RAW or JPEG

[Sella174]

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.

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

 

[skullyspice]

jpeg only

 

[Sella174]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.

 

[rs]

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?

 

[Ruined]

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.

 

[awinphoto]

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.

 

[Ruined]

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.

 

[Loswr]

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.



:

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO. Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.

 

[candc]

I think there is a place for both. I have an ef-s 17-85 that I bought and used when it was first introduced. Its a pretty mediocre with visible softness, ca, and distortion at normall viewing sizes. those things can be corrected pretty well, even automatically with a converter like dxo. In this case the raw workflow is easier and produces better results instead of starting with a jpeg and having to jack around with it.

 

[awinphoto]

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.

All good points... For the most part, most of the clients I have ever known rarely asks for RAW files, but if they do, its all in the contract before hand and if that's what they want (and pay for), that's what they get. My point is simply put that is i'm typically not afraid of needing that piece of mind for most my work. Now situations where 100% i need absolute assurance, like the "first kiss" and stuff like that, where i know can be make it or break it for the whole wedding day, raws are important. I'm not afraid of Raw and on most my professional portrait work RAWs are they way I go just out of habit if not anything else, but once my files are processed and backed-up on a remote, then RAWs go into the trash bin. I guess where i'm at in my style and shooting, I shoot the way I want them, if i need to touch up images in post, its usually beyond what Raw can do for me, and i know what needs to be done for how i like them, and my training in photography came way back in the film days where I had to know exposure dead on before I shoot. My instructors made us for every assignment provide a slide transparency, negative film, and darkroom print of every image so we had no wiggle room of screwing up exposure and fixing it in printing as the transparency would give us away.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

100% JPEG ...

I started with RAW when switching to digital (because everybody said so); played with DPP; came to the conclusion that basically I used the same "recipe" over and over and over; adjusted the camera to the same settings and the results out-of-camera are better than those of DPP from RAW files.

A friend suggested I ditch DPP for PhotoShop (this was before Lightroom, etc.); took one look at the pricetag and bought a piece of L-glass instead.

The editing "limitations" of JPEG doesn't bother me ... I'm an old hand at positive films.

It is interesting to note that those who used film for several years, currently do not feel limited by the possibilities of JPEG. ??? On the other hand, people who are expert in software, often are many advantages in RAW. : The sun rises for everyone.

 

[privatebydesign]

When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO. Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.

Green rectangle is jpeg only on most cameras. It is an idiot/foolproof mode and completely different from P mode.

 

[Don Haines]

Sometimes no matter how hard you try, you can't set the camera properly for jpegs...

Fo example, an animal runs across a partially treed field. you have about 10 seconds to get your picture and the animal is alternating betwwen sunlight and shade... what you set white balance for?

 

[wsgroves]

Raw +MJPG here.
I like being able to tweak much more with the RAW file, and as private knows, I would be up a pole with out RAW's on my last shoot lol.

Scott

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO. Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.

Green rectangle is jpeg only on most cameras. It is an idiot/foolproof mode and completely different from P mode.

This is the point, brother. There is no good camera for those who do not know how to use properly. It would not make much difference if they use Program mode, Aperture priority mode, Speed priority mode. :-[ There is no camera that is foolproof.

 

[awinphoto]

When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO. Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.

Green rectangle is jpeg only on most cameras. It is an idiot/foolproof mode and completely different from P mode.

This is the point, brother. There is no good camera for those who do not know how to use properly. It would not make much difference if they use Program mode, Aperture priority mode, Speed priority mode. :-[ There is no camera that is foolproof.

Dont tell that to Joe Buissink who shoots jpeg and P mode during multi thousand dollar weddings... skill trumps all =)

 

[privatebydesign]

When one of my students of photography asks me if should learn and practice RAW processing in Lightroom, I reply that it is only useful in the future if he feel "limited" by the possibilities of correction JPEG. I make sure they learn and practice extensively diaphragm aperture settings, shutter speed, and manual ISO. Only when they are able to consciously choose every setting on the camera, they should start with RAW and Lightroom. I still see many professional photographers shooting in "Green rectangle" because after doing the photos, Lightroom saves your mistakes. :-[ I do not claim that all users of Lightroom think this way, but surely there are many who do.

Green rectangle is jpeg only on most cameras. It is an idiot/foolproof mode and completely different from P mode.

This is the point, brother. There is no good camera for those who do not know how to use properly. It would not make much difference if they use Program mode, Aperture priority mode, Speed priority mode. :-[ There is no camera that is foolproof.

Again somebody seems to be missing the point, if green rectangle is jpeg only then Lightroom can't save you. RAW doesn't make anything foolproof, it does expand you capabilities, I find it hard to understand people who enjoy photography as a hobby or job and spend a lot of money on equipment, endlessly pontificating the "colours and contrast" of a specific lens, but don't embrace that RAW gives you the capability to mimic any of them, jpeg doesn't. As for computer time, in the time it takes to upload your images to your computer it can create identical jpegs to the ones your camera can make. There doesn't need to be any additional time spent when using RAW over jpeg.

But, and this is a big but, I come from my needs and output requirements, I print big and often.