JPEG over RAW

[Transportithere]

I have been shooting RAW for about two months. I have compared RAW to JPEG.
My sumation is:
JPEG by a mile....
Your real opinion is???

[gmen]

On no... not again...

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=196994&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170867&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=191825&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=185800&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=187480&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1686031&postcount=10

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=186045&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=183975&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=175542&highlight=RAW+jpeg

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=175644&highlight=RAW+jpeg

...amongst others.

Excuse me while I say 'Aaaararararararrghghghghhghhhhh' again.

Sorry.

---- Gavin

[cassarilda]

You can turn a RAW into a JPEG quality... you cannot turn a JPEG into RAW quality.

Enough said. :)

PS. One last thing.. if you HATE spending time in front of the computer processing RAWs, employ a student photographer to do it for you... but think about how many hours more it took to process wedding photos in a DARKROOM!

[tomnackid]

Your digital camera has built in software that is optimized to make the best JPEG image possible from the raw data. Shooting JPEGS is a lot like shooting color film and sending it to a lab for processing. The lab has invested tons of money into getting good quality images from film. However, there may be times when tricky shooting conditions or a desire for something out of the ordinary calls for custom processing and printing. Shooting RAW is like processing and printing your own photos. You have more control over what happens, but the cost is that you have to invest time into learning the process. Of course the good thing about digital image processing is that getting experience is a lot quicker and cheaper than with a traditional color darkroom. Of course that also means the bar has been raised in terms of image quality.

[Curtis N]

If you can't get a RAW conversion that is just as good as JPEG from the camera, you're not doing something right. By adjusting and converting a RAW file, you're doing manually what the camera does automatically. RAW mainly gives you a lot more flexibility.

[In2Photos]

To each his own, but I still prefer RAW.

[Kevin]

RawShooter Premium is about $150, but the condensed version is a free download. It makes for very quick editing of Raw files and allows you to save as JPG and rename it at the same time. The best point made is that you can never turn a JPG image into a RAW image. Personally I shoot RAW most of the time except for candids and the family bbq shots.

[jj1987]

I dont have the time to shoot JPEGs.

[cherokee01]

JJ1987- What do you mean you dont have tim to shoot JPEGs? I thought JPEGS are easier to shoot than RAW. I'm still not understanding the differences.

[cherokee01]

nevermind I'm gonna google it

[Curtis N]

What do you mean you dont have tim to shoot JPEGs? I thought JPEGS are easier to shoot than RAW. I'm still not understanding the differences.Perhaps it's a reference to the fact that exposure and white balance can be adjusted/corrected much more quickly with a RAW file than by adjusting colors & levels with a JPEG.

[greystreet41]

I dont have the time to shoot JPEGs.

curious what that means to.

[Picture North Carolina]

Perhaps it's a reference to the fact that exposure and white balance can be adjusted/corrected much more quickly with a RAW file than by adjusting colors & levels with a JPEG.

Perhaps he means that it takes more time to post-process an inferior quality jpeg than to post-process a superior quality raw. (that'll get 'em going! :))

[Bodog]

Man, another JpG vs. Raw thread. This is like comparing eggs to omelets. It's NOT JPG vs. RAW, the real comparision is in camera processing compared to your post processing ability. If you can't make a better omelet that Dennys, or have no interest in making an omelet, go to Dennys. It's that simple.:)

[greystreet41]

yea, I get the feeling that RAW purists tend to consider themselves more pro-types and have a difficult time rationalizing why someone would be content with jpegs...jmho. PP learning curve is huge IMO. Therefore, jpegs are better for a lot of people until they're ready to move on.

[sapearl]

Yes, there has already been a tremendous amount of discussion on this topic. Please do a search on the other threads.

Each format has excellent advantages and disadvantages. It depends upon what you are trying to achieve, the type of shooting environment and many other things that have been already said better than myself.

What sort of shooting do you mainly do?

Also, check the WEDDING forum here - a big ADVANTAGE of RAW is the white balance issue; weddings are typically Wild West Rodeos of variable lighting conditions. RAW enables you to make large global changes to MANY files at a crack with a minimum number of keystrokes.

I'm not saying you couldn't do that with JPGs, but for MY workflow it's much easier and quicker to tweak 500 RAW wedding files in that fashion than if I had to deal with the less limited range inherent in JPGs. After all, information has already been discarded to get to that JPG, so you have less to work with. And yes, there are "automatic optimized" functions to give you the supposedly best results, but sensors and meters are very often fooled by the shooting environment.

Please, check out the volumes of other posts. - Stu

I have been shooting RAW for about two months. I have compared RAW to JPEG.
My sumation is:
JPEG by a mile....
Your real opinion is???

[sapearl]

Most of my work is weddings and that's a RAW workflow for me. But I completely agree with you that the learning curve IS HUGE. I've only recently gotten into digital after 30+ years of film, and it's been many late nites in front of the PC :confused: . But yes, JPG is the way to go for many people, and they will be very happy with the results - there is certainly nothing wrong with that ;) .

For a while I tried shooting a few jobs in JPG only, but the combination of bizarre lighting and my inexperience gave me too much grief. I had a very challenging time "fixing" my pix. RAW is my safety net when I need it - repairs for ME are far easier and a lot faster.

yea, I get the feeling that RAW purists tend to consider themselves more pro-types and have a difficult time rationalizing why someone would be content with jpegs...jmho. PP learning curve is huge IMO. Therefore, jpegs are better for a lot of people until they're ready to move on.

[PhotosGuy]

Excuse me while I say 'Aaaararararararrghghghghhghhhhh' again. Me too. RawShooter Premium is about $150 It was $100, or less, but is no longer available since Adobe bought RSP. The free version can still be downloaded.
RSP users can get a free download of Adobe's Lightroom with future upgrade options.

Adobe acquisition of Pixmantec–Frequently Asked Questions
http://photoshopnews.com/2006/07/11/adobe-posts-updated-faqs-regarding-purchase-of-pixmantic/

[Curtis N]

PP learning curve is huge IMO. Therefore, jpegs are better for a lot of people until they're ready to move on.This is a common misconception that can unnecessarily scare people away from RAW when it gets perpetuated.

There are only two things you can do to a RAW file that you can't do to a JPEG: Adjust exposure and color temp (white balance).

Now I am a post-processing idiot. I don't understand many concepts involved and I get frustrated a lot. But the two simplest ways to improve an image in post are adjusting the exposure and white balance. If you can move a slider, you can do it.

RAW makes post-processing simpler, not more complicated.

[JCDoss]

So, what's Adobe going to do with RawShooter? I'm just getting into RAW myself, and it seems like I just missed the boat on this apparently excellent piece of software. :(

[Picture North Carolina]

Man, another JpG vs. Raw thread. This is like comparing eggs to omelets. It's NOT JPG vs. RAW, the real comparision is in camera processing compared to your post processing ability. If you can't make a better omelet that Dennys, or have no interest in making an omelet, go to Dennys. It's that simple.:)

Now wait a minute! I take great offense at that and differ in opinion. I think this is an outrageous comment. unbelievable! there is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with denny's omlets! ;):)

[sapearl]

Maybe the onions are a little too strong? :lol:

Now wait a minute! ......I think this is an outrageous comment. unbelievable! there is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with denny's omlets! ;):)

[jj1987]

JJ1987- What do you mean you dont have tim to shoot JPEGs? I thought JPEGS are easier to shoot than RAW. I'm still not understanding the differences.
They might be easier if you decided to hold up a wedding ceremony each time the lighting changes to shoot a grey card. Then tell him to hold a grey card so you can re-set the white balance to the spot light on the bride/groom. Oh and tell the pastor to shut up while you photograph the brides maids during teh ceremony since they're under a different light.




And then when you go outdoors for wildlife photography and a bird is under a tree, ask him to fly over and hold the grey card for you. Then ask the squirrel across the way to do the same, since he isnt in the shade.

ahh how I (dont) love JPEGs.

[tomnackid]

They might be easier if you decided to hold up a wedding ceremony each time the lighting changes to shoot a grey card. Then tell him to hold a grey card so you can re-set the white balance to the spot light on the bride/groom. Oh and tell the pastor to shut up while you photograph the brides maids during teh ceremony since they're under a different light.




And then when you go outdoors for wildlife photography and a bird is under a tree, ask him to fly over and hold the grey card for you. Then ask the squirrel across the way to do the same, since he isnt in the shade.

ahh how I (dont) love JPEGs.

Do you actually photograph weddings? I know a good number of wedding/event photographers who don't bother with RAW because of the increase in workload processing them causes. Time is money for professional photographers. The vast majority of pro event photographers used to send out their film to labs they trusted and had good relationships with. There are as yet no RAW conversion and printing services--it pretty much has to be done by the photographer and it can really wipe out your profits if you need to sit down and process several hundred RAW files from an event. The auto white balance function of most high end digital cameras pretty much eliminates the problem of changing lighting. Pros may use RAW for the formal in studio bridal portrait but many of them seem to be happy with the JPEGs they get from the camera.

This smacks of the old "transparency vs. color negative film" arguments from way back in the 20th century! You know how it went: "Pros use slide film so it must be better right?" "I only use slide film because thats what the pros use." yadda, yadda, yadda. Never mind that the "pros" only used slide film because that was what publishers were set up to take and that was only because color transparency film predates color negative film and most publishers had already invested heavily in color transparency workflow. (Wedding and portrait photographers always used negative film by the way and they are just as professional!)

[Bodog]

Now wait a minute! I take great offense at that and differ in opinion. I think this is an outrageous comment. unbelievable! there is absolutely nothing in the world wrong with denny's omlets! ;):)
That's exactly my point. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with JPEG. If you can't make a better one from a RAW file than the camera, then there is no controversy, shoot jpeg. Doesn't make you less of a man... There seems to be this ongoing quasi religious argument about which is better. A lot of the posters don't seem to get it that a JPEG is just one derivitive of a RAW file. The only real difference is whether it was made through the in camera processing or via a post processing workflow. Either one could be *better* (or worse, as in the case of the original post here). All JPEGs come from RAW data, just as omelets come from eggs... (sorry for my offensive original post):D

[jj1987]

Do you actually photograph weddings? I know a good number of wedding/event photographers who don't bother with RAW because of the increase in workload processing them causes. Time is money for professional photographers. The vast majority of pro event photographers used to send out their film to labs they trusted and had good relationships with. There are as yet no RAW conversion and printing services--it pretty much has to be done by the photographer and it can really wipe out your profits if you need to sit down and process several hundred RAW files from an event. The auto white balance function of most high end digital cameras pretty much eliminates the problem of changing lighting. Pros may use RAW for the formal in studio bridal portrait but many of them seem to be happy with the JPEGs they get from the camera.
Yes, I photograph weddings.

when putting together an album, it seems easiest to batch balance things from each scene, rather than trying to use curves, levels and color balance to tweak each scene. With raw, I can shoot a grey card after or before the ceremony from 3 different positions, and then use that to click balance every image shot in that lighting. Rather than waiting for photoshop to open jpegs, I just make my edits send to a batch, and when I'm done leave Bibble to it's lonesome to crunch away and make the JPEGs.

And the lab I use gives nearly half off if you don't need any corrections done and you have your sizing done for them, so that compensates for the time fairly well. RAW conversion is so fast these days, I really believe it takes me less time to correct a raw file than a JPEG, mainly because the actual conversion work is done when I'm not at the computer.

[sapearl]

I use a 5D for my wedding work, set for AWB when I'm on the job. It's reasonably high end but not perfect. It does a VERY good job in most situations, but not all settings.

I will often shoot a wedding from mid morning to the dark reception hall late at night, with available light, strobe, and a mix of both with sunlight, fluorescent, incandescent, cloud and gloom thrown in. I did try JPG only for a while, but it just did not give me the ability to deliver the level of quality that I wanted.

Yes, time is money - but as JJ pointed out, labs cut you a BIG BREAK on printing now because almost nothing is a custom print anymore; that was all done on the PC. ;)

......The auto white balance function of most high end digital cameras pretty much eliminates the problem of changing lighting. Pros may use RAW for the formal in studio bridal portrait but many of them seem to be happy with the JPEGs they get from the camera.

[Kevin]

Me too. It was $100, or less, but is no longer available since Adobe bought RSP. The free version can still be downloaded.
RSP users can get a free download of Adobe's Lightroom with future upgrade options.
Adobe acquisition of Pixmantec–Frequently Asked Questions
http://photoshopnews.com/2006/07/11/adobe-posts-updated-faqs-regarding-purchase-of-pixmantic/
Thanks for the update Frank.

[Transportithere]

Maybe the program for RAW conversion I use is faulty. I am not that impressed.
Sure, I can tweek my photos. It is the grain it adds to the final product. I was informed to convert to TIFF. At that I still end up in JPEG to print. I will need to learn what .ext are processable at the printer. I go to Fred Meyers or Costco.

[jj1987]

Maybe the program for RAW conversion I use is faulty. I am not that impressed.
Sure, I can tweek my photos. It is the grain it adds to the final product. I was informed to convert to TIFF. At that I still end up in JPEG to print. I will need to learn what .ext are processable at the printer. I go to Fred Meyers or Costco.
If you're "pushing" 1+ stops, sure you'll see grain.

Lots of us who shoot raw overexpose and then "pull" 1/3-1 stop down to avoid grain (almost).

what program are you using?

[Transportithere]

If you're "pushing" 1+ stops, sure you'll see grain.

Lots of us who shoot raw overexpose and then "pull" 1/3-1 stop down to avoid grain (almost).

what program are you using?

1+ stops! Brillant!! Learn how to use the program. Brillant!!
I think that is a real big light bulb to add to my new hair do.
My hair is only about 1 inch long. But, with a little gel. The Light bulb thing will work.

I really must say of all the RAW information I have read the three line you have added are the most informative.. I will continue to enhance my photograrphy experience.. PLEASE KEEP POSTING. I THINK. I AM TWO INCHES TALLER. :lol:

I am using the RAW SHOOTER 2005? the downloadable one.

[Curtis N]

Right or wrong, I am more impressed by JJ1987's attempt to help than by your condescending, sanctimonious response.

The bottom line is, shooting RAW does not add "grain" (technically it's called digital noise) to an image. Converting a RAW image to TIFF or JPEG doesn't do it either. So if this is happening to you, you're doing something wrong.

Raw Shooter Essentials adds some sharpening by default, and sharpening makes digital noise more pronounced. If this is causing problems, make sure you uncheck the "apply sharpening" box in the batch convert tab.

Now you can respond to my attempt to help the same way you responded to jj1987 if you like. But it's not very conducive to learning, which is what this forum is about.

[jj1987]

1+ stops! Brillant!! Learn how to use the program. Brillant!!
I think that is a real big light bulb to add to my new hair do.
My hair is only about 1 inch long. But, with a little gel. The Light bulb thing will work.

I really must say of all the RAW information I have read the three line you have added are the most informative.. I will continue to enhance my photograrphy experience.. PLEASE KEEP POSTING. I THINK. I AM TWO INCHES TALLER. :lol:

I am using the RAW SHOOTER 2005? the downloadable one.
If Ansel Adams was on this forum I would start with the basics explaining stuff to him since I would have no idea on his digital knowledge. I'm sorry you got offended I started with the basics, but honestly I dont know your skill level at all since I dont know you in person. You obviously have a problem with raw conversion, and with that kind of attitude I'll be shocked if many help you.

[PhotosGuy]

Your real opinion is You asked for them, didn't bother to tell us what program you're using, post ANOTHER This/That thread & when someone tries to help, you get upset?
In the first week with RSE I read through the manual 3 times. How about you?
(Don't bother answering, 'cause I'm 'outa here. )

[BillMarks]

Arguing over which format (RAW or JPEG) is better is akin to arguing over which color is better.

[Transportithere]

Curtis N: I thank you.
jj1987 : I thank you.
Everyone else: I thank you.

I will uncheck the Sharpening I did not know that.
That is why I am here.
I kinda got lost when
My Omlete-v- Dennys Omlete = eggs

Ok, I have experienced RAW. I enjoy RAW. I also enjoy straight JPEG. If my responce offended any of you. It was not intended to. What I was mearly attempting to say was. What is your opinion? My opinion is: I do not always have the patience to post process. Therefore, I attempt to get the photo correct in the camera. I will play with RAW a little more.
Did I insult you? MHA is offered!!

[Papaw]

I use ZoomBrowser as well as CS2 and both are very easy and fast for working with RAW. To me it's like Monday quarterbacking as you can see your results and go back and change all your settings you used (except focus - and that can be helped a little in CS2) to see which ones get the result you like best. Now your team wins!

[Transportithere]

I use ZoomBrowser as well as CS2 and both are very easy and fast for working with RAW. To me it's like Monday quarterbacking as you can see your results and go back and change all your settings you used (except focus - and that can be helped a little in CS2) to see which ones get the result you like best. Now your team wins!

ZoomBrowser is that by Canon? I might have it.
CS2 I have the book, not the software.

I will post a couple of examples:
Using 100% crop which is sharper?
Speak no evil is JPEG.

[Papaw]

The White Balance - or temperature- is off in the first. Another fast tool in that either of the two programs mentioned earlier is a white balance eyedropper that you can click on and drag to any object or area that you know is white and click the dropper on that area and it makes all your colors nearly perfect. Takes about one second.
In this case you could use the area around the Oral on the toothbrushes or the sealer around the base molding or even the sink is probably white.

[JCDoss]

I use ZoomBrowser as well as CS2 and both are very easy and fast for working with RAW.

Indeed! When I first picked up my 20D, the only RAW converters I had were BreezeBrowser and DPP. They pretty much have the same output, and both are extremely slow! Since then, I abandoned RAW citing slow conversion speeds and hard disk space concerns.

I've been playing with RAW for the past week, and to be honest, it takes me about the same time to adjust images and convert them with CS2 than it did with the 20D jpgs! I was amazed at how fast CS2 is. In addition, I think that hi ISO CS2 conversions are cleaner than the in-camera jpgs or anything else I've used. I've had CS2 for several months now, and I wish I'd have experimented with RAW sooner!

[Transportithere]

I am going to switch software. Information available from the forums and from people I have spoken to. RAW is the way to go.

[Transportithere]

Hey, what a difference. Canon file browser provides a better photo. It does not have the sliders. The final product is just better.

I need to watch my ISO also. 1600 ISO in RAW is not too great.

[grego]

What thing is you can shoot RAW and batch them all quickly into JPG(if your parameters were on neutral-all the better if you like having lattitude for your jpgs).

You can go that way and get both or you can just go jpg, but cant' get RAW. RAW is defintely useful if you have the software.

[BearLeeAlive]

This is like comparing eggs to omelets.

Great analogy.

You can turn an egg into a poached egg, fried egg, scrambled egg, and omelet, eggs benedict or whatever. Now try to turn a poached egg into an omelet, not easy.

RAW is the egg, JPEG is the processed egg.

[amonline]

I think the important thing to realize (for anyone who does not already) is that in the case of using cameras such as the Canon 20/30D (and their digital counterparts) that the photographer has so much more control when shooting in RAW. Oh, but keep reading!

Another not-so-well known fact to RAW noobs is that the Canon (or other RAW) software empowers the photographer to create the JPG after the fact anyway. By choosing the WB (white balance) and picture style in software such as DPP, (Digital Photo Pro) YOU ARE IN FACT CREATING the JPG in the exact same way as the camera would. (the algorhythm at the computer is usually matched to the camera by the manufacturer) Furthermore, you have even more control over the levels of contrast, sharpness, saturation and more.

Quite frankly, anyone who "argues" over whether RAW vs. JPG is better is simply showing their ignorance.

[Mike6158]

ROFL... always with the negative waves :lol:

Here's a clear and concise article on the why's and wherefore's of choosing RAW over JPG or vice-versa- The Luminous Landscape Article (http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml)

[jj1987]

Hey, what a difference. Canon file browser provides a better photo. It does not have the sliders. The final product is just better.

I need to watch my ISO also. 1600 ISO in RAW is not too great.
give bibble a chance, it has noise ninja integrated.

[Wavy C]

My guess is that most pro news/event/wedding photographers shoot jpeg. When you're shooting LOTS of pictures, possibly hundreds, then the file size difference with raw starts to matter. The catch is that you have to be good at good at getting the exposure and colour right at the shooting stage - happens when you get a experience from shooting hundreds of pictures, lol.

I'd also guess that the majority of serious amateurs, who shoot much less but who want the best possible picture quality, will choose raw.

Probably the reason why canon, nikon etc make both modes available in their cameras!

[Transportithere]

I have been learning more and more. I will try several other RAW programs. Sometimes I take in so much information. I need to digest some of it. Then apply it. ISO, Aperture, Shutterspeed, Depth of field.

I went back to the RAW shooter and it works with the correct ISO.
I really became discouraged. After, I decided to experiment with ISO.
It was not untill I remembered a post that mentioned to stay low on the ISO. Actually the Post mentioned to stay at ISO 100. My issues cleared up.

I still want to experiment with ISO. Recently I met a guy who only uses film. He grilled me pretty well. I am now stepping back a few more steps. Which is great and easy to do. I have some book on the shelf to turn to.

What ever it takes to enhance my photography experience. I'm all for it.