the one converted from raw by a person as hollis said. Otherwise we'd be posting SOOC jogs and comparing them against ones we'd processed ourselves.

It's about when doing your own pp is it best to start with the raw or start with the jpg that your camera converted from raw.
 
Last edited:
joescrivens said:
Well, I don't think the discussion is about which jpg is best- the one straight from the camera or the one converted from raw by a person as hollis said. Otherwise we'd be posting SOOC jogs and comparing them against ones we'd processed ourselves.

It's about when doing your own pp is it best to start with the raw or start with the jpg that your camera converted from raw.
Click to expand...

But that's the point. The camera starts of with a raw file, you decide whether to use that raw file or let the camera convert it to jpeg. So whether it's best to start with raw or jpeg depends on whether you think you can process the raw better than the camera. If you the you can, start with the raw, if not, start with the jpeg.
 
hollis_f said:
Yes. Because the whole point of the debate is which method produces the best jpeg files. The jpeg produced by the camera processing the raw data or the jpeg produced by a human processing the raw files.
Click to expand...

Perhaps so, but that depends on how good or bad the processing is. It also depends on how the camera has been set up to produce jpeg :thinking:
 
fabs said:
But that's the point. The camera starts of with a raw file, you decide whether to use that raw file or let the camera convert it to jpeg. So whether it's best to start with raw or jpeg depends on whether you think you can process the raw better than the camera. If you the you can, start with the raw, if not, start with the jpeg.
Click to expand...

That is the point I have been trying to get accross, but some seem to insist on putting words into my mouth.
Using 'in camera processing' means the camera makes all the decisions (once you have set the initial parameters e.g Vivid, natural, sharpening etc)
If that cuts the mustard, fine, I have no problem with that, but others may prefer to do the PP rather than letting the camera do it. For some, it is half the fun of photography. Plus that fact it gives you more scope to be creative with the initial image.
If you don't want to do that, fine, it's your decision.
People in favour of using RAW (to produce JPEG's) rather than OOC JPEGs have only been pointing out that FOR SOME there are positive benefits of using this method.

To reduce open debate to a level of childishness that beggers belief, doesn't help anyone :nono:
 
fabs said:
But that's the point. The camera starts of with a raw file, you decide whether to use that raw file or let the camera convert it to jpeg. So whether it's best to start with raw or jpeg depends on whether you think you can process the raw better than the camera. If you the you can, start with the raw, if not, start with the jpeg.
Click to expand...

Thats not what we're discussing though. We're talking about the processing beyond what the camera does. People who shoot jpeg don't just leave the processing that the camera does - they do more.

In your scenario people who shoot raw process themselves and people who shoot jpeg just let the camera do it's processing and do nothing to the jpeg.

I would think that was very rare, anyone who shoot jpeg would still be doing processing on it after it comes out of the camera, and this is where the debate starts - having lost some info already and then doing your own processing - is this the right way to do it.
 
joescrivens said:
Thats not what we're discussing though. We're talking about the processing beyond what the camera does. People who shoot jpeg don't just leave the processing that the camera does - they do more.

In your scenario people who shoot raw process themselves and people who shoot jpeg just let the camera do it's processing and do nothing to the jpeg.

I would think that was very rare, anyone who shoot jpeg would still be doing processing on it after it comes out of the camera, and this is where the debate starts - having lost some info already and then doing your own processing - is this the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

If your going to process it anyway isn't it better to start with more information in the first place, instead of letting the camera decide sharpness saturation, colour space etc. Your already limiting the further editing by letting it set those parameters and throw away the rest of the data.
 
OK.... my 2 pence worth :lol:

I'm an enthusiastic amatuer tog, for the vast majority of the stuff I shoot JPEG is fine as I'm only going to resize to allow me to put the pics up on facebook/photobucket and not heavily edit, crop etc. I aim to get as much right on the camera as possible but if I've missed/ruined a shot then it's just tough, no really biggy.

On the flip side, since installing LR I do tend to run through all my shots and tweak them before resizing. Seeing as the process for tweaking is the same for RAW & JPEGs there's no disadvantage for shooting in RAW and it gives you the added benefit of having the digital negative should you get a decent shot that someone wants to put on a big canvas for example.

A couple of weeks ago I was asked to do some portraits of my sister and her in-laws' which are likely to end up on canvas. Knowing this I shot in RAW for the simple reason that I knew the lighting could be hit & miss. I only have a jessops flash gun attached to my 400D, there would be daylight coming in from one side and needed the room lights on too. I set custom WB on the camera, which as it happens was pretty spot on but it would have been too late to say "I wish I'd shot in RAW" if I'd gone away with a load of dodgy JPEGs.

I'm not saying the JPEGs couldn't have been tweaked but given that my camera is only 10MP, I was pushing my luck for a decent size canvas print in any case :lol:

I shot my first wedding in June for a friend and the images did get a fair bit of critisism on here, some I shot in RAW, others just JPEG. I'm sure if I went back to the RAWs now and processed in LR I'd be able to get some better images......
 
swanseamale47 said:
If your going to process it anyway isn't it better to start with more information in the first place, instead of letting the camera decide sharpness saturation, colour space etc. Your already limiting the further editing by letting it set those parameters and throw away the rest of the data.
Click to expand...

well, this is exactly peoples argument if you read back through the thread.

I don't disagree with this, but it's like my point about the quality 10 or the quality 12 from the jpeg - the difference is so negligible is it really such a big deal. I think with extremes we've proved that it is, but if it's 90% right in camera does that thrown away data make much difference?

It's safer to have it there than not, but if like someone already said about shooting in a studio they get it much closer to right in camera they only need very small amount of processing afterwards so the extra data in there is irrelevant.
 
here's an interesting thought. When I open a raw file in Adobe Camera raw it shows me what it thinks the photo should be like by default. before I change anything it has done some processing to the image - right?

Sometimes I look at that and do nothing to it. It's spot on as it is and I just save it (maybe with a sharpen) is this any different to photographing it as a jpg in the first place? Assuming my settings for contrast, sharpness etc were the same as my camera raw defaults
 
swanseamale47 said:
If your going to process it anyway isn't it better to start with more information in the first place, instead of letting the camera decide sharpness saturation, colour space etc. Your already limiting the further editing by letting it set those parameters and throw away the rest of the data.
Click to expand...

Here's another thought.

If I'm shooting a big gate at motocross it's easy to fill the buffer using RAW. I'd rather use JPEG, have 100% of something to edit than 100% of that shot I missed because the buffer was full.

Is there more information in a RAW file? Of course there is but that's not a reason to use RAW all the time.
 
dod said:
Is there more information in a RAW file? Of course there is but that's not a reason to use RAW all the time.
Click to expand...

This.

Just because the info is there, it doesn't mean you need to have it.
 
joescrivens said:
here's an interesting thought. When I open a raw file in Adobe Camera raw it shows me what it thinks the photo should be like by default. before I change anything it has done some processing to the image - right?
Click to expand...

Not familiar with ACR. BUt if it's anything like LR in the way it works the very first thing you see is the embedded jpeg - produced by the camera, using the in-camera settings. Then it will display a preview image, generated from the raw data using your ACR defaults.

joescrivens said:
Sometimes I look at that and do nothing to it. It's spot on as it is and I just save it (maybe with a sharpen) is this any different to photographing it as a jpg in the first place? Assuming my settings for contrast, sharpness etc were the same as my camera raw defaults
Click to expand...

It won't be exactly the same as the camera-produced jpeg, because Adobe don't know exactly how Canon do their raw processing. But, as you've observed, it can be pretty darn close.

If you use DPP to process raw files then it will use all of the in-camera settings in exactly the same way as the camera's processor. So, if you don't alter anything, the resulting jpeg will be exactly the same as what the camera would have produced. This is why I never bother shooting raw+jpeg - it's easy to batch-process a load of images to generate the jpegs that the camera would have created.
 
joescrivens said:
Thats not what we're discussing though. We're talking about the processing beyond what the camera does. People who shoot jpeg don't just leave the processing that the camera does - they do more.

In your scenario people who shoot raw process themselves and people who shoot jpeg just let the camera do it's processing and do nothing to the jpeg.

I would think that was very rare, anyone who shoot jpeg would still be doing processing on it after it comes out of the camera, and this is where the debate starts - having lost some info already and then doing your own processing - is this the right way to do it.
Click to expand...

But it is what you're discussing. That's how you get to your starting point. I never said anything about processing (or not) beyond that.

To start processing from raw means you would rather start from scratch than let the camera produce the jpeg. To start from jpeg means you are happy for the camera to produce the jpeg.
 
dod said:
Here's another thought.

If I'm shooting a big gate at motocross it's easy to fill the buffer using RAW. I'd rather use JPEG, have 100% of something to edit than 100% of that shot I missed because the buffer was full.

Is there more information in a RAW file? Of course there is but that's not a reason to use RAW all the time.
Click to expand...

Great point. Like I always say, especially when it relates to ISO noise, I'd rather have a grainy, noisy shot that's sharp than a 'noiseless' blurred/OOF one.
 
Although I'm an advocate of RAW, there are times even during weddings where I'll switch to jpg jjust to get perhaps an action shot and I need more images than the buffer can handle. i.e. a confetti canon shot - I like to shoot a number of frames to capture reactions of a whole group of people. RAW limit can be a pain.

Horses for courses I think and i would certainly not say RAW is what everyone should shoot - but I do say it's better to have if possible.
 
fabs said:
But it is what you're discussing. That's how you get to your starting point. I never said anything about processing (or not) beyond that.

To start processing from raw means you would rather start from scratch than let the camera produce the jpeg. To start from jpeg means you are happy for the camera to produce the jpeg.
Click to expand...

somewhere along the line we aren't understanding each other :lol:

you never said anything about processing (or not) beyond the starting point but thats what the rest of us ARE talking about. At least I thought it was, I am for sure anyway :lol:
 
joescrivens said:
This.

Just because the info is there, it doesn't mean you need to have it.
Click to expand...

Its like buying a magazine with ten articles, when you only want to read two. At the end of the day, there will be junk info that will be binned from a RAW file, whether it be by the camera, or the user.

I feel it would be going round in circles if I said it all depends on what the users wants...:lol:
 
Sectionate said:
Its like buying a magazine with ten articles, when you only want to read two. At the end of the day, there will be junk info that will be binned from a RAW file, whether it be by the camera, or the user.

I feel it would be going round in circles if I said it all depends on what the users wants...:lol:
Click to expand...

That's not a good analogy.
If you need web images you may not need the size of a RAW but all the data held may still be required to get the image you need - big or small!

eg white balance - get that wrong in jpg and you'll have a much harder job trying to corect than with a RAW that can be corrcted and output at any size in seconds.
 
Hi Everyone!
I just have a quick question. I am quite new to photography and I am wondering is there a way to change a JPEG saved image ( Mac) back into a RAW image state and then change the settings? I would like the image to have a more "out of focus" effect.
Can anyone help?
 
Disney said:
Hi Everyone!
I just have a quick question. I am quite new to photography and I am wondering is there a way to change a JPEG saved image ( Mac) back into a RAW image state and then change the settings? I would like the image to have a more "out of focus" effect.
Can anyone help?
Click to expand...

That would be like trying to unbake a cake and to return to the original ingredients. It can't be done. If you wanted to have the image with shallower DOF as well that would be like changing the recipe as well.

One significant reason that people shoot raw is so that they always have the ingredients available and can bake (and rebake) the cake however they want. Shooting to JPEG is like being presented with the cake to begin with. Your options thereafter are limited.
 
Last edited:
tdodd said:
That would be like trying to unbake a cake and to return to the original ingredients. It can't be done. If you wanted to have the image with shallower DOF as well that would be like changing the recipe as well.

One significant reason that people shoot raw is so that they always have the ingredients available and can bake (and rebake) the cake however they want. Shooting to JPEG is like being presented with the cake to begin with. Your options thereafter are limited.
Click to expand...

a good analogy.

I would add that sometimes what's the point in having all the ingredients to bake the cake from scratch again when all you might need to do it change the number of candles :D
 
Disney said:
Hi Everyone!
I just have a quick question. I am quite new to photography and I am wondering is there a way to change a JPEG saved image ( Mac) back into a RAW image state and then change the settings? I would like the image to have a more "out of focus" effect.
Can anyone help?
Click to expand...

As said you can't save a jpeg as a raw/dng, your best bet for further editing is to save the original jpeg as a psd or tiff, these are not affected in the same way as a jpeg when further edited in photoshop.

Even with a raw image you can't alter depth of field (the out of focus effect) by just altering settings post process, you'd have to select the area you want OOF and blur that in photoshop. Really thats an effect best done in camera.
 
OnOne have a filter that helps create an oof effect... but better to get that sorted in-camera.
 
Disney said:
Hi Everyone!
I just have a quick question. I am quite new to photography and I am wondering is there a way to change a JPEG saved image ( Mac) back into a RAW image state and then change the settings? I would like the image to have a more "out of focus" effect.
Can anyone help?
Click to expand...

Sadly even if you could convert back to raw - you can't change the 'out of focus' effect in the raw file any more than you can with the jpeg.

If you have photoshop elements - look below
http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/Photoshop_Elements/dof/1_blur_background.htm

Probably other tutorials for 'background blur' for whatever package you use if it isn't elements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top