RAW vs JPEG debate in the light of 5DIII improvements

[Mt Spokane Photography]

One fantastic feature Canon rolled out with DPP without much hoopla is the Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO), which IMO is one of the biggest reasons to shoot RAW, as it does not work for JPEG.

The venerable 85L II has tons of color fringing at f/1.2, and even stopped down to f/2.8 there is substantial amount. First photo is f/2.8 shot with sharpening set to 0 in DPP, no DLO applied. These are ~400% crops.

I have tested similar results with 50L as well, which argues for sticking with Canon branded fast lenses since DLO only works for Canon lenses.


C2.8S0 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Second shot is same settings, sharpness 0, with DLO applied at 60 (out of 100).


C2.8DLO60S0 by drjlo1, on Flickr

Why not turn DLO on in your 5D MK III and take a jpeg shot?? Your post processing a raw converted to jpeg seems like you are trying to distort the facts.

This is about in camera jpegs. The lens profiles you need can be installed in your camera in a process similar to that used for DPP.

 

[Janco]

........

Why not turn DLO on in your 5D MK III and take a jpeg shot?? Your post processing a raw converted to jpeg seems like you are trying to distort the facts.

This is about in camera jpegs. The lens profiles you need can be installed in your camera in a process similar to that used for DPP.

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

 

[awinphoto]

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

Not necessarily, a few wedding photogs mentioned with the 5d3, they shot jpeg to sd and raw to cf, and took out the sd and plugged it into a monitor/laptop/etc to display ceremony pictures during the reception... One of my clients whom I shoot product photography, their catalog photos get saved at 1200x900 pixels and then resized down the 640x480 for web from there and usually they expect a few hour turnaround per batch of photos... jpeg for that is more information than they can even use for those applications. Every month we do printed publications in which Raw+jpeg are used for print and web purposes... I also have other clients that are nationally known companies, their photos are resized once again down to 640x480... I can shoot raw but in the end, photos are not going to be any better than a jpeg shot correctly in those applications, and quicker and for what it is, the companies couldn't be happier. In the professional arena we got to weigh time spent shooting, time spent post production, money charged per shoot and gauging how much work is needed to pull each shoot off... Ideally RAW is the best medium for everything, but business wise, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not. Doesn't make it right or wrong, it is what it is.

 

[Abraxx]

........

Why not turn DLO on in your 5D MK III and take a jpeg shot?? Your post processing a raw converted to jpeg seems like you are trying to distort the facts.

This is about in camera jpegs. The lens profiles you need can be installed in your camera in a process similar to that used for DPP.

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

This is not about vignetting only, but CA and the 5D3 has in camera CA correction.
Its doing this quite well.

Personally I usually shot RAW and JPG.
But before going for shooting I typically know what I'm going to shoot, I then decide wether I shoot RAW, both or JPG only. I'm flexible.

But back to the OP question.

I was able to test and try the 5d3 now 3 times (UK, Spain [Mallorca] and recently in Germany);
and with this Cam, I could certainly imagine to shoot more often JPG only. Also because I have the impression, it does AWB quite well.... And even if I would be in doubt, I would choose the "correct" WB myself and shoot still quickly in JPG with the good lense correction. For Street, Wildlife and Travel its really nice... (I usually don't shoot sports, only sometime some fast moving objects like planes or, well hmm, similar.....)

Then again, I don't earn my money with shooting.
I don't restrict myself and why should I nail myself down to one selection, I decide shortly before "reaching" the target.

 

[jaayres20]

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

 

[jrsforums]

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print. It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

 

[callaesthetics]

i find myself shooting more jpeg lately with the 5D3. I did a prom shoot this past weekend and shot RAW + JPEG. I decided to use the JPEG's and honestly i don't think my RAW conversions would have turned out any better/different.

 

[drjlo]

Nope, Digital Lens Optimizer (DLO) is not available in camera. The different lens (assuming more than one lens) profiles are several 100MB's to download, available only through Canon's DPP. It works ONLY for RAW. In camera is only the "old" vignetting (also distortion?? nope...) correction thing.

And even DLO could be in-camera, it would completely slow down the camera, as even with DPP in computer, DLO takes a while to process.

Below is Chromatic Aberration correction in DPP turned up to max (200), and I still prefer the DLO results by far. CA correction *IS* available in-camera, and there's no reason not to turn it on if you shoot jpegs.


C2.8.200S0 by drjlo1, on Flickr

 

[jaayres20]

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print. It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

I am really not trying to elevate myself as being a superior photographer and saying that everyone who shoots RAW is in somehow incapable of taking great pictures strait out of the camera. I am just saying that it isn't necessarily better and does not create an image with better IQ. JPEG is not just for speed and ease of storage and it can be just as good as RAW in a lot of circumstances.

 

[jrsforums]

Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true. The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image. If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste. You can't use information you don't need. If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print. It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

I am really not trying to elevate myself as being a superior photographer and saying that everyone who shoots RAW is in somehow incapable of taking great pictures strait out of the camera. I am just saying that it isn't necessarily better and does not create an image with better IQ. JPEG is not just for speed and ease of storage and it can be just as good as RAW in a lot of circumstances.

I know...didn't mean to make it sound personal, but was trying to make a point.

Essentially, I do not...generally...disagree with you. However...it....IQ...depends on what you are doing or trying to do.

Most of these are at the "edges"....capturing saturated colors not contained in aRGB, maximizing dynamic range, optimizing exposure to reduce noise in post processing...many more, not worth going through at this time...but available techniques while shooting and in PP.

Basically, if one is happy with jpeg...do it. I shoot raw. With Lightroom, if the shots were "nailed" and I just want to go to the web or print out 4x6s, I can just batch them and step away for a few minutes until done. However, if I want to maximize the output, particularly for larger prints or tight crops...I have the essentials needed.

 

[digiitch]

Here is my $0.02 worth...

I'm not a professional photographer. I am into photography because I enjoy the challenge of trying to create visually interesting photographs that are of the highest image quality I can. I'm improving all the time in composing, camera control, and post processing. I've thought long and hard about Raw vs. Jpeg and here is my view:

Raw files are essentially like negatives from film days. I can use the same negative to print a bunch of different versions of that captured moment. A favorite quote of mine, from Ansel Adams: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways." I believe this still holds true for Raw and Jpeg which are like negative and print.

If all I ever wanted from my new 5D3 was raw files, I wouldn't need all of the camera's features for white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc. However, it does have those features and I want to use them. I think the 5D3 does an amazing job at it and I really like the results most of the time.

So, based on those things, I like to shoot Raw+Jpeg whenever possible. The only time I typically shoot Jpeg only is when I need the higher burst rate and longer sustained burst I can get from dropping raw out of the equation. I look at Raw+Jpeg as a way of getting my "negative" while also producing a quick "print". In fact, my workflow includes separating the Raw and Jpeg images into two distinct areas ("raw" and "processed") before I even start post processing the Raws.

If I've used the features well on my camera, I'll get some pretty good initial "prints". In fact, there are many times that I will post process a raw only to find out that I like the jpeg from the camera better. There is often a certain quality to the OOC jpeg, that I can't quite put my finger on, and I can't reproduce in post. And, if I can get quality I like without post processing, that's cool for me. The only thing that sucks is when I see an OOC jpeg that I like a lot but think I can do better, only to find out I've wasted some time trying to improve it but later decide the original jpeg was better.

 

[pwp]

Sheesh this is an old chestnut of a subject. There must be a billion or so words written on the clear benefits of shooting RAW. For colour critical work you wouldn't even think about JPEG.

My 5D3 certainly delivers good looking JPEG files, but frankly I'd prefer to do the RAW conversion myself. Every digital image starts out as a RAW whether it's in your phone camera or your 90Mp MF LEAF back. In camera JPEG files are created by software in the camera that "best-guesses" for an optimum result. It's often very close.

I used to dogmatically use & defend JPEG shooting, but the RAW advantages quickly shone through. If I need a deep burst rate when shooting action I'm more likely to shoot mRAW on the Mk4.

JPEG shooting has plenty of 100% valid scenarios, mostly for shooters with awesomely tight deadlines where every lost minute counts, measured either by potential earnings or being first with breaking news for example.

I shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

 

[wickidwombat]

i'm confused , the jpeg files out of camera are soft mushy over processed and all round terrible. I cant see why you would want to use them when you have RAW format available. why buy a $3500 camera to shoot jpg files?
I dont quite get it

 

[jaayres20]

Here is an image from a recent wedding that I shot in JPEG. It is the screen shot of the before and after in lightroom so you can see what it looked like strait out of the camera and after the edits. Even in the details of the extreem contrast of the almost blown out highlights on the white flower in her hair to the dark shadows on the suit JPEG captured all I needed. I warmed it up just a tad and recovered a little of the highlights. I could have recovered more but I wanted the image to look more natural. There is nothing I could have gained from shooting this RAW and I consider it a very important client image that needs to have the highest IQ possible.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaayres/7252240410/#in/photostream

 

[jaayres20]

i'm confused , the jpeg files out of camera are soft mushy over processed and all round terrible. I cant see why you would want to use them when you have RAW format available. why buy a $3500 camera to shoot jpg files?
I dont quite get it

They are definitely not mushy and are very sharp indeed. Why not shoot JPEG if you can get just as good results? RAW is not magic and you have a lot of controls in the camera that will allow you process your JPEG with very precise results.

 

[pwp]

Here is an image from a recent wedding that I shot in JPEG. There is nothing I could have gained from shooting this RAW and I consider it a very important client image that needs to have the highest IQ possible.

Yes that's a very nice image. No question. But keep shooting JPEG only and the day WILL come when you kick yourself hard for not shooting RAW. Why do you think photographers with the deepest experience shoot RAW? It's not to be cool. It's professional. RAW gives you a lot more headroom and that will either save the day for you in a big way or just mean better images for your client.

I remember once not getting a job I quoted on because I was too young. It was nothing to do with my portfolio or bad breath. The client said they only hire photographers aged 45 or over. Why? They never stuff up. Now that is a very narrow viewpoint, but there is something in it isn't there? Evolved professionalism has many subtle dimensions. Shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

 

[digiitch]

why buy a $3500 camera to shoot jpg files?
I dont quite get it

The camera should cost a whole lot less if it only produced raw. Perhaps you can convince Canon to produce a Raw-only camera that has no white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc. All you need is exposure control.

Personally, I just look at all those other features as just one more tool towards a possible post-processing path (alliteration!), and then can still use other tools as well, but the in-camera path is a quick one.

 

[wickidwombat]

Perhaps you can convince Canon to produce a Raw-only camera that has no white balance, picture styles, sharpness, contrast, etc. All you need is exposure control.

no kidding! ditch video too lose the AA filter all together and I think they would struggle to keep up with demand
i'd probably say keep the white balance settings though since the raws baseline off the as shot WB and being able to set custom WB is important

 

[jaayres20]

Here is an image from a recent wedding that I shot in JPEG. There is nothing I could have gained from shooting this RAW and I consider it a very important client image that needs to have the highest IQ possible.

Yes that's a very nice image. No question. But keep shooting JPEG only and the day WILL come when you kick yourself hard for not shooting RAW. Why do you think photographers with the deepest experience shoot RAW? It's not to be cool. It's professional. RAW gives you a lot more headroom and that will either save the day for you in a big way or just mean better images for your client.

I remember once not getting a job I quoted on because I was too young. It was nothing to do with my portfolio or bad breath. The client said they only hire photographers aged 45 or over. Why? They never stuff up. Now that is a very narrow viewpoint, but there is something in it isn't there? Evolved professionalism has many subtle dimensions. Shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

I know there have been a few times I wished the image was RAW but those times have become fewer and further between. One day it may come back to hurt me we will see. There are, however, very experienced professional wedding photographers that shoot only JPEG. Mike Colon is one of them and he shoots three million dollar celebrity weddings. He charges over $20,000 for a wedding and he feels comfortable enough to shoot JPEG throughout the wedding. I think it just comes down to a preference and style.

 

[wickidwombat]

each to their own I say it would be a pretty dull world if everyone did the exact same thing
if jpg works for you go for it