April 20, 2014, 02:58:34 PM

Poll

What do you shot, RAW or JPEG

more than 95% RAW
about 3/4 RAW
50/50
about 3/4 JPEG
more than 95% JPEG

Author Topic: RAW or JPEG  (Read 12203 times)

Hillsilly

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 679
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #75 on: September 25, 2013, 09:48:41 PM »
I am Ren Kockwell and I only shoot JPGs because in 5 years, RAWs will be unreadable anyway. I will be shooting away with my Fujifilm while you are crying for losing your RAWs. Plus I can take JPGs and my floppy disk can hold all 2 of them, where as I would need 15 floppies to hold just one RAW. And don't get me started on cheap crap like D800 with its mega pixels. My 12 year old D1 takes just as good picture and gives me 5 fps, without clogging my 2004 Mac Book Pro.

That's funny, but so true.  I shoot JPEG+RAW with my Fuji.  But nearly all of the time, I love the JPEG result and don't bother opening the RAW file.  My Olympus also produces nice JPEGs too.  But with my Canon's, I shoot RAW only as I know I won't be happy with JPEG, so why bother with it.  I don't want to knock Canon, but other cameras seem to produce nicer JPEGs. 
1000FN | 7E | 3000 | 3 | LS-100TS

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #75 on: September 25, 2013, 09:48:41 PM »

candc

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 437
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #76 on: September 25, 2013, 10:57:40 PM »
I  shoot raw+jpeg and I use the dxo converter on the raw files if the lens needs heavy correction but I think that most of the newer cameras including the canons do a very good job of producing jpegs once you get the output settings to your liking.

yablonsky

  • PowerShot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #77 on: September 26, 2013, 01:56:52 AM »
only RAW.

I use Adobe Camera Raw to convert my images to JPEG. ACR has very good options to adjust exposure settings, black, white, lights, shadows, etc. Photoshop I only use for <1% of my images.
5D2, 17-40 4L, 24-70 2.8L II, 70-200 4L IS,  300 4L IS

Sella174

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
  • So there!
    • View Profile
    • Photographing the Southern Cape.
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #78 on: September 26, 2013, 09:26:07 AM »
Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh?  ???
Sold most of my Canon gear ... here's what's left: EOS 30D (x2), EF 24mm f/2.8, EF Compact-Macro 50mm f/2.5, EF 70-200mm f/4L USM.

privatebydesign

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1604
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #79 on: September 26, 2013, 09:37:37 AM »
Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh?  ???

You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display, why would you choose to use an expensive camera and lenses and throw 3/4 of the image it captured away, permanently, immediately?

P.S. There are a couple of good reasons to do that but not in general use.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

Sella174

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
  • So there!
    • View Profile
    • Photographing the Southern Cape.
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #80 on: September 26, 2013, 10:04:52 AM »
You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display ...

With all respect, it is you who is missing the point. Read through this and other threads regarding RAW versus JPEG, and you'll see most of the posters arguing in favour of RAW do so because of the (apparent) ability of easily fixing over- and under-exposures, lens defects, sensor noise, etc.
Sold most of my Canon gear ... here's what's left: EOS 30D (x2), EF 24mm f/2.8, EF Compact-Macro 50mm f/2.5, EF 70-200mm f/4L USM.

privatebydesign

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1604
  • Ermintrude says "moo"
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2013, 10:18:55 AM »
You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display ...

With all respect, it is you who is missing the point. Read through this and other threads regarding RAW versus JPEG, and you'll see most of the posters arguing in favour of RAW do so because of the (apparent) ability of easily fixing over- and under-exposures, lens defects, sensor noise, etc.

OK, I miss the point, shoot jpeg, I don't care, I was just pointing out the paradox within your question.

Exposure is not as simple as most make it sound, where exactly do you want your tone curve? Not blowing highlights and blocking up shadows is the start, moving those included tones within the image are the key, and something you just can't do with jpegs. Even the best lenses make compromises, if they are compromises you don't want to make for that particular image RAW can change the impact those compromises make. Same with noise, I can shoot at 6400iso by under exposing my images -2 stops at my maximum iso of 1600, if I do that with a jpeg I am screwed, if I use RAW my camera suddenly has a lot more uses.

I could do many things just shooting jpegs, but I still don't understand why I would; my computer can output identical jpegs to my camera effortlessly, but once I have thrown 3/4 of the information my expensive camera and lens captured away I don't have it to work with.
The best time to plant a tree is twenty-five years ago. The second best time is today.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #81 on: September 26, 2013, 10:18:55 AM »

skullyspice

  • Rebel SL1
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
    • View Profile
    • Photojensen.com
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #82 on: September 26, 2013, 10:32:16 AM »
jpeg only
5D3, 1vHS, 1nRS, F-1N x6, Fuji X-T1, Fuji X100
50 F1.2L, 100 F2.8L Macro, 200 F2.8L, 40 F2.8, 17-40 F4L, 24-105 F4L, 70-300 F4-5.6L
www.photojensen.com

Sella174

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 570
  • So there!
    • View Profile
    • Photographing the Southern Cape.
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #83 on: September 26, 2013, 10:51:03 AM »
Exposure is not as simple ... I use RAW my camera suddenly has a lot more uses.

Ah, that's different. You use RAW to perfectly "develop" your photos.

But many advocates of RAW simply use it to compensate for bad skills, lack of artistry, etc. This latter group is usually also those who deride "JPEG-shooters" ... IMO for the simple fact that "we" can get good-ish pictures ( ::) ) straight out of our cameras and they can't even come close after spending hours in front of the computer.
Sold most of my Canon gear ... here's what's left: EOS 30D (x2), EF 24mm f/2.8, EF Compact-Macro 50mm f/2.5, EF 70-200mm f/4L USM.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12789
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #84 on: September 26, 2013, 10:53:45 AM »
You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display ...

With all respect, it is you who is missing the point. Read through this and other threads regarding RAW versus JPEG, and you'll see most of the posters arguing in favour of RAW do so because of the (apparent) ability of easily fixing over- and under-exposures, lens defects, sensor noise, etc.

Isn't it funny when everyone but you misses the point.  You'd think that would make some people wonder if they really got the point after all, but it usually doesn't.

So, an 'expensive camera' gets the exposure perfect every time?  Expensive lenses don't have aberrations?  ISO noise doesn't exist.  White balance is perfect every time, too...even in mixed lighting scenarios.  Huh?  ???

But wait - the in-camera jpg conversion can handle all of that, right?  A typical RAW image coming from the sensor has about 200 million bits of information.  Image corrections, particularly NR, are computationally intensive.  How long do you want to wait to take another picture, and how powerful is that processor in your camera? I'm guessing that for most people the answer is, not that long...better yet, instantaneously.  So, the in-camera JPG conversion is a compromise that favors speed over quality.  Actually, even conversion in your computer is a compromise.  Would you be willing to wait 5-10 minutes for the conversion of a single image?  What if, by doing so, you could get better NR without the usual detail loss tradeoff? 

A library of jpg images is like a library of CliffNotes.  Some people like the efficiency of not having to read all those 'extra' words.  Others would rather have the real books.  Count me among the latter.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

rs

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 513
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #85 on: September 26, 2013, 11:22:05 AM »
Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh?  ???
Why use top-of-the-range cameras and lenses and shoot with the bottom-of-the-range file format?

Pretty much all of those settings you mention are also done in jpeg. In raw, you have fine control over them after the event, allowing you to set them to suit the picture. If its just a snapshot, then fine - any old default settings or best guess before the moment will do. But why buy such expensive gear for snapshots?
5D II | 24-70 II | 70-200 II | 100L | 40 | Sigma 50/1.4 | 40D | 10-22 | 17-55 | 580 EX II | 1.4x TC II

Ruined

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #86 on: September 26, 2013, 11:51:19 AM »
Just an innocent question ... most of you that does RAW are using pretty expensive, top-of-the-range cameras and lenses, yet your big argument in favour of RAW is the ability to fix exposure, do lens corrections, and apply noise reduction. Huh?  ???

You miss the point, the cameras and lenses are capable of capturing massively more information than a jpeg can display, why would you choose to use an expensive camera and lenses and throw 3/4 of the image it captured away, permanently, immediately?

P.S. There are a couple of good reasons to do that but not in general use.

Quality gains eventually have diminishing returns and at some point become imperceptable by the eye even if technically they are there.

I will give an example from the audio world...  24bit/96khz audio.   Higher bit resolution and sampling rate than standard CD 16bit/44.1khz... But when subjected to double blind tests of the same masters encoded in each format, studies show people reliably can't tell the difference between them audibly.  How much information is lost in this downconversion?  About 2/3rd of the info is lost technically.

Taken a step further, when that downconverted lossless PCM 16bit/44.1khz is encoded at lossy 256kbps MP3 with a quality encoder (such as LAME) people STILL can't reliably tell the difference between them audibly.  Now you are talking 1/16th of the original 24bit/96khz file.

Now of course, beforehand everyone says 'of course they can tell the difference,' and if they are told which is the higher resolution beforehand they will identify it as better.  But as soon as you take away that mental aspect and focus on strict detection of audible differences, all of a sudden the differences vanish.

RAW vs JPG in the modern camera (i.e. DIGIC5 generation) is a similar story.  Is RAW capable of higher dynamic range?  Yes.  Is RAW capable of less artifacts when zoomed in at 16x?  Yes.  Are any of these things people can ACTUALLY VISUALLY PERCEIVE in a printed image or when dramatically zooming in?  Most likely not.

JPG is a fantasic lossy codec that at lower compression levels offers fantastic dynamic range and few artfacts if any.  It is not technically as clean as a lossless file when zoomed in, but at low compression levels it is clean enough that the human eye will not notice the difference even in a blown up poster sized print.

In the end, it boils down to whatever works best for you. I have seen plenty of work that was shot all RAW and processed in PS/LR and still ends up with exposure problems.  I've seen plenty of beautiful shot only in JPG work.

The main TRUE differences IMO given today's camera processing technology, is that RAW gives you a bit more flexibility if you make a massive error, while on the other hand JPG dramatically simplifies the workflow whilst offering similar real world quality to RAW.
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 12:05:32 PM by Ruined »

awinphoto

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1943
    • View Profile
    • AW Photography
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2013, 11:55:02 AM »
ahhhhh for the love of God, not another Raw vs Jpeg debate... I've been flamed, dragged through the mud, and shunned for my stance on this topic, but screw it...  There are instances, when depending on what i'm shooting and WHO i'm shooting for, that I will shoot jpeg only (but, i do the highest jpeg and have the camera shooting styles similar to how I typically have my raw settings at anyways).  If i'm shooting for a client and I know they are shooting for print or shooting a model whom I may only have 1 shot at to photograph, damn right I'm shooting Raw, it's not even an arguement.  If i'm shooting a wedding ceremony in a church ISO 1000 and above, damn right i'm shooting raw as well as formals.  BUT, if i'm shooting for a client whom i know going in that they only will be using the files for web use in which the files will be reduced 500%, then screw it, jpeg will be just fine.  Reception work where frankly, they are fillers in which I may have over 1000 images to cull through ALONE, jpegs will do just fine for most of that work.  If i'm shooting just for me or my kids screwing around, jpegs will do just fine.  For the most part, i'm not afraid of missing exposures, i know my workflow and my workflow options, and i know what post production work i may or may not have to do and what I am and am not willing to do given the instance, and I'd rather live my life as a photographer than living my life a slave to the computer processing hundreds of thousands of images, plus storing plus...  it's madness.  Anywho, that's my 2 cents.   
Canon 5d III, Canon 24-105L, Canon 17-40L, Canon 70-200 F4L, Canon 100L 2.8, 430EX 2's and a lot of bumps along the road to get to where I am.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #87 on: September 26, 2013, 11:55:02 AM »

Ruined

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #88 on: September 26, 2013, 12:08:06 PM »
ahhhhh for the love of God, not another Raw vs Jpeg debate... I've been flamed, dragged through the mud, and shunned for my stance on this topic, but screw it...  There are instances, when depending on what i'm shooting and WHO i'm shooting for, that I will shoot jpeg only (but, i do the highest jpeg and have the camera shooting styles similar to how I typically have my raw settings at anyways).  If i'm shooting for a client and I know they are shooting for print or shooting a model whom I may only have 1 shot at to photograph, damn right I'm shooting Raw, it's not even an arguement.  If i'm shooting a wedding ceremony in a church ISO 1000 and above, damn right i'm shooting raw as well as formals.  BUT, if i'm shooting for a client whom i know going in that they only will be using the files for web use in which the files will be reduced 500%, then screw it, jpeg will be just fine.  Reception work where frankly, they are fillers in which I may have over 1000 images to cull through ALONE, jpegs will do just fine for most of that work.  If i'm shooting just for me or my kids screwing around, jpegs will do just fine.  For the most part, i'm not afraid of missing exposures, i know my workflow and my workflow options, and i know what post production work i may or may not have to do and what I am and am not willing to do given the instance, and I'd rather live my life as a photographer than living my life a slave to the computer processing hundreds of thousands of images, plus storing plus...  it's madness.  Anywho, that's my 2 cents.   

RAW does give you that piece of mind in case you blow it, but I agree with the computer slave part.  One thing that is nice about JPG is you can just focus on the creative aspects of photography and less on post.  It also trains you to be a really good photographer rather than relying on extrended post work to fix errors! 

I do know some clients insist on actual RAW files though, so you should know at least how to use RAW.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • *******
  • Posts: 12789
    • View Profile
Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2013, 12:17:21 PM »
One thing that is nice about JPG is you can just focus on the creative aspects of photography and less on post.  It also trains you to be a really good photographer rather than relying on extrended post work to fix errors! 

Right.  As we all know, really good photographers rarely need to spend any time post-processing images. 



 ::)
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: RAW or JPEG
« Reply #89 on: September 26, 2013, 12:17:21 PM »