RAW or JPEG

[Zv]

I actually wrote a blog article about RAW and JPEG, comparing the two by apying ridiculous adjustments to both to see what happened.

http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2013/04/raw-and-jpeg-torture-test.html?m=0

I though the WB correction would kill the JPEG but it didn't. In fact the JPEG file put up a good fight!

I think I'll do a follow up but this time an even more extreme version and with different subjects.

I thought the issue about editing jpegs was that multiple edits and save on the same file is what would kill it. If one stores metadata for the edits and never overwrites the original file but creates new JPEG files each time, I think the output would be acceptable even after multiple edits as we are just going to a second version of the edited picture each time. Of course whatever got baked into the original JPEG cant be undone.

I think if you use Adobe Camera RAW or other software, when you hit save it would then overwrite the original JPEG file and there would be no way to undo that. However am not sure but I think Lightroom leaves the original intact and as you said creates a separate JPEG file to a new location upon export. I think I'll try to change the file then close LR, reopen and see if I can undo the process to see what happens.

But in any case you wouldn't ever want to even moderately try and process a JPEG when you could very easily just shoot RAW and do the same thing with better results.

I am on the 100% raw team now. However, in my 300D days, I was on the 100% JPEG side and I saved a few of my pictures by editing them in LR. Hence the comment. For some pictures taken earlier, I used to save the original JPEG separately if I needed to.

Sorry by "you" I meant the whole thread and people in general. I figured you were shooting in RAW and prob knew all this stuff. Sometimes I type what I'm thinking!

Random question - does anyone here convert their RAW files to DNG format to save space? Is it worth it?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Back in 2000 when I got my first digital camera that could shoot Raw, I did not understand it and used jpeg. I was happy with the images, they were good for the time. I kept on with jpeg even when I bought my first 40D. Then I switched. Now, when I view those old images that are locked into jpeg and realize that if I had the RAW files, I could easily reprocess them with a modern raw processor, I grimace at opportunity lost. I've reprocessed all my older RAW images starting with many of the later 40D images, and vastly improved them. Images that looked noisy at ISO 800 now are clean, and images at ISO 3200 are much better than before. Its likely that the process can be repeated in the future as we get more computing power and more sophisticated software, but those old raw images are burned in forever. In some cases, it doesn't matter, but some of those images were meant to be kept forever.

 

[CR00]

Very well said.

Back in 2000 when I got my first digital camera that could shoot Raw, I did not understand it and used jpeg. I was happy with the images, they were good for the time. I kept on with jpeg even when I bought my first 40D. Then I switched. Now, when I view those old images that are locked into jpeg and realize that if I had the RAW files, I could easily reprocess them with a modern raw processor, I grimace at opportunity lost. I've reprocessed all my older RAW images starting with many of the later 40D images, and vastly improved them. Images that looked noisy at ISO 800 now are clean, and images at ISO 3200 are much better than before. Its likely that the process can be repeated in the future as we get more computing power and more sophisticated software, but those old raw images are burned in forever. In some cases, it doesn't matter, but some of those images were meant to be kept forever.

 

[rpt]

Sorry by "you" I meant the whole thread and people in general. I figured you were shooting in RAW and prob knew all this stuff. Sometimes I type what I'm thinking!

Not a problem. I figured what you meant but wanted to clarify...