Raw vs. JPEG: Style or Substance?

[lobo4200]

Interesting read...found this on another forum...

http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm

[mjordan]

Yes, and he sounds like another person that doesn't recognize the fact that there are those that have tested the difference and it's enough to keep us using raw most of the time. He makes it sound like the word "raw" is a dirty word rather than just another aspect of digital imagery that works for some people and not for others. To bad he has to be so negatively biased because it ruins the little bit of good information he did try to get across.

Mike

[PaulB]

I thought that the article was clear, concise and above all cogent.
Make up your own mind about it, above all don't try and put your point of view over as the only one - now that's
fundamentalism.
I shoot how best suits the occasion, choice of lens, filetype, position, shutter speed, aperture - it all depends.
Most of the time I shoot JPEGs - dont't have the time to do all the post processing - deadlines.
Sometimes I shoot both JPEG and RAW of the same shot - ah, the leisure.
However the analogy in the article of RAW = neg (and darkroom work needed) whilst JPEG = transparency, is one I have used before and is, I contend, the best way to look at the difference; there is no right or wrong in it at all.

[Pekka]

He says: "By shooting JPEG I can capture a higher percentage of split second action shots like this Forster's Tern hovering while it looks for fish.".

File format has nothing to do with shutter delay. With RAW 10D shoots 3fps as with JPEG.

and he says "And by setting the exposure and white balance right when I capture the image I don't have to do any work in the darkroom to get the final image I want."

Setting custom or fixed WB for each shot takes simply too much time, and even in same location WB needed changes by weather, shooting direction, reflections and lens. With RAW, if you want custom WB, you can shoot anything middle gray on the location and use that as your gray card in converter. Besides, 10D autoWB is really good - I need to do small corrections to WB in about 10 photos of 1000.

Getting exposure _exactly_ right is not a value in itself. By using RAW you can concentrate on subject, not measuring small light changes to squeeze all out of JPEG.

My opinion is that shooting JPEG leaves you with 1 hour print and the negative is thrown away. This is ok for some but for me it is not acceptable. RAW file acts as original undeveloped negative, it is also a proof of copyright. Merely by looking at current developement boost in conversion software tells that RAW can deliver more now, and even more in the future.

You can not have a JPEG without sharpening. This increases noise. Capture One does NR before sharpening so noise is not sharpened.

Also, RAW can save shots. A worst-case scenario:

Here's one shot I took with "turn the camera notice something and just snap" -style on a Samba carneval, I was in M mode as always and had been shooting something in direct sunlight so I had 1/2000 shutter speed @ f5.6. My 550EX fill flash was in high speed mode so obviously it did not have power to fill (and ETTL also was probably confused by very strong back light). The fill flash merely contributed to that glassy eye look. So I took this shot and moved on (fast paced moment there). No second try.

Later Capture One saved this rather nicely with +2 exposure compensation and some curve correction which means in total over 3 stops of underexposure fixed (at least). JPG shot would have lost all hair detail after salvage (if anyone wants to try I have full links below, but I say in advance it is futile effort to match C1's tools).

Note 1: There are some of course some detail artifacts in converted image but they are quite small when you keep in mind how dark the original was and how "weak" the data is bitwise. Of course this could be improved more in PS, but here I demonstrate direct C1 output.

Note 2: The AdobeRGB TIFF from C1 has perfect histogram and no clipping, this sRGB JPEG looses something in quality compared to it (hard to see but histogram shows it). But I'm not going to upload 36MB TIFFs. :)


BEFORE (JPEG out from C1):
http://photography-on-the.net/10D/CRW_9048_small.jpg

AFTER (Edited in C1, JPEG out from C1):
http://photography-on-the.net/10D/CRW_9048-2_small.jpg

FULL SIZE 'BEFORE' (3MB):
http://photography-on-the.net/10D/CRW_9048.jpg

FULL SIZE 'C1' (4.3MB):
http://photography-on-the.net/10D/CRW_9048-2.jpg

[Roger_Cavanagh]

"Cogent" means powerfully persuasive. It doesn't seem to me that this article has persuaded any of the posters (including me) to change their minds. If you are a JPG shooter, you're happy because the article confirms your decision. If you're a raw shooter you're pissed off because of the sarcastic tone and inconsistency, and the patronising implication that better photographers shoot JPG.

Let's consider a few quotes:

Frankly, its just as likely that they have a vested interest in locking you in to their proprietary file format and image processing software system.

This would be the software that Canon gives away free and is so crappy that many people do choose to pay for a better option.

Canon have chosen to design and use the CRW format because it is lossless and it is extremely efficient. Consider your 5-6mb 10D file that turns into a 36mb TIFF with some space space, or an 18mb TIFF, if you throw away a few bits.

At one point, the author says:

... there is a steady siren's song that claims you need to shoot Raw files to get the most from your camera. Frankly, that's bunk.

But a few lines previously, he wrote:

You can remap the 12-bits of information captured by the camera into the final 8-bits needed for output. You can change the white balance to your heart's content and you can even alter the exposure by several stops without ruining the image. You can do some of that with JPEGs, but not as well or as extensively.

Despite claiming to be well-informed about raw format, this person writes:

Unfortunately with the Canon 10D, it appears that special software support is now needed to extract the JPEG image from the Raw+JPEG file. This removes much of the advantage of having the JPEG there in the first place

OK I agree that an extra step is required, but extracting embedded JPGs is simple, quick and uses the same free software that comes with the camera.

No, I'm afraid this article - itself more style than substance - adds nothing to the JPG vs Raw argument.

Regards,

[PaulB]

Roger,
The argument is cogent given the fact that there is no right or wrong in what with/how you capture an image if the means of doing it enables you to get the result you want/need.
In the dark, dim past when film ruled the world there was B&W negative film, then colour reversal, then colour negative (not counting the niche market emulsions of course).
People chose what to use to give them the result they needed.
It's just the same with RAW vs JPEG - no right, no wrong.
I shoot mainly JPEGs because the amount of post-processing needed with RAW takes too much time. I can end up with 3/400 images to be sorted/processed/burnt to CD after a days shooting. Then the CD may have to be in the post or delivered next day, or some images e-mailed that night or next morning. Some customers could even want to take a CD of selected images away with them on the day.
If I have the time though then it is a different matter and if the job allows it then I would shoot RAW and post-process away as if I were back in a darkroom, aiming to get the most out of each image.
Horses for courses.

[mrgumdrop]

I am confused or do not understand workflow.

1st I shoot raw
2nd I use BreeseBrowser to convert to jpeg
3rd I use photoshop elements to edit the image

Why not shoot jpeg since I start with a jpeg image in photoshop?

[PaulB]

RAW files have be processed as they are converted into JPEGs.

It is at this level that you are working with original data - as recorded at the time of exposure without any work being done on the image in camera to convert to JPEG. This enables you to choose exactly how you want the image to be converted with respect of white balance, contrast, sharpness and lots of other parameters, before PShop even gets to see the image.
If you arcive the original RAW file then it can be processed again later in a different way if you require - treat RAW as digital negatives whilst JPEGs are a finished product, like a colour transparency.

This does lead to the ability to fine-tune a RAW image more than a JPEG but adds time to the workflow and another layer of necessary learning of another piece of software.

If all you are going to do with an image is veiw it on a monitor and make the odd 7"x5" print then perhaps RAW files are over the top. If you habitually have to deal with 300+ images, to a deadline then again RAW files take up lots more time. If you have a special set of images where you need/want ultimate quality then shoot RAW.
eg. this is why many wedding photographers shoot RAW, there is more scope for adjustment when skin, white dresses and black suits mean lots of trouble with contrast and white balance problems.
No doubt you have been confused by all the differing opinions in the Forum.
It comes down to:
1/ Personal preference
2/Time
3/Need
4/Final use of the image

[AndyDe]

mrgumdrop wrote:
I am confused or do not understand workflow.

1st I shoot raw
2nd I use BreeseBrowser to convert to jpeg
3rd I use photoshop elements to edit the image

Why not shoot jpeg since I start with a jpeg image in photoshop?


I shoot raw
View them in breezebrowser then..
Open in in Photoshop raw converter make any adjustments then...
continue anymore editing in photoshop, then..
either save as tif if I want to continue editing later or save them as low compressed jpg.
The crw files I save to the hd on my second pc & copy to cdr while the jpg files stay on this pc...for viewing etc.

[Pekka]

PaulB wrote:
The argument is cogent given the fact that there is no right or wrong in what with/how you capture an image if the means of doing it enables you to get the result you want/need.
In the dark, dim past when film ruled the world there was B&W negative film, then colour reversal, then colour negative (not counting the niche market emulsions of course).
People chose what to use to give them the result they needed.

But in this digital stone age people don't seem to understand how RAW works. For many its a black hole of strange terms and concepts and odd, perhaps expensive, software. I am not trying to push RAW to anyone, I merely try to demonstrate and explain because my heart hurts when people get great gear and do not use/realize all of its potential.

It's just the same with RAW vs JPEG - no right, no wrong.

In time you may come to see that times and ideals will change and then it's too late to have those 120 000 JPEGs as RAW :)

I have found also that my taste of processing changes in time and RAW is always there as fresh mould waiting for new ideas.

I shoot mainly JPEGs because the amount of post-processing needed with RAW takes too much time.

This is CPU power issue. I just checked my AMD 2400+ setup: it takes 18 seconds to convert RAW using C1 to sRGB JPEG. Too long? Not for me.

The way I work is not just "slap all photos to a CD and deliver", I take plenty of time to select the best ones and see how they can still be improved in C1 to look better, and then convert those maybe 30-50 from 300. I don't take any assignments where I have no control over selection and quality issues. I don't want to shoot in hurry and I don't want to process in hurry.

[Spinners]

I shoot raw.. much more flexibility.. but for the JPEG users who dont shoot for convenience, then why doesnt someone just shoot a pic in raw.. really under exposed, and then in jpeg with the same settings. then macro the fix. then load the jpeg version of the same shot and run the macro on it. then we can see, visually why RAW pictures look better after post processing. :) i would do it, but im a newbie to photoshop. Again, i dont think one is better than the other, but if i want the most control, i use raw.. i do use jpeg for some quick stuff though.

[Yance]

JPEG is a file compression format that improves the size of the file. It is ideally suited for web use where smaller files are easier to download. But as means of storing archival images it is really not the best solution. RAW files or CRW store all of the information that the sensor records but it is alot of information. You can't print RAW files or view them on the internet so they will need to be converted at some point. The type of conversion depends on your use. If you want the best prints don't convert them to JPEG but try TIFF. The TIFF file is larger but doesn't compress any of the data from the original photo. But if all you are going to do is show pics on the web you may as well shoot JPEG and really you don't even need to shoot at that high of a resolution.There is no sense in shooting an 11MB resolution image if you always pare it down to 600x800 for the web page.

Really you can't compare JPEG to RAW. They are two different animals. More appropriately it is like comparing a rock to an animal. It should be relatively easy to batch process an entire CF card to JPEG or TIFF as the need arises, but I would always suggest shooting in RAW and burning them directly to disk.

[lobo4200]

I thought this post might stir up some passionate responses...especially after reading various other threads on the subject. It's good to hear where others are coming from on this subject.

My 2 cents is, whatever makes you happy and works for you...or ultimately your client if that is what you are shooting for. Personally I prefer to have the options of shooting RAW files. Even though I have confidence in my photographic abilities, I would probalby develop an ulcer if I was shooting a wedding in JPEG. You simply have more options with RAW to provide a client if they don't particularly like your first version of an image. And as much as anyone wishes to be a perfectionist you eventually will shoot something with the wrong camera setting and RAW can/might get you back to your original intent.

[PaulB]

All these points I take in - and agree with many of them.
BUT, if you are out there working for a client who puts speed at a high priority then RAW is not the way to his/her heart, they do not understand and probably would not see the difference anyway.

Don't forget that most clients want the job done, at a price, done on time, no excuses.


I agree about RAW believe me, it can give better results, given the luxury of time - in a studio or a wedding where the photos aren't wanted 'yesterday'. With JPEGs one has to get it right first time, every time, on the button, no fail.
Maybe that's the difference between using a camera as a tool and using it for a hobby.

I would also like to draw attention to two topics I started on the forum a while back asking people what they did with their results from their 10Ds or whatever.
I was interested to see how all these converted RAW files got used, as prints on the wall, for clients, on the web or whatever.
Given the less than stunning response I feel that the taking and manipulation of the images is given a higher priority by most hobbyists than turning them out as hard copy. If the final destination of most photos is on a hard drive to view on a monitor or post to a web album who is kidding who as to the importance of squeezing the last ounce of quality out of an image?
Unless of course most people make a complete hash of each photo and have to have RAW files to recover something/anything. AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT.

[DWard]

One great and overlooked feature of the 10D is its RAW+JPEG file structure. That makes it a slide+negative camera in the film sense.

One has the option to fine tune the "slide" JPEG using the setting options and still have the RAW negative for later post processing should one choose.

Last time I did a batch extraction, the large fine JPEGs were pulled out by BB in just seconds for a complete 512M CF. That should satisfy even the most impatient client. Especially considering that just a short time ago, the best they could hope for was the Hour plus processing time for 'chromes. Persuming there was a processing line in the studio. (30 years ago we used overnight air shipments and the ADs were happy.)

The end game is that the camera manufacturers have given us choices. We each make our choices based on our own work flow habits and desired outcome.

Personally, the CF card density and low cost means I can have both, so I do.

One Man's View
David

PS the article was, like all editorial offerings, another opinion, that included several good points and an editorial slant.

[Andy_T]

Shooting pictures in RAW and JPEG

One of the major disadvantages of RAW format stated here is the longer writing times due to the larger file size.

Now would not using the combined format of RAW+JPEG make that even worse? Is the only advantage the time saved on the Breezebrowser or Photoshop conversion?

I find time wasted during taking photos much less acceptable than time wasted in conversion (especially if you can breezebrowser or your other conversion tool run as a background job).

I'm using the G2 now (RAW exclusively) and find the timelag quite annoying - how long does the D10 take to write an image in RAW format (highest quality)?

Regards,
Andy

[Webster]

This is the first time I have ever seen the "what you get is what you've got" nature of slide film expressed as an advantage. I have always considered it something to put up with in order to get the superior image quality that comes with reversal. I get the feeling that the author of that piece is trying to justify his minimal workflow by denying the quality difference between RAW and JPEG. If there is no difference, then there's no reason to spend the extra time, ergo there's no difference.

I do think there are times when it makes sense to shoot JPEG. If you shoot 300 pictures in a day, dump them to CD and send that off to your customer, you obviously are not trying to glean the utmost quality from your camera. I recently shot a company soccer game at large/low jpeg on my D60. With two 512M and one 256M cards I was able to shoot 1200 shots and never ever saw the "busy" signal as files were being written to the card. But going into that event I KNEW that I would not be kicking myself for not having a higher quality file for that one-in-a-million shot, and as they ended up on the web and on a few 4x6 prints, it was good enough. (and if that one-in-a-million shot had come along, you can bet I would have switched back to RAW quick as could be.)

[PaulB]

Webster sums it up quite well.

Also the latest Digital Photographer magazine here in the UK has tested various CF cards and the write speed results are interesting.
The camera they used was a Fuji S2 (yes, I know!) and they shot a burst of 4 JPEG and then 4 RAW images of the same subject and times the cards.
Each of the CF cards appear to write slightly faster in RAW mode but obviously the files are larger.
The results for the fastest CF card (a Delkin Film Pro 512mB) WERE:
JPEG - 11.28 seconds
RAW - 29.19 seconds.

Shooting action using RAW slows things up somewhat.
As I tried to make clear in earlier posts, you choose the workflow which gives the results you want/need. There is still no right or wrong way. All I know is that I don't know anyone in my field who shoots digital who shoots in RAW - there must be a good reason for that and the reason is speed of working and speed of processing the results (this use of JPEGs also extends to those who use the 1D, 1Ds, and various Nikons/Fujis).
Horses for course.

[mkaplan]

Andythaler wrote:
Shooting pictures in RAW and JPEG

One of the major disadvantages of RAW format stated here is the longer writing times due to the larger file size.

I'm using the G2 now (RAW exclusively) and find the timelag quite annoying - how long does the D10 take to write an image in RAW format (highest quality)?
Andy

I will quote from the Imaging-Resources review of the 10D. "In RAW mode, performance is identical for the first 9 shots (compared to jpg), then the camera pauses for 2.04 seconds before the 10th shot, and then alternates between 1.67 and 1.88 seconds for the next 6 shots. Finally, it slows to about 7 seconds between shots for shots number 17 and above."

It is very fast. Yes, the actual time for the buffer to empty takes longer in RAW than JPG but unless you need those extra frames I find it very sufficient. I personally shoot only in RAW.

[toddb]

Here is an article from Canon:
Canon Article (http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240)

[CyberDyneSystems]

This is a great article ToddB!
Thanks for this,. I had not seen it before.

[evilenglishman]

--

[CyberDyneSystems]

evilenglishman wrote:


This isn't 100% true.
Colour tone can be changed quite easily if you know how.
The jpeg compression info is also inaccurate as you can open an original jpeg and save it as a bmp or tiff etc. So your original jpg becomes the master - exactly the same as a raw file.


However,. manipulating color, exposure, contrast and sharpening in a jpeg yeilds far less exceptable results thatn working with the raw. And I mean working on a tiff copy of the original jpeg.

I do not fully understand why,. but I have found that my raw originals "take to" being mainipulated in PS so much better the difference is immediatley noticeable while working on the files. Working on the copy of the compressed jpeg seems to result in an almost immediate negative response,. an artificial look to the image. Whereas with the RAW copies the same adjustments have a natural organic feel and look.

I do not claim to understand exactly what is going on, but a theory is that as the jpeg throws out 80% of the image info that the format deems redundant or inconsequential to save sapce,. it has thrown out some info that would lend to a much more "editable" image. Information that may not be immediatley apperent to the eye is in fact neccesary for a smoother editing experience.

???

[tikkeltokkel]

Pekka this is your site and i know you wont "bull sheite" us but i've got PS7 and if this is really a "fix" done with C1 then i need to get it. Is this real... Honestly... no jokes.... you being serious... its amazing.

[DAMphyne]

Has anyone had a chance to use the "New" Photoshop, I've been told it supports RAW, is there a reason for me to buy another conversion if I get the PS upgrade?

[CyberDyneSystems]

I am using PS 7.1 with the raw plugin and love it. It can do amazing things with exposure.

In fact I find the 10D (my 10D anyways) tends to overexpose on bright afternoons,.. so I shoot now two thirds of a stop underexposed in RAW under thse conditions. I then use the RAW plug in to bring the exposure up a tad if needed (I never need to bring it up two thirds though?)

I have yet to have this prove to be a problem.

[Motorsports Photo]

CyberDyneSystems wrote:
In fact I find the 10D (my 10D anyways) tends to overexpose on bright afternoons,.. so I shoot now two thirds of a stop underexposed in RAW under thse conditions. I then use the RAW plug in to bring the exposure up a tad if needed (I never need to bring it up two thirds though?)

I have yet to have this prove to be a problem.

I have the same problem with exposure. I had hoped that Canon could make it work as well as the film cameras I had in the past, but sadly this has not been the case with either the 10D or D30.

Just the same I do a quick adjustment with Levels in PS to my pics before printing. Sure I could do it in RAW too but as discusssed earlier, downloading and manipulating hundreds of raw files while a customer waits doesnt improve sales.

Reading this thread Ive read lots of wild ideas on this subject. It appears to me the only reason for shooting RAW is if you screw-up often with taking the pics in the first place! Maybe there is some difference in image quality but I will have to trade it off in the interest of LOTS of time gained.

Ahhh the fun we have just to be able to use electronics!

-Pete

[toddb]

In my case, I shoot RAW when I know I won't get a second chance. I went haplessly in debt to get this camera so I can get as many stock photos of my daughter as I can now while she's at this young age.

For pictures I don't care about, I shoot JPEG, and when I first got the camera I could fill up a 1GB card in no time with JPEGs. Then I went to only shooting in RAW, but found that was kind of overkill and the amount of processing was eating too much of my time. So when I shoot my daughter, one of those once in a life time expressions she does, I shoot RAW, so if I get my exposure wrong I can more easily adjust. If I had allot more time to set up before taking the picture it might not be needed as much, but since I have only been shooting with a SLR since June, I don't take chances. (I'm on picture 7589, fun stuff!!)

One other note, not sure it was mentioned here yet, but they are always coming up with better RAW converters, so in time, you may get a better pictures from your RAW in a year from now. Keep that those extra bits for a rainy day. :-)

I want to do an experiment. I want to purposely under expose a shot both in RAW and JPEG and see how well each image comes out. Looking at my schedule, I have time sometime in 2005, so if anyone else would like to do a controlled experiment I'd like to see it.