RAW or JPEG

[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.

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

I have no issue with P mode, it is very different to green rectangle. He does shoot P, as I posted yesterday, HE DOES NOT SHOOT jpeg, he shoots RAW 100%.

 

[awinphoto]

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?

Your totally overthinking it... Ok... sunlight WB is approx 5500-6000 kelvin and shade is about 6500-8000 kelvin depending on strength of clouds and or shade and other contaminating light and that is just a difference of adding or subtracting some yellow/red if needed at all. AWB or daylight and if your exposure is dead on, a little color adjust is super super easy in photoshop/lightroom, takes less than 5 seconds. It's not like going from sun to incandescent lights or florescents or etc...

 

[Sporgon]

I get the impression that those that have begun their photographic career with digital don't realise how much post processing was done with film. Ansel Adams himself was quoted as saying 60% of photography was done in the dark room. Even with transparencies we used to dupe them, adding colour and all sorts of other fiendish things.

The in camera joey undoubtably does a better job than film in terms of being able to 'get it right' straight from the camera; you have many, many more control options. For casual shooting they are now undoubtably better than film. But for anything serious the raw option uses the camera to it's full potential.

 

[awinphoto]

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.

This is the point very few people understand... I shoot professionally. I know down to a science how long it takes to go through each card, saving each card, processing and culling the raws, time it takes my computer to process 100% of my raws so i can compare side by side and I know that there is a complete different time table from Raw to Jpeg. I know when I need it and when I dont. I embrace Raws when I need and when I dont. I know many professional photographers who shoot just raw, and I know equally if not more who shoot jpegs. I know turnaround times are vital. In an industry of additional people trying to be "pros", speed, quality and competency are separating factors. When I can get away with it, I will shoot jpeg as it gives me a tad speed advantage from shoot to delivery, and typically at that time i'm shooting for delivery. I'm getting it right in camera. But if i get repeating work from that client because i'm faster than everyone else, i'm not going to apologize for that. I know my tools and know what I need to get my job done the most efficiently. Sometimes that's Raw, sometimes thats jpeg

 

[Ruined]

...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.

Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

 

[privatebydesign]

...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.

Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Jasmin Star, along with many people who do reception slide shows all, well every one I have seen, uses RAW and jpeg, jpeg for the quick slideshow RAW because that is what any wedding pro worth paying should be using.

 

[Loswr]

...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.

Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Awww, why'd you edit your cardboard cutout at the State Fair example? That was so relevant to so many photographers. :

Obviously, there are times when it's critical to prioritize speed over quality. There are also times when a deeper continuous shot buffer is needed.

But as PBD stated, you can do a fully automatic conversion on your computer, takes very little time, that time is unattended, and the results will be better than in-camera, generally speaking. Therefore, unless you're in a situation where you must deliver your images literally on-the-spot, there's no real disadvantage to shooting RAW, and many potential advantages to not letting your camera destructively edit your images.

Then again, there are lots of people for whom good enough is, well...good enough.

 

[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?

Your totally overthinking it... Ok... sunlight WB is approx 5500-6000 kelvin and shade is about 6500-8000 kelvin depending on strength of clouds and or shade and other contaminating light and that is just a difference of adding or subtracting some yellow/red if needed at all. AWB or daylight and if your exposure is dead on, a little color adjust is super super easy in photoshop/lightroom, takes less than 5 seconds. It's not like going from sun to incandescent lights or florescents or etc...

and there you are in lightroom.... editing files.... at which point you realize that it does not take any more time to open a RAW than a Jpeg...

BTW... when I shoot, I save a RAW file and a small Jpeg with each shot.... gives me the convenience of a small jpg for immediate distribution or as an index, plus I get the quality of a RAW file for those I choose to edit. If I edit, I want a RAW, if I don't, Jpeg is ok.

 

[sdsr]

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.

[/quote]

It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo. It's not about fixing mistakes (though it could be) but of altering unavoidable compromises (e.g. rescuing skies that are overexposed as a result of correctly exposing for the main subject) and making adjustments of various degrees of subtlety that can't be done in-camera or, even if they can, are more easily and accurately done when looking at an image on a decent-size monitor. I actively enjoy continuing the image creation process hands-on, looking at photos on a 30" monitor. I get to really see the photo and take a greater role in the creative process. And it's easier to do all of that if you're working with a RAW file.

That said, I have the luxury of doing this for fun; I might well think otherwise if I were a wedding photographer or otherwise creating images for someone else who, for all I know, couldn't see the difference or, if he could, wouldn't care; or if the photos would end up small enough where there would likely be no differences to see. (And I will happily admit that in some cases after I've spent several minutes making umpteen slight changes to the RAW file the result looks almost exactly the same as the JPEG made by the camera, and that very occasionally I prefer the processing done by the camera - which is why I shoot RAW+JPEG)

It's probably also worth noting that some cameras make better JPEGs than others as a matter of course (in my experience Olympus may be the best).

 

[cayenne]

...and knowing how to get spot on pics with JPG is just as important as knowing how to do post with RAW.

Let's say you have an event photography situation where you are asked to take pictures of people who are waiting in line to get said picture and immediately reproduce an image via a portable printer for them to purchase. They want better quality than a cheap polaroid but want the print right after it is taken. Do you really want to be messing around with RAW in lightroom while the clients wait in line to get their picture taken and printed? Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Sure, why not?

You can have LR set to "pre-process" for you on RAW import....and if you shoot right in camera and know your camera and have LR set for this...likely as not, you can export quickly right out of camera.

However, if something is wrong, you have the capability to quickly with a few sliders make some corrections you might want, and be able to quickly save the pic for those customers who will be much happier with the properly "developed" image.

That's my thoughts...why not have all the data at your fingertips to use IF you need it? These days, IMHO there isn't much an argument not to use RAW, I mean, drive space these days is dirt cheap.

C

 

[privatebydesign]

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.

It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo. It's not about fixing mistakes (though it could be) but of altering unavoidable compromises (e.g. rescuing skies that are overexposed as a result of correctly exposing for the main subject) and making adjustments of various degrees of subtlety that can't be done in-camera or, even if they can, are more easily and accurately done when looking at an image on a decent-size monitor. I actively enjoy continuing the image creation process hands-on, looking at photos on a 30" monitor. I get to really see the photo and take a greater role in the creative process. And it's easier to do all of that if you're working with a RAW file.

That said, I have the luxury of doing this for fun; I might well think otherwise if I were a wedding photographer or otherwise creating images for someone else who, for all I know, couldn't see the difference or, if he could, wouldn't care; or if the photos would end up small enough where there would likely be no differences to see. (And I will happily admit that in some cases after I've spent several minutes making umpteen slight changes to the RAW file the result looks almost exactly the same as the JPEG made by the camera, and that very occasionally I prefer the processing done by the camera - which is why I shoot RAW+JPEG)

It's probably also worth noting that some cameras make better JPEGs than others as a matter of course (in my experience Olympus may be the best).

Absolutely agree 100%, RAW shouldn't be considered a crutch but a very powerful tool in realising the images you wanted to create.

As for some cameras being better than others at jpegs, again, I agree, but those that complain about Canon ones really can't have explored the full capabilities of the free with your camera Picture Styles Editor http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/pse_tutorials_gallery.shtml

 

[Ruined]

It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo. It's not about fixing mistakes (though it could be) but of altering unavoidable compromises (e.g. rescuing skies that are overexposed as a result of correctly exposing for the main subject) and making adjustments of various degrees of subtlety that can't be done in-camera or, even if they can, are more easily and accurately done when looking at an image on a decent-size monitor. I actively enjoy continuing the image creation process hands-on, looking at photos on a 30" monitor. I get to really see the photo and take a greater role in the creative process. And it's easier to do all of that if you're working with a RAW file.

That said, I have the luxury of doing this for fun; I might well think otherwise if I were a wedding photographer or otherwise creating images for someone else who, for all I know, couldn't see the difference or, if he could, wouldn't care; or if the photos would end up small enough where there would likely be no differences to see. (And I will happily admit that in some cases after I've spent several minutes making umpteen slight changes to the RAW file the result looks almost exactly the same as the JPEG made by the camera, and that very occasionally I prefer the processing done by the camera - which is why I shoot RAW+JPEG)

It's probably also worth noting that some cameras make better JPEGs than others as a matter of course (in my experience Olympus may be the best).

Couple of points of note:
-You can always do tons of adjustments to a JPG, albeit not as many as a RAW file, with minimal quality loss. The main thing with RAW though is that it can save your butt if you make a major boo boo while JPG is less forgiving.
-The concept of doing things with photoshop/lightroom that would not be possible even if 100% shot correctly given the scene I think is a bit of a philosophical thing. Some people feel that manipulating an image beyond what is realistically capable is not a good thing for photography - I believe recently one contest winner had an award rescinded because their photo was over-manipulated to the point of the photo defying physics with impossible shadows,etc, I forget the award. Others see this as a valid expansion of art. RAW offers tons of flexibility here, as does JPG - but as per your example, there may be some areas where RAW offers more flexibility.

Also worth mentioning is that Canon, Nikon, et al all have very unique processing in camera that may be difficult to duplicate in Lightroom. For instance doing a simple search, one can find tons of forum questions across the net with photographers trying to find settings that duplicate the look of the processing in the camera so the RAW can look more like the JPG. Some of these threads go many pages. One simple observation would be to just use the JPG in the first place, but there is such a stigma attached to this that people are told it is the 'wrong' or 'unprofessional' way of doing things. Which IMO is totally incorrect given the excellent processing in modern cameras. While the RAW workflow may work for some scenarios, for others the JPG workflow may be significantly better.

 

[agierke]

It seems that more than a few people regard using lightroom, DxO etc. as the equivalent of cleaning up after a party or taking medicine to cure a self-induced malady, rather than as part of an image-creating process which only begins, and doesn't end, with taking the photo.

ugh....ty for making this point. i have been following this thread debating whether i wanted to even bother with the topic as so many points were irking me.

this would be my only point to make. RAW is not primarily for fixing mistakes. it gives the option for creative control...far beyond the capabilities of jpg. to some, they may never want/need these capabilities or even be able to discern the results...but to others, its critical.

 

[candc]

As for some cameras being better than others at jpegs, again, I agree, but those that complain about Canon ones really can't have explored the full capabilities of the free with your camera Picture Styles Editor http://learn.usa.canon.com/galleries/galleries/tutorials/pse_tutorials_gallery.shtml
[/quote]
thanks for pointing that out, I have never used that utility before. I watched some of the vids and it looks to be very useful

 

[privatebydesign]

Couple of points of note:
-You can always do tons of adjustments to a JPG, albeit not as many as a RAW file, with minimal quality loss. The main thing with RAW though is that it can save your butt if you make a major boo boo while JPG is less forgiving.
-The concept of doing things with photoshop/lightroom that would not be possible even if 100% shot correctly given the scene I think is a bit of a philosophical thing. Some people feel that manipulating an image beyond what is realistically capable is not a good thing for photography - I believe recently one contest winner had an award rescinded because their photo was over-manipulated to the point of the photo defying physics with impossible shadows,etc, I forget the award. Others see this as a valid expansion of art. RAW offers tons of flexibility here, as does JPG - but as per your example, there may be some areas where RAW offers more flexibility.

Also worth mentioning is that Canon, Nikon, et al all have very unique processing in camera that may be difficult to duplicate in Lightroom. For instance doing a simple search, one can find tons of forum questions across the net with photographers trying to find settings that duplicate the look of the processing in the camera so the RAW can look more like the JPG. Some of these threads go many pages. One simple observation would be to just use the JPG in the first place, but there is such a stigma attached to this that people are told it is the 'wrong' or 'unprofessional' way of doing things. Which IMO is totally incorrect given the excellent processing in modern cameras. While the RAW workflow may work for some scenarios, for others the JPG workflow may be significantly better.

Try correcting even mild WB issues on a jpeg, hardly a demanding or invasive post process, and you are screwed.

If you don't like the way Lightroom outputs your RAW to jpeg images use the free with your camera DPP, it gives you exactly the same process/algorithm as your camera uses, and if you mistakenly (or didn't have the time to change the Picture Style in the camera menu) shoot with the "wrong" Picture Style, you can choose another!

To reiterate my position. There are very good reasons for pros and amateurs/hobbyists to shoot jpeg (or jpeg & RAW), for the pros turn around time at things like sports events and reception slideshows (though most think shooting RAW at the same time is cheap insurance), and for amateurs the not being interested in the time expense or learning required for good post processing etc, though that really is a non sequitur as the free software that came with your camera can create your out of camera jpegs effortlessly. But for advanced hobbyists and most pros all the time it makes zero sense to buy expensive cameras and lenses and throw 75% of the information they capture away.

But hey, I really don't care what any individual does, just so long as they don't prevent me from keeping 100% of the information my camera and lenses capture.

 

[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.

 

[rpt]

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.

 

[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.

 

[awinphoto]

This is the last i'm going to mention this topic on this forum at least... Yes, i'm not arguing Raws are the ideal digital negative way to go in most situations. Yes, hard drives are cheap(er), albeit the hard drives that serve my purpose are typically in the 150+ range, and those usually have to go through some convincing to my wife and business partner that they are necessary, and frankly, a lot of it would go to waste. Yes lightroom is great, although I hardly ever use it... I grew up a photoshop guy, and I do plan on purchasing that special adobe has now with the photoshop/lightroom, but other than large wedding jobs, it is unknown how often honestly i'd use it. I reserve the right to retract that statement in 6 months but at this point, it is what it is. 90% of my personal pictures if not more typically go into iphoto and stay there as it's more convenient for me, works with my apple tv, and is easy to email/transfer/manage. A byproduct is that iphoto, at least my version, doesn't support raw, but thats typically fine with me as most of my personal images dont need it and i'm not going to waste any more time on them that isn't needed.

That's not to come off as elitist or bragging or even incompetency, but frankly with my business, i literally work over 60 hours a week, sometimes closer to 80 hours a week busting my ass, taking photos, processing, delivering, consulting, presenting, etc... Time for me is sacred. I work at least 40 hours a week shooting products and catalog photography for companies to post on their websites and once a month to publish a catalog. Most images, even for catalog, at 5-6 inches tall, downscaled, heavily photoshoped,clipped, and gasp, shot with an aps-c 50D camera they provide. Before they used me, their previous photographers literally took the photos on the ground on their carpet with a point and shoot nokin, i mean nikon, and looked hideous. I built them a studio and took them from point and shoot cameras to DSLR's... i'm always trying to convince them to go full frame, but they are not willing to spend the money let alone pay my fee's to use my gear. Extra detail, it doesn't matter when it's downresed and clipped and shoved on the internet in srgb at 640 pixels wide. Even the catalogs, it all would be wasted anyways when it's commercial web-printed in cmyk with no spot colors since they once again, wont pay for spot colors. Hell with cmyk blues are purple, neons are shot, and gamut becomes a huge problem anyway. What almost all of you are missing is yeah, all that detail would look awesome printed on a nice 16x20 on a wall or other digital display, but really in most commercial cases, it doesn't matter and gets wasted.

Now, when i shoot models and know there's a possibility they will buy the image as a 30x45 or something big like that, I want every ounce of detail i can get... They are printed at my lab on photo paper with high quality inks... The moral of the story, yes, I could go through the work of the RAW files... sometimes they are warranted and sometimes they are worth it... sometimes they would be wasted and wasting my time and would have minimal impact on final output in which i proudly have literally changed the industry standard in imagery in the photo matter I am shooting. So yeah... thanks but I know what i'm doing.

 

[rpt]

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.