Jpeg Is MY Choice for Now Here isWhy

[JZaun]

Here is why I am going with Jpeg for now.

1. 203 pic's on my CF card as opposed to 60. It cost more to shoot raw.
2. I am now satisfied that the compression issue is not an issue for me.
3. I don't have to convert from raw to tiff to work the file in PSE2
4. I save time computer time and space as my finished product is the only thing I plan to save. I never saved negatives why save raw.
5. I cannot afford better software to make some of these issues go away yet.
6. The Jpeg pics I have gotten are as good as any I tried to do from raw. I realize that some of this is my weakness on PSE2 and or not having PS CS and or other softwars.. Again $$ are part of the decision process.
7. I have printed my Jpegs up to 11X14 and I can see nothing wrong wth them compared to Tiff prints.
8. I would rather spend time taking pic's, doing astronomy, rifle/pistol shooting competition, sailing, sporting clays, fishing and traveling than working on raw pictures on the conputer :D

I hope my reasons may help someone else make a decision for or against raw or jpeg!!

JZaun


[/b]

[CoolToolGuy]

Jerry,
Thanks for the tests. Good thread(s).

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Scottes]

Yep, you have good reasons.

I'd just plead with you to save the original JPGs as they came out of the camera. Put them on CDs - you can save hundreds of them for a dime. When you eventually decide that you must have PS CS (or PS QCS9.1) then you might, just might, pull one image off those CDs and you'll be glad you did.

At least save some of your favorites. After a year of running PSE you'll be amazed how you can improve those old images. Even if you only do it to one, it's worth a few dimes.

[Jesper]

Here is why I am going with Jpeg for now.
...
4. I save time computer time and space as my finished product is the only thing I plan to save. I never saved negatives why save raw.
...

I hope my reasons may help someone else make a decision for or against raw or jpeg!!


What?! You just throw away the negatives after you got the prints?! I've never heard of someone doing that. :shock:

You paid lots of money for your camera, now don't you want to make maximal use of the capabilities of your camera? The only way to get the best out of it is to shoot RAW. No lossy compression, better dynamic range (12 instead of 8 bits per pixel). This webpage (http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html) describes it in detail...... :wink:

[garethhhhh]

:shock: :shock: :shock: :shock: :shock:

I shoot RAW only, here are my reasons:
1st reason - I have more control over the final photograph
2nd reason - Better quality & no loss
3rd reason - There is no third, the 1st two are enough...

NEVER throw away your origionals!!!

[PeterS45]

I shoot RAW when I know I want the perfect picture and then postprocessing is the way to make a good exposure perfect. The standard pics I shoot in the highest quality JPEG, and I've made pretty good 20 x 30 prints from them.

[JZaun]

I feel I must post about negatives. In film the final print is off the negative which I would get and take home. The only reason to save the negative was if I wanted more prints ( I did this sometimes). My final digital file is my negative so to speak. I can go back and get as many prints as I want. Sinse I do not print from PS only from a view screen in XP and the pic is not resaved there is no further degridation no mater how many times I re-print. I have also just shown that I can go back and re-save the jpen 80 times with little degridation. So the only argument to using raw is better quality images. As I stated my skill level with PSE2 is not such that I could make a image better from raw than I could from Jpeg. Also the cost factor for more CF cards, ( I ran out with a 512 every time I went out using raw) ,and better software would run $600-$1000. I would rather spend that for a good tripod, camera bag, mirrors for my recently built 8" and 10" reflector telescopes.

I have not ruled out RAW for the future should I have more time to learn the software and the $$$ to purchase it but I am satisfied with Jpeg for now.

I surely won't critisize anyone for using raw but I suspect that out of the 10's of 1000's of digital cameras out there raw in in the minority and there are a lot of great photo's being taken.

Just my thoughts :D

JZaun


PS: For a great shot that will wait for me to change, I will still occasionally shoot RAW,,just because I also save a large jpeg and I can choose the best results. :D

[Jesper]

But as you learn more and more about Photoshop (Elements) and you get more skilled, you'll want to use more advanced techniques to get the most out of your photos.

Maybe sometime in the future you'll want to go back to that one great photograph you made last year and use your newly learned advanced technique on it, to make it come out even greater.

If you've shot it in JPEG, you might regret it, because you'll realize that if it would have been shot in RAW, you'd for example have been able to get more shadow detail out of it......

In the film days, did you really throw away (almost) all of your negatives?!?! What if you or someone else wanted a print or an enlargement six months after you've thrown away the negatives? Or do you only shoot crappy photos that are not worth reprinting anyway? :roll:

[JZaun]

xxx

[ssim]

JZaun

I'd be surprised if you didn't expect some sort of "negative" :shock: reaction to you turfing your negatives. This just seems so foreign to any photographer. I have gone back and printed off of negatives that several years old.

You say that you can open the same JPEG 80 times and you have no degridation of quality. In essence this is right but try resaving it that many times and you will see what many are referring here to as far as loss of quality in the image. I recently shot some indoor stuff for a friend. I purposely shot some in JPEG and then immediately shot the same in RAW. The RAW images were so much better.

I have amassed thousands of CRW files in the year that I have had my 10D. Through this time I have gotten much better at editing in this time. I am finding that I reloading alot of my originally shot RAW files and am being able to improve them even more.

While it is a purely personal decision, I feel that you will come to regret the decision to:
1. Not shoot in RAW only because of the price of a CF Card
2. Not save your originals.

To each it's own but your reasoning sounds a little on the bizarre side.

Good luck.

[ilya]

Jerry

Raw has its place. Some people use it 100% of the time, some 10%. A poll conducted showed that about half the people on this forum use it 90% or more of the time.

As I said in the PM, the benefits of raw are that its a big safety net.

The whole thing that started these many threads is that you mentioned that you shoot raw and don't save the originals, and you don't do anything with Raw in conversion.

The benefits of raw can truly be appreciated as you correct the white balance, exposure, contrast to name a few key settings. If you have not done so in the File Viewer Utility, you should really give it a shot.

Try this, take a picture in Raw by using a White Balance setting that is clearly wrong for the conditions - like tungsten under regular lighting, for instance.

Then take another two pictures in Raw using Auto WB, but make one 2 stops underexposed and another one 2 stops overexposed.

Extract those three Jpegs from the Raw files using FVU, and set them aside. (do not "convert" but "extract")

Upload Raw file with the wrong WB setting into FVU, and set the White Balance to Auto - and witness the miracle. I don't remember the manual correction options in FVU, but play around with those as well to see the flexibility.

Then upload the two wrongly exposed Raw files into FVU and correct for exposure.

Then take the three Jpegs you've extracted, and try to correct them in the same manner using PSE2.

Compare the effort and results.

Whatever you learn from that, I'd suggest that you consider using Raw on shots that you think are very important to you. That way you have something of an insurance in case its not perfect right out of the camera.

A nice balance and using the right tool for the job always works best.

Ilya

[CyberDyneSystems]

I think your number 8 reason is the best reason to shoot jpeg I've ever heard. I would not argue it at all. We all have our likes, dislikes and priorities in life.

Many of your points are valid, but every possible argument I can come up with for the benifits of raw are totally moot when compared with "reason #8"

For me RAW remains a no brainer because (in case you hadn't guessed) a good part of my time is going to be spent in fron of a PC. :mrgreen:

My only curiosity is,.

If Number 8 is true,. how come your post count is going up so fast! :shock: :wink: :mrgreen:

[JZaun]

You have a point CDS!! :D Read all of post 8,, I gotta give up something, I don't retire untill Aug. Maybe then I will have learned enough to make raw better than Jpeg :? I just have too much to do.. :lol:


Post are really going up because of COMCAST CABLE I can make more post in 5 min than I could in a hour with dial up!! :D ..

Almost to the end of the Inter Net! :D

JZaun

PS you gotta camera yet??

[stoneylonesome]

I have to agree with Jerry, I shoot 98% in jpg. and find it very satisfactory. I saw an article I think it was one of the digital photo mags where the war photographers in Irag where shooting jpgs. faster and easier to upload and satelite link back. Most of my stuff I email or post so jpg is fine, I really can't complain about any of the prints I've made either

[Scottes]

I have to agree with Jerry, I shoot 98% in jpg. and find it very satisfactory. I saw an article I think it was one of the digital photo mags where the war photographers in Irag where shooting jpgs. faster and easier to upload and satelite link back. Most of my stuff I email or post so jpg is fine, I really can't complain about any of the prints I've made either

Definitely good points, but I'm always afraid that I'm going to take THAT PHOTO but have it be 1/3-stop underexposed and under flourescent lights...

[timmyquest]

I have to agree with Jerry, I shoot 98% in jpg. and find it very satisfactory. I saw an article I think it was one of the digital photo mags where the war photographers in Irag where shooting jpgs. faster and easier to upload and satelite link back. Most of my stuff I email or post so jpg is fine, I really can't complain about any of the prints I've made either

Photojournalists have a differnt job then a photographer taking macros of a flower for a magazine.

When i see my dog laying in a cute fashion and i pull out my camera i'll put it in raw, if i go to a basketball game to shoot for my schools newspaper, i'll shoot jpeg.

I dont know why there has to be a debate here, do what YOU want...why would you care what everyone else does?

[stoneylonesome]

I have to agree with Jerry, I shoot 98% in jpg. and find it very satisfactory. I saw an article I think it was one of the digital photo mags where the war photographers in Irag where shooting jpgs. faster and easier to upload and satelite link back. Most of my stuff I email or post so jpg is fine, I really can't complain about any of the prints I've made either

Definitely good points, but I'm always afraid that I'm going to take THAT PHOTO but have it be 1/3-stop underexposed and under flourescent lights...

Yes and a lot of that can still be fixed in post processing in PS or paint shop pro. And yes I do save my original off the camera jpgs. (if there worthy :lol: )

[Jesper]

In response to JESPER

Maybe I only shoot crapy pictures, but they are my crappy pictures not yours, and I do not have box's of negatives taking up space waiting for someone who may try to print a 50 year old negative. Its nice to know you can form an opinion on someones pictures based on weather or not they save negatives.

JZaun

PS if you can't be helpful please do not reply to my post in the future.

OK, OK, I'm sorry, I didn't mean to insult you!! :(

It just sounds very strange to me that you'd throw away the negatives.......

If you want to shoot JPEG, by all means do so, nobody's going to look down on you because of that. For some people one thing works best, for others something else works best.... the most important thing is that you get the results you want and enjoy! :D

[Cadwell]

I'll add a 9th? reason to Jerry's list. The other day whilst shooting motor racing I shifted from RAW to JPEG because the buffer wasn't clearing fast enough in the camera and I was missing shots. The JPEGs being a third of the size wrote off to the CF MUCH quicker and I didn't miss shots anymore.

Now I know the real answer is a 1D MkII... but we all have to make compromises in life and I'd rather take the slight degradation in quality of JPEG than miss the shot or fork out for a more expensive camera that I don't REALLY need.

[pradeep1]

To each his own. I can see the value of both arguments. I shoot sometimes things in JPG just because they are not as important as the things I shoot in RAW.

Also speed is an issue. JPGs write faster in my camera than RAW files.