You all will kill me...

[Johnnynf]

I really don't want to tick everyone off here, but I am still grappling with the RAW vs. JPEG issue. I started a thread on that topic yesterday, and another forum member PM'd me with some links that discuss the topic. Like I said, it is not my intention to "rock the boat" here, it just seems like RAW might not be the way to go for everyone and I wanted any "non-pro's" like myself to hear the other side of the argument as it seems like any time someone asks the eternal "RAW vs. JPEG" question, they get flooded with "RAW all the time" recommendations. I truly welcome any comments on the links.

http://www.theimageplane.net/tip2_014.htm
There are three pages to this one, make sure you read them all.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

[iwatkins]

Simple answer ? Do what works best for you. End of story.

Longer answer: There is no right or wrong answer, it is purely a choice based on what you want out of it. Sure, there are people who spout on the 'net that one is better than the other, but surely you don't believe everything you read on the 'net ?

Actually go and shoot both for subjects you normally shoot. Do all your post-processing with the software you normally use. Which gives (in your eyes) the better results ? Use that.

The End.

Cheers

Ian

[Haifidelity]

I agree. It's beaten to death, the whole "RAW vs JPEG" deal.

If you prefer the quicker/easier workflow of JPEG and percieve a little or no loss in quality, go for it.

If you prefer the bit more tedious workflow of RAW but want the absolute quality that you camera can provide, go with RAW.

-hza

[dtrayers]

The two big advantages touted for RAW is color cast correction and no compression artifacts. You can correct a JPG for a color cast, and the high quality JPG is very clean, but there is no way to get a 12- or 16-bit image from the JPG.

For me, the biggest advantage to shooting RAW over JPG is that in the conversion I can open the RAW image in CS in 16-bit mode.

[JZaun]

Here is what I did. I shot Raw for a while and found

1.That my PS skill wasn't good enough for me to get better results from Raw than Jpeg.
2. It cost more to shoot raw, that is, I would have needed more memory.
3. It takes more time to convert raw to a good picture.
4. I ran many test and proved to myself that the compression issue wasn't as big of an issue as some think.. Just don't keep changing a pic and saving it to itself.
5. You need more computer space to save RAW or Tiff files.
6. I'm lazy :D

Finally I shoot all Jpeg large for now and I am happy with my results. I have notgiven up the idea that in the future I may become better with PS and have more time to spend on the computer and then go back to raw!


JZaun

[tommykjensen]

I am not a pro I am a happy amateur and heres my non-scientific opinion :wink:

In february I started to shoot in raw after I realized the flexibility with that format. I think some of the failed photos I shot before that time could have been rescued if I had used raw. I am still learning the techniques to post processing and what I am talking about here are photos that were underexposed. With jpeg I could adjust some of them with levels but with raw I just adjust exposure compensation and the picture is much better.

But as other say use the format that best suit You - my biggest problem with raw is the size of the files, a 512 MB CF gets filled to quickly :(

Here's a few examples.

First shoot original from the camera shot in jpeg fine.
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=wolf_original.jpg
Same shot with levels adjusted which is a little better but not good enough.
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=wolf_levels.jpg


Here's a underexposed photo shot in raw
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=lion_original.jpg
Same shot with exposure compensation this looks much better and represent the avaible daylight
http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photo.php?n=lion_expcomp.jpg

Yes I know I should have made sure the exposure was done right from the beginning but we all need to learn first.

[G3]

I think shooing RAW just because "everyone else does it" or "everyone says it's better" is a bad approach.

There needs to be some reason for your decision as to whether to shoot RAW or JPEG. RAW definitely is not better for everyone. For some people it is.

RAW does give you just what the sensor sees with no internal camera adjustments to the image. Is there any value to that? Not for everybody. It does take more time in Photoshop to get the image you want, and it is slower in the camera (write time) and it takes more memory and it takes more disk space on your PC.

Is the JPEG compression a problem? Not always. Where I notice problems with JPEG compression is in shots where there is a whole lot of the same color. Such as a picture of a small boat on a lot of blue water, or a picture of a bird or airplane with a lot of blue sky. When it's a fairly intricately detailed photo and there's not a lot of big areas with one or very similar colors, I have not noticed JPEG compression to cause any noticeable difference in the image.

Sometimes I shoot JPEG, sometimes RAW. If I'm shooting something with a lot of action and I need the camera to write fast, I shoot JPEG. If I'm shooting a wedding and I need the highest possible image quality and I'm not worried about speed, I shoot RAW.

[PekkaM]

I'm mostly a JPEG shooter for space and slow processing reasons. However a couple of days ago I once again noticed the pros of shooting RAW for I managed to save a couple of shots that were badly underexposed.

The right border no this one was totally dark:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pmm/galleries/sigma_17_35_ex/185_8533.html

As was the bottom third on this:
http://koti.mbnet.fi/~pmm/galleries/sigma_17_35_ex/185_8513.html

If they were JPEG I wouldn't have bothered even trying to correct them.

[evilenglishman]

Here's a few examples.

First shoot original from the camera shot in jpeg fine.
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/wolf_original.jpg
Same shot with levels adjusted which is a little better but not good enough.
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/wolf_levels.jpg


Here's a underexposed photo shot in raw
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/lion_original.jpg
Same shot with exposure compensation this looks much better and represent the avaible daylight
http://www.klein-jensen.dk/external/lion_expcomp.jpg


Tommy. I've had a quick play with your original underexposed jpegs.

http://www.electricvenus.com/wolf.jpg

http://www.electricvenus.com/lions.jpg

Jpegs can be rescued just as well as raw files

[Johnnynf]

I hope none of you thought I was attacking your methods or trying to reopen this already "beaten to death" topic, I just wanted to get the other side of the debate out there. As I have asked the question three times now on the forum (once a few months ago, once yesterday, and then this thread), it seems like the replies are always saying the same thing..."RAW always". I realize that for many, RAW is better, but for some, it just adds needless time to the process and really gives no benefits. I just wanted to provide a few links so that any novice who may do a search on this topic in the future can see both sides of the issue and choose what works best for them.

Thank you all for your thoughts...I appreciate all of them!

[Tito948]

I shoot RAW when I:

1. shooting valuable pictures(getting paid to shoot the photos) - Portraits, Headshots, Landscapes, Events & even birthday parties. Which you would want to process yourself and get the best results out of them.
2. archive your valuable pictures - Archive in 16bit uncompressed mode for later processing.
3. want to print in 16bit color mode
4. experiment with different settings and effects
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I Shoot JPEG when I:

1. shoot with a couple of friends for ha-ha's.
2. shoot a birthday party(for fun).
3. shoot for a web page.
4. shoot everday little things.
5. shoot more pictures period!

Tito

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Jpegs can be rescued just as well as raw files

No, they can't. They can be rescued, but raw files have more data to work with and those data are cleaner because they have had less done to them - no white balance adustment, no extra sharpening, no compression.

Regards,

[slejhamer]

but for some, it just adds needless time to the process and really gives no benefits.

For me, the benefit of RAW is efficient workflow (aka "time savings"). If I could consistently get print-ready JPEGs from my camera, I would shoot JPEG. However, in truth, I do at least some post-processing work on most of my files. Also, I tend to process a few hundred files at a time. Processing/converting with Capture One DSLR is the most efficient means I've found to reduce the time I spend in front of the computer. This is primarily because of C1's ability to convert in the background while I am tweaking the next file, among other features. YMMV.

[PeterS45]

It's all between the (my) ears .......

I shoot RAW when I know it's going to be a great picture, just to make sure. Better safe than sorry. :lol:

[evilenglishman]

Jpegs can be rescued just as well as raw files

No, they can't. They can be rescued, but raw files have more data to work with and those data are cleaner because they have had less done to them - no white balance adustment, no extra sharpening, no compression.

Regards,

1. I was speaking from a 'post-processing skill' point of view.
Many people shoot RAW and don't know how to correct their images properly.
2. Camera settings can be set to zero or minus.
3. Of course there are limits in dark noisey areas etc. But that will be a problem for either format.

It comes down to the final result, and you wont see much (if any) difference in an 800x600 jpeg that started out as a jpeg or raw.
What you would see in an A3 print really comes down to how good the person is at post-processing. One raw could look crap and aother jpeg could be great.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

It comes down to the final result, and you wont see much (if any) difference in an 800x600 jpeg that started out as a jpeg or raw.


If all I wanted was 800x600 JPGs, I wouldn't have been out shooting today with 3 grand's worth of kit round my neck.

Regards,

[evilenglishman]

geez, lose the bad attitude :roll:

maybe you don't take photos specifically for the web but I'm sure a lot of people do. Your comment is irrelivent to this topic

[ohenry]

I shoot RAW because I enjoy the digital darkroom as much as I enjoy taking pictures ..... end of story :)

[Roger_Cavanagh]

geez, lose the bad attitude :roll:

maybe you don't take photos specifically for the web but I'm sure a lot of people do. Your comment is irrelivent to this topic

I too take photos for the web, but my point is that web images are an inappropriate medium for comparing the quality of out-of-the-camera JPG and converted raw images.

[evilenglishman]

thats why i also mentioned:

What you would see in an A3 print really comes down to how good the person is at post-processing. One raw could look crap and aother jpeg could be great.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

thats why i also mentioned:

What you would see in an A3 print really comes down to how good the person is at post-processing. One raw could look crap and aother jpeg could be great.

Yeah, but just because the user isn't very competent doesn't prove anything about the superiority of one format over the other.

[dds]

I shoot 98% large jpegs and 2% raw. I read thousands of threads about RAW format superiority but I cannot get it... :cry:
I'm lazy (on one side) and have not enough time (on the other side) to learn using all tools necessary to convert a raw file in a good image. I can usually achieve better results (faster with jpeg files.

but this is my fault :?

I only shoot raw when I take pictures of radiographs ( :!: :!: :!: ) because it is easier to postprocess them (and they absolutely need it because of very dark and very bright areas in the same pic).

DDS

P.S. every advice for taking good pics of radiographs is welcome...

[toddb]

I'm with most people here, depends on what your doing. I try and get in a routine of resting my camera before I put it away, which includes setting my iso to 100 and set images to RAW. The reason I do this is because I shoot inside allot and I can correct the white balance and exposure (especially when I'm under exposed by a couple stops...sometimes your in a hurry to catch your two year old doing something, LOL).

I think when you first get your Digital SLR you want to shoot JPEG because you're going to be trigger happy trying out all the bells and whistles and trying different things in manual mode. Once you become and avid PhotoShop user (such as myself), you'll most likely never shoot jpeg again do to the 16bit in Photoshop CS....it's pretty cool.

Long term, I believe RAW is much better. I've already seen improvements on the RAW converters (which will only improve over time). So that shot of your 2 year old last year all of a sudden becomes much more important, you know you have every bit of information possible. Big? Considering that RAW is a 12bit image and is only 5-6MB in a lossless compression (no data loss), it seems very reasonable to me.

Again, there are about as many different reasons to shoot jpeg and raw as there are canon lens. I think this discussion is not about, "my way is better", just a place to point out the pros and cons of each. That's what's this forum is all about.

[PekkaM]

I've always wondered what'd happen if you'd put two photography professionals with opposing views in a same room. Both are absolutely right and get offensive very easily when their position is questioned ;)

[ggustafs]

I think Petteri (who has an excellent website) has a very thoughtful review of Ken Rockwell's points with his counterpoints:
"Sermon From A Raw Convert"
http://194.100.88.243/petteri/pont/How_to/o_RAW_workflow/_RAW_workflow.html

[toddb]

That link reminded me of something, one of the biggest things that scare people away from RAW is the post processing. RAW can really be frustrating if you don't have your work flow. My current setup with PS CS is actually easier now then it was with jpegs when I first started. I have actions that make all the adjustments I want, resize and save for web posting in just one click. There will always be those images that need special attention, but for most, this works fine.

[karusel]

I wanted to ask you a question, but have asked uncle Google instead, here's what he said: http://robertdfeinman.com/tips/tip27.html.

As some of us are the photography version of computer overclockers I must insist on using RAW. 8)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes we've beat this to death,. particularly on this forum.

And I disagree that the results are allways a bunch of people saying "raw all the time" with no epxlaination.

In fact every time this seems to come up we have a very valid discussion of the pros and cons of both formats.

If all somone gathers from these threads,. and all the time that many have invested in anwering clearly and eloquently there points of view is "You should shoot raw because every one else does" then those that are getting that as an out come of the thread are simply NOT reading the content and or taking in any of the valuable information that is being offered.

The information is there. Tons of it. It is here too. In this very thread.

I wonder that it ever results in an argumentative tone. (it ususally does not) disagreement,. of course,. there are two opposing points of view (at least) but there is no reason for any argument really.

Rather than go into it again myself,. let me remind readers of some of the extensive discussions we have allready had on the subject.


Shooting in RAW Mode (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26300)

RAW Vs. Jpeg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20827)

One Reason to shoot in RAW (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24713)

Allways Shoot RAW (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19084)

RAW or jpeg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17120)

RAW Vs. jpeg, Style or Substance? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12516)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Here is another recycled post... with some excellent arguments FOR JPEG

***********************************
Each format has it's own merits.
A simple way of explaining the difference is to compare them to film counterparts.

If you think of the jpeg that the in-camera processing produces as a print you would recieve from a photomat,. or from a polaroid, then the RAW file is your negative that can then be easily manipulated in your "Digital Darkroom" or editing software.

First,. here's Canon's View (http://www.cps.canon-europe.com/articles/article.jsp?article.articleId=1240)

Roger Cavanagh, a regular contributor to these forums and host of his own site has this to say on the RAW Vs. jpeg Question. (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm)


Skipping forward to the Benifits of jpeg (devil's advocate)

Here are some of the advantages of using jpeg over RAW

1. jpeg is a smaller file, and thus you can fit more images onto your memory card.

2. The smaller file sizes jpeg offers translates into faster burst rates, faster buffer flushes to your memory cards, etc. Different camera handle these memory uses in different ways,. but in general the jpegs smaller file size equals faster camera performance.

3. You can use the files straight out of the camera with the aid of the in camera processing. As an industry standard file type, your jpeg images are ready to be viewed, printed posted to the internet etc. with no additional manipulation.

(CyberDyneSystems)

Also, Longwatcher had this to say on the benifits of jpeg.

While it is generally regarded that RAW is a better format to use then the jpeg format in terms of quality and all other things being equal, there are several situations where the use of jpeg will provide a significant advantage over the use of RAW images.

1. The jpeg format provides for a smaller file format, while this does entail some loss of the maximum level of quality; up to the 8x10 (A?) format, this will probably not be noticeable in high or medium modes. This smaller file size results in several secondary benefits.

1A. More pictures per megabyte of storage. Just using the high-fine mode of jpeg will result in three to four times the number of pictures on the same storage device (CF card, hardrive, CD, DVD). Obviously lower quality modes will usually* result in even more pictures that can be taken/stored.

1B. It will take less time for the camera to process the picture and write the file to the CF card , which will result in a higher sustained rate of taking pictures after the buffer has reached its capacity. This is especially important in taking pictures of certain sports such as martial arts matches or other high action activities. It is also helpful in reducing the time between pictures when doing time lapse photography while connected to a computer.

2. Because jpeg is an internationally recognized standard format you gain the following benefits:

2A. Ability for others to view the pictures without further processing. Because jpeg is a standard format family, friends, customers will be able to view the pictures straight out of the camera as they were taken. This means that if visiting family you don't need to take your own computer or software** along if they have a method of reading the files on the CF card (or other storage device you use)

2B. Related to this will be the ability to provide the picture directly to a news or law enforcement outlet, if you happen to get that 1 in a million picture that either shows and event or provides that immediate tip. While they may be able to process the RAW file as well, it may take them some time to find the correct software.

2C. Ability to print at a kiosk/consumer store straight from the camera. By using jpeg format you will be able to take the CF card (or CD/DVD) to most print shops and have the pictures printed with no additional processing. A large number of inkjet printers are also featuring CF card readers that will print straight from the CF card, although some of these can print from RAW files, most will only work with jpeg formatted pictures.

2D. Longevity of the file format. while this is a minor point since this can be done as part of computer processing of RAW files, Jpeg is a standard format and is more likely to be viewable in the future as file formats change then the RAW file formats which tend to be unique to the specific camera. The .TIF file format frequently used for archive and printing is also a standard format, but requires processing of the RAW file to get the pictures into this format.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Bottom line...

BOTH Formats require some form of compromise to be made.

RAW you MAY hav to compromise speed,. file size and related costs, additionla learning curve,. future compatibility (if you refuse to store large tiffs as well)

However,. jpeg asks for a compromise that RAW simply does not require.

Using Jpeg results in a compromise of the total image quality that your equipment and your skills are capable of.


Using RAW is the only way that you can avoid this particular compromise.

It is up to each of us to decide to what extent each of these compromises effects our own decisions.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

My, CDS, you've done a lot of homework! :)

I pretty much agree with your summation except to say that there may be occasions when the JPG quality compromise does not produce a noticeable difference in image quality. And conversely, the raw file size penalty and shooting capacity constraints will not always make a difference to the pictures the photographer chooses to capture.

In essence, unless the JPG shooter uses pictures from the camera with no additional processing at all, the overall workflow requirement is the same. The image files must be got from the camera to the PC, decisions must be made about what adjustments are required, and the picture output to its final destination - print/web/whatever. The understanding of how to effect the post-processing adjustments (I wonder why it's called post-processing :) ) is the same for both raw and JPG shooters, but raw shooters must apply, at least some (occasionally all) of these choices in their chosen conversion tool and then move to Photoshop (or whatever). The JPG shooter uses their photo editor. So the extra learning for raw shooter boils down to understanding the raw converter functions and capabilities - a much less daunting task than understanding Photoshop. :)

Regards,

[KiwiRob]

PekkaM you gotta love Nordic women, I liked your gallery. I really liked the photos of Helsinki great place. I'm moving to Oslo next year.

[defordphoto]

Great stuff here. One of the best (and we've had hundreds) of JPEG vs. RAW debates. The only other thing I can offer here is that my published photos that will appear in the upcoming issue of HeritageUSA magazine were shot LARGE-FINE. I offered them a TIFF version of the JPEG, but they said they preferred JPEG. I did some minor tweaking on them, re-saved them (Yes. RE-compressed at 12 in PSCS) and that's what's being printed in the magazine.

Also, the new 1D MKII will debut the new Canon RAW format: CR2, so the current Canon RAW format: CRW will evidently be pushed out of the way for the new version, hence supporting the long-term format argument.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Great stuff here. One of the best (and we've had hundreds) of JPEG vs. RAW debates. The only other thing I can offer here is that my published photos that will appear in the upcoming issue of HeritageUSA magazine were shot LARGE-FINE. I offered them a TIFF version of the JPEG, but they said they preferred JPEG. I did some minor tweaking on them, re-saved them (Yes. RE-compressed at 12 in PSCS) and that's what's being printed in the magazine.



Jim's comment reminded of the article on Rob Galbraith's site, Sports Illustrated's Digital Workflow (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821). If you haven't read yet, you should - fascinating stuff. This is one quote from early in the article:

It's a workflow based on using JPEGs for most editing tasks and RAW files to make the highest quality images for the printing press.

Regards,

[JZaun]

Being a new guy on the block, I read what you guys say, I believe what you say but I stlll cannot make better images from raw than I can from Jpeg :? . (Lets forget about the processing time for now)I keep reading and trying different things but to no avail. Last night after re-reading this thread for the 5 th time I tried a comparison again. I used a tripiod, shot the same thing, I used the standard settings and did the best I could on each image. I converted raw to jpeg and again to tiff and did the best I could on both. Again the best I could get was equal output of the full image. I then did a 100% crop on a item in the center of the image and every time the raw conversions were worse than the jpeg. Ok I can accept that I am doing something wrong but what is it? To hear others tell it, raw is better many times right out of the camera!

Here is what a lot of us new guys would like to see,,how do you make raw better. How about post a full size raw and jpeg image somewhere, let raw folks work it over. Do the same with Jpeg folks. Lets see the difference in a say 8X10. I personally can make both come out best or worse depending on what I want :?

Based on comments here I am still trying to use RAW. I believe you but I can't make it happen.

JZaun

[evilenglishman]

Also, the new 1D MKII will debut the new Canon RAW format: CR2, so the current Canon RAW format: CRW will evidently be pushed out of the way for the new version, hence supporting the long-term format argument.


This is a very good point and I wonder what the implications of this will be.

As I was trying to point out before, end results of either format really depend on the skill of the person doing the post processing.

Up until now I have shot 100% RAW but I've done a few shoots with JPEG.

I recently had a conversation with a photographer I know who works for Expressen - a big Swedish newspaper. He uses a 1D/1Ds/1D MK II (soon). He always shoots jpeg and asked me why should he shoot raw and it came down to the same argument; file size/storage/speed. He is happy with jpeg, the newspaper is happy with jpeg so raw isnt an issue for him.

On a side note, my client contacted me this morning regarding the raw format, he said:
...TAKES LOADS OF MEMORY FROM OUR COMPUTERS, THE SELECTION IS VERY HARD TO DO,
AND THE RETOUCHERS HAVE TO SPEND TWICE THE TIME....

And this comes down to my own preference now, as I can still shoot raw but just send them jpegs

[CyberDyneSystems]

Really, there is no existing .crw format.. each CMOS has it's own RAW file,. that are not interchangeble. The 10D and 300D (and maybe even the D60?) could posses the exact same file? But Other than that,. all the RAW files are unique allready. The 1D even cals the file a .tif.. even though it isn't a tiff.

[Johnnynf]

Yes we've beat this to death,. particularly on this forum.

And I disagree that the results are allways a bunch of people saying "raw all the time" with no epxlaination.

In fact every time this seems to come up we have a very valid discussion of the pros and cons of both formats.

If all somone gathers from these threads,. and all the time that many have invested in anwering clearly and eloquently there points of view is "You should shoot raw because every one else does" then those that are getting that as an out come of the thread are simply NOT reading the content and or taking in any of the valuable information that is being offered.

The information is there. Tons of it. It is here too. In this very thread.

I wonder that it ever results in an argumentative tone. (it ususally does not) disagreement,. of course,. there are two opposing points of view (at least) but there is no reason for any argument really.

Rather than go into it again myself,. let me remind readers of some of the extensive discussions we have allready had on the subject.


Shooting in RAW Mode (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=26300)

RAW Vs. Jpeg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20827)

One Reason to shoot in RAW (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=24713)

Allways Shoot RAW (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19084)

RAW or jpeg (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=17120)

RAW Vs. jpeg, Style or Substance? (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=12516)

Let me start off by saying that I am in no way trying to "fan the flames" again, I just want to make sure once again, that both sides are heard from here. I am sure that after some of the "regulars" read this posting, I will likely be banished or chastised from the forum, but here goes anyway.

After I read CDS's above quote, I began to feel a little bad, like maybe I had overreacted a little. Just to see exactly what was being said in those links provided by CDS, I read one of them. After reading the second link he gave, http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=20827, I still stand behind my comments. Maybe "RAW all the time" was going a bit too far...I mean, "always" is a very strong word...it is very hard to say that something happens "all the time", but the underlying theme of my comment still stands in my opinion.

Let me give you a few quotes to help illustrate my point.

From Canuck:
"Shooting RAW rocks! ...Seems like a shame to me not to use it like it was designed to be used. Think abou it this way, you get a sports car that can do into the hundred+ MPH very easily, and all you ever do is 60MPH."

From CDS:
"RAW kicks the $#!^ out of jpeg!!!"

From theoldmoose:
"If your camera takes RAW images, and you are still shooting in JPEG, stop it . Life's too short to shoot in JPEG, when you have RAW available."


theoldmoose again responding to another quote:
BobbyC wrote:
There are many pros a lot bigger than me that use jpg only.

theoldmoose answers:
Then either they don't know any better, or they care little for the quality of their digital work product. Anyone that calls himself 'pro' will be shooting in RAW now...

From hodad66:
Always shoot raw!


Keep in mind that the original poster on the thread was looking for the advangatges and disadvantages to RAW and JPEG. How do comments like that help answer that question? Of the 30 postings in that thread, only the second posting, by Canuck, actually gives pros and cons to both. 15 of the 30 postings (a full half!) tell people to shoot RAW and don't even mention any beneifts of JPEG, 6 of the 16 are clearly biased toward JPEG, and 9 of the postings are neutral to the topic or are off topic. Once again, when the original poster was asking for pros and cons of each, the discussion seems to definately skew toward the "RAW is better" argument.

I totally understand that for many (if not most) people on this forum, RAW is the way to go, but it seems like the JPEG arguments get no attention at all.

Once again...not my intention to fan the flames here...just wanted to state my opinions. Please do not flame me for that.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

I totally understand that for many (if not most) people on this forum, RAW is the way to go, but it seems like the JPEG arguments get no attention at all.

Once again...not my intention to fan the flames here...just wanted to state my opinions. Please do not flame me for that.

I don't see that anyone has flamed or even slightly singed you for your post. :) In my view, CDS summarised the case for each format pretty well and provided links to more exhaustive articles including my own examination (http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/35_rawor.htm) of the pro and cons.

Just what arguments for JPG do you think haven't been given any attention?

Regards,

Roger

[CyberDyneSystems]

Let me give you a few quotes to help illustrate my point.

At the risk of going point counterpoint,. the thread you link to and focus on above where my statement that "Raw kicks the $&^# out of jpeg",.. included a few paragraphs of info,. along with links to a what was at the time a very recent and rather long and disciptive raw vs. jpeg discussion. It is a shame that all that stuck out was my glib joking.

FYI,... When Photofreak posted that thread there were a number of active discussions on the subject.. (again I linked to some of these)

I am unsure where you find fault?

We that prefer to Shoot RAW should not offer our opinions when asked?

We hould only post some form of hard imperical data?

Unfortunately like many things in life,. for any artistic decision it is very diffeicult to provide hard data that everyone will interpret the same way.

Ahh well.. no one should jump on to a bandwagon. Of this I concur.

Some could argue if 80% of the people like RAW better than it has to be the better choice, why argue?

But then look at how in 1985 Budweiser outsold every other beer in America combined. Clearly this illustrates that there are times that the majority is wrong :mrgreen:

But I think it is also in everyones best interest to not go into an investigation prejudiced towards or against either of the viewpoints.

Lastly,. I am just getting to the point of being at a complete loss as to what it is that is being asked of us?

Our opinions are apperently not desired,. and yet they are asked for,. our expeirences are of little value as we post them and are taken to task for posting them,. we spend hours of our time looking up and providing links to detailed information on the subject,. and all that is read of the pages of info is a sound bite that is found to be annoying because it does not agree with the result that would be preferred.

If nothing we actually have to offer is of any use to you,. then the answer you seek is clear.

We have nothing to offer you.

The only answer then is for you to find out yourself,. and to, as most of us have ALLWAYS recomended,. decide for your self based on your own needs.

[CyberDyneSystems]

P.S.,. I sound grumpy.. but it's more confusion and a little frustration :)

It's tough when you are TRYING to be helpfull, but don't how to be.. :(

[JZaun]

CDS and others here!

Your replies are always open and informative, thank you! I can see why you feel frustration :D .. You keep trying to help and folks like me keep asking. Its not that we don't appreciate or believe the answers! In my case it is frustration because I can not get better results from raw that you guys say I can :? . I am sure it is my problem but I can't figure out why. Mean while I will continue to shoot Jpeg and I will keep trying to improve my raw conversion :?

Thank You

JZaun

[msvadi]

If you look for a simple rule, how about that:
if you happy with straight out of camera pictures and do not plan to do any postprocessiing then shoot JPEG. If you want to post-process, retouch you pictuers then shoot RAW.

[evilenglishman]

If you look for a simple rule, how about that:
if you happy with straight out of camera pictures and do not plan to do any postprocessiing then shoot JPEG. If you want to post-process, retouch you pictuers then shoot RAW.


sorry but i have to disagree with that statement.
You can post-process and retouch images in either raw or jpeg and get outstanding results, please explain why you made that statement.
This seems to be the biggest problem here - people make comments but don't explain why they make the comments.

Its very misleading to say what you said, but there seems to be a general feeling that what you said is true.
For some reason I find myself defending jpeg when I use raw 99.9% of the time.

Questions that should be answered are:
What is the actual compression amount of the biggest jpeg size?

"If" the recored jpeg is at jpegs best quality, then what (apart from ease of use) is the advantage of raw?

16bits Vs 8bits: when is this actually needed?
In 15 years of professional magazine publishing i've never used 16bit images. I've never sent 16 bit images off for photographic prints. I've never printed 16 bit images on my home printer. This isn't a statement saying it cannot be done, rather that there has never been a need for it.

So we get the debate about editing and retouching in 16 bit.
Canon's actually record 12 bits, so your 16 bit image isnt a true 16 bit image to start with, extra information is "added".
You can't use most plug-ins in 16bit mode, so how do you retouch????? convert it to 8 bit and then go back to 16 bit?
And if you are only using 16 bit to colour correct an image, do you convert it to 8 bit afterwards? If you do then surely the colour values will change accordingly.

gotta grab a coffee :shock:

[Johnnynf]

P.S.,. I sound grumpy.. but it's more confusion and a little frustration :)

It's tough when you are TRYING to be helpfull, but don't how to be.. :(

CDS,

I can totally understand your frustration. I am a regular member on some audio forums, and I am always frustrated when people start saying the same types of things that I have been.

I think this is a situation when the limitations of internet communication are shown. Apparently I am not able to clearly put my thoughts onto "paper" in such a way as to not make people feel bad for doing exactly what the forum is designed to do...GIVE ADVICE!!! I know what I want to say, but I just can't say it the right way. Do you know what I mean? I am sure that if all of us were sitting around having a few brews and talking about the same thing, it would be much easier.

I have said it already in this thread, and I will say it again, I really do appreciate the time and efforts of everyone on this forum. Your comments have helped me (and countless other) "newbies" get into this great hobby (at least for me) of photography. I truly hope that nothing that I have said will cause anyone to stop posting or to be more "cautious" when you post.


I am unsure where you find fault?

We that prefer to Shoot RAW should not offer our opinions when asked?


CDS, I apologize if it seems like I am singling you out...the quotes I listed above will hopefully just help me clarify my points a little.

It is not that I do not want anyone to share their opinions or experiences. If people want to say "I did this, and it worked for me, I recommend you try it too"...I can accept that. That is what we are all here for...to get recommendations. However, it is when people start making broad generalizations that I have a problem. I obviously like Canon better than Nikon...but does that mean that it is right of me to stand up in the middle of a photography convention and proclaim that "If you are in this room and are shooting Nikon, stop it . Life's too short to shoot Nikon, when you have Canon available" or "anyone who is shooting Nikon obviously doesn't know any better or they care little for the quality of their digital work product. Anyone that calls himself 'pro' will be shooting Canon now". Thinks like that may be a joke to most on the forum, but to a casual passerby on the forum, they can very easily be taken the wrong way.

Being that I am a relative novice in photography, I guess I am just trying to look out for the "little guy" here. Going back to the link I listed above. I don't know who "FotoPhreak" is, but if he/she were a novice trying to get information as to the pros/cons of RAW vs. JPEG, how many of those postings would have actually helped give FotoPhreak that information? FotoPhreak would have lots of information on the Pros of RAW, but very little information on JPEG at all. Someone totally new to photography and totally new to the forum would come away from that thread with very incomplete information and may think they were somehow "incompetent" if they weren't shooting RAW. I just think it is very important for everyone to hear both sides of the story, and that thread and others like it just didn't present both sides equally in my opinion.

I must also say that I think it is very natural for any internet discussion forum to lean in one direction or the other on various issues. Like I said, I am a regular on some audio forums, and that board definately has its share of brands that are recommended more than others.

Once again, I apologize if I have offended or singled out anyone. It was not my intention. Everyone, keep up the good work.

Now, lets all go have a cold one and move on with things!

Cheers!!

[msvadi]

Of course one can post-process with JPEG too. I did not say if you want to post-process you HAVE to use RAW. But, it only seems logical to use RAW due to it's flexibility. Color correction, exposure adjustment, for example, can be done during conversion. Also, it's better to work with TIFF than with JPEG. But you all know that, so I'm not going to repeat what was said thousands of times. All I was saying is that if one plans to retouch his pictures, including one more step RAW to TIFF conversion only seems logical. It's just a little bit more work and the flexibility of the RAW format is worth it.

But, seriously, what advantages does JPEG has over RAW? Memory? Post-processing time? Required photoshop skills?

[msvadi]

I think that the biggest problem here is that people don't REALLY read the comments they respond to. The main part of my message was: IF you look for a SIMPLE rule then HOW ABOUT THAT ...


If you look for a simple rule, how about that:
if you happy with straight out of camera pictures and do not plan to do any postprocessiing then shoot JPEG. If you want to post-process, retouch you pictuers then shoot RAW.


sorry but i have to disagree with that statement.
You can post-process and retouch images in either raw or jpeg and get outstanding results, please explain why you made that statement.
This seems to be the biggest problem here - people make comments but don't explain why they make the comments.

[Sam North]

I’ve been looking into this subject on and off for just over 3 months, partly for my site, and I can tell you for a fact that there are a good number of people out there who know RAW is “best” and, if you shoot only JPEGs you’re not realising your potential: Shoot JPEGs for crappy stuff and RAW for the real photography; shoot RAW and post-process, shoot JPEG and just run with it.

Anyway, the whole business of digital image algorithms and compression is fairly complex – at least it is to me. The more you step out into it, the deeper it turns out to be. For example, someone with a lot of experience in this field told me: “[An 8-bit] gamma corrected JPEG retains the same information that 12-bit linear RAW does.” Or how about, “Huffman coding, discrete-cosine transforms and… quantization matrices (the only place in JPEG where data may, or may not, be lost)…”

To be honest, the fullness of it is beyond me (the maths too!), but the results I can systematically assess by shooting both formats and carefully comparing the results. This approach has thrown up frustrations and contradictions I’ve had to work through. For example, I tried and tried over the trial period to like C1 Rebel software, in honour of my new Digital Rebel/EOS 300D, but found I could get similar/identical results in my image-editing program. (I was similarly frustrated by interpolation software – see the interesting “Post processing and printing” section.)

I tried to see on-screen the benefits of RAW against JPEG, but couldn’t really find them. Now I’ve moved on to looking for the results in prints at typical viewing distances, and I’ve a funny feeling I’m not going to see it there either! “And since essentially every output device in common use is 8-bits or less per color, your software is going to need to convert the image to 8-bits per color at some point in any case” (David Cardinal). What does the extra 4-bits of data add up to in the final print? Can anyone really notice it?

The JPEG format impresses me. A great algorithm, partly based on what our brains can’t assimilate through out eyes, throws out data we don’t really need. So visually I’m doing ok, and if I keep to my tried and tested exposure techniques I’ll produce digital images as successfully as I did with film and slides.

It’s daft to edit JPEGs, so I use my image-editing software’s format, or the TIFF format, and I can adjust colour correction, contrast levels, and employ various other techniques to produce prints that are on a par with those I had pro printed from film. We're talking quality here.

So where in the overall equation do I find the need for the RAW format? Minor exposure correction for the very occasional shot? Not worth the trouble, and besides, good exposure technique is a primary concern for dedicated photographers. White balance correction? Image-editing tools get me very similar results for those rare occasions when there is a cast over the entire shot, like shooting indoors with outdoor film without flash – shooting RAW for this reason would be pointless. Some pros need batch processing to cope with a heavy workflow, so I see merit in that, but it has nothing to do with image quality.

I’ve been discussing this elsewhere today and wrapped up with this: “’ truth be told, RAW is nothing more than a purist 'fantasy' if you will. I see nothing wrong with shooting RAW, but in all my research I have found no strong evidence that JPEG is any bit less inferior. Using techniques described above and several other well known and documented procedures, I can perform the same workflow on my JPEG that I can with RAW’ (from a forum). I’m here quoting someone who says he develops image processing software and has “performed in depth studies on both RAW and JPEG formats”, because, so far, it seems to be the conclusion I’m coming to.”

So, what works for you? Are you getting the best quality you can, or is that [i]only possible with the RAW format?

Sam

[CyberDyneSystems]

sorry but i have to disagree with that statement.

I have to say that I "mostly" agree with with what Msvadi is saying.

Peoples reasons vary as to why use RAW. Overall image quality aside,. what my own experience has been is that the RAW files are far more readily manipualted than jpegs.

I don't want to repeat myself add nauseum,. but it was this ONE issue that to my eyes was night and day... starting with similar images jpeg and raw,. and working in PS to attempt to get what would be by my own criteria a "finished image" I found that with a few simple tweeks of the RAW files I was able to get images that popped off the page and had a richness and color that satisfied my own snese of quality.

With the jpeg files I had to work the files in PS for about 5 times the amount of time.. and the results did not have nearly the same level of impact.

On the other hand,. maybe as some may be having trouble working with RAW files,. I simply have trouble working with jpeg files.

One last thing,. Mr. Evil :) Msvadi has the right to offer his opinion.. and there is no harm in that. When you imply state that by offereing his opinion "it is the biggest problem" I don't understand why it is a problem.

In your statement you offer a number of opinions about the two filetypes that I persionally totally disagree with. My disagreements are based solely on my own experiences with the file types and my own opinions.

But I would never say that your opposing opinion is part of any "big problem"... we just have different views and different opinions?

The only problem I see is in the case where somone offers an opinion and gets there smacked upside the head for doing so. :)

[Sam North]

A cold one sounds good!

Who's round is it?

:D

[CyberDyneSystems]

Wow! :shock:

This thread is moving to fast! :shock: 8) :wink:

ROFL!

I'm now about 4 posts behind! :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

Johnny,. Sam The DRINKS ARE ON ME! :)

[evilenglishman]

Of course peoples reasons vary for shooting raw and of course everyone can and should offer their opinions - that is why this place exists.
But a lot of people come here with little knowledge, in search of answers and if those people read the following text:
If you look for a simple rule, how about that:
if you happy with straight out of camera pictures and do not plan to do any postprocessiing then shoot JPEG. If you want to post-process, retouch you pictuers then shoot RAW.

They will have the impression that they should shoot raw if they want to enhance their photos in any way and this isn't the case.


In your statement you offer a number of opinions about the two filetypes that I persionally totally disagree with. My disagreements are based solely on my own experiences with the file types and my own opinions.


tell me more, I thought I was offering technical facts, not opinions :D



Some pros need batch processing to cope with a heavy workflow, so I see merit in that, but it has nothing to do with image quality.
..

and batch processing can be done the same way with jpegs and much faster as it cuts out the raw importer to start with.

[slejhamer]

Anyone up for a round of sRGB vs. AdobeRGB?

:P

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Its very misleading to say what you said, but there seems to be a general feeling that what you said is true.
For some reason I find myself defending jpeg when I use raw 99.9% of the time.

Questions that should be answered are:
What is the actual compression amount of the biggest jpeg size?

"If" the recored jpeg is at jpegs best quality, then what (apart from ease of use) is the advantage of raw?

It's not very easy to work out what quality is being used with JPG compression because there are apparently different ways of doing it. Also just about every program has a different scale. Photoshop has two itself - 1-12 for JPG and 0-100 for save for web. For any given image, you can work out the amount of data that is thrown away by the JPG compression by comparing the size of the embedded JPG to an 8-bit TIFF conversion. Of course, this will vary from image to image depending on the subject matter.

Certainly, if you use file size as an indicator of quality, then L/F JPG is not max quality-min compression. C1 conversion to high quality JPG produces a much bigger file than the embedded JPG.

Can you tell the difference between the two? Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. Areas of fine detail are one thing that can be affected. If you shooting basketball at 8 frames a second, I guess you're not much concerned about the delicate weave on the shooter's vest. If you're shooting close-ups of, say, flowers, then the more detail the better. Since generally, I have no requirement to take pictures at machine gun speed, I shoot raw.

I am very comfortable with my raw workflow. It takes no more effort than processing JPGs - a little more computer time, but for most images no more of mine and less for problem one. To have to decide at the time of taking the shot whether this is a raw opp or a JPG opp seems an unnecessary complication and would increase workload because I'd have to handle two kinds of images.

Since I care more about image quality than volume, I choose raw. This is what I said in my article:

And before the JPG users jump up and down and accuse me of saying they are not interested in quality, I'm not, but I will say:

It CAN be postulated that raw is better quality than JPG

It CAN be postulated that there is no difference between raw and JPG

It CANNOT, however, reasonably be postulated that JPG is better quality than raw

I know that sometimes raw will give a better image, so I prefer to shoot raw all the time rather than risk losing out on that one image where it does make a difference.

16bits Vs 8bits: when is this actually needed?
In 15 years of professional magazine publishing i've never used 16bit images. I've never sent 16 bit images off for photographic prints. I've never printed 16 bit images on my home printer. This isn't a statement saying it cannot be done, rather that there has never been a need for it.

It's the same answer. Sometimes it makes a difference and sometimes it doesn't. A lot will depend on what edits are required. Here's a Bruce Fraser article (http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/7627.html?origin=story) that demonstrates the benefit of 16-bit.

So we get the debate about editing and retouching in 16 bit.
Canon's actually record 12 bits, so your 16 bit image isnt a true 16 bit image to start with, extra information is "added".

True, but that still means 4096 values per colour channel instead of 256.

You can't use most plug-ins in 16bit mode, so how do you retouch????? convert it to 8 bit and then go back to 16 bit?

There are plenty of plug-ins that do work in 16-bit. Here's some installed on my system: FocalBlade, Focus Magic, NeatImage, CurveMeister, Grain Surgery, iCorrect Editlab, Convert to B&W Pro, Photokit.

Probably, you gain nothing by converting from 8-bit to 16-bit, though I have seen it suggested that the extra colour values can improve the results of severe edits.

And if you are only using 16 bit to colour correct an image, do you convert it to 8 bit afterwards? If you do then surely the colour values will change accordingly.

gotta grab a coffee :shock:

Depends on what you are doing with the image after editing. Obviously, the colour numbers will change with conversion to 8-bit or sRGB for web presentation, but you will be feeding the best possible quality into that final transformation.

[Laziferous]

Interesting "discussion" :roll:

If I had something to offer, that hadn't already been explained, I would. Pardon the rolling eye smiley :wink:

I shoot RAW. Why? Because it works best for me. ME. Don't anyone tell me why they don't agree, or to back up my preference with facts, or why that's not what works best for you. I'm not you. Everyone just do what works best for themselves. People that prefer .jpeg can laugh at RAW shooters, and RAW shooters can laugh at those who prefer .jpeg.

I'll sit back, and laugh at everyone :p

Jerry, did I read your post correctly in that you converted a RAW file to a .jpeg, then TIFF, then back to .jpeg? That would no doubt degrade your image. In any case, just do what gives you the image quality you perceive to be the best, and roll with it. The photographer being happy with the end result is really what matters. Just be happy, you'll live longer. Life's too short to stress about RAW or .jpeg. Go have some fun 8)

[evilenglishman]

So we get the debate about editing and retouching in 16 bit.
Canon's actually record 12 bits, so your 16 bit image isnt a true 16 bit image to start with, extra information is "added".


True, but that still means 4096 values per colour channel instead of 256.


Thats true, but the part that concerns me is where the "extra" bits come from, and are they enhancing the 12 bits or degrading them? Isn't this like resizing an image 150%?




You can't use most plug-ins in 16bit mode, so how do you retouch????? convert it to 8 bit and then go back to 16 bit?


There are plenty of plug-ins that do work in 16-bit. Here's some installed on my system: FocalBlade, Focus Magic, NeatImage, CurveMeister, Grain Surgery, iCorrect Editlab, Convert to B&W Pro, Photokit.

Probably, you gain nothing by converting from 8-bit to 16-bit, though I have seen it suggested that the extra colour values can improve the results of severe edits.


Sure there are plug ins that do work, but the vast majority don't work. In the link you provided about 16bit the autor recognizes this.



And if you are only using 16 bit to colour correct an image, do you convert it to 8 bit afterwards? If you do then surely the colour values will change accordingly.

gotta grab a coffee :shock:

Depends on what you are doing with the image after editing. Obviously, the colour numbers will change with conversion to 8-bit or sRGB for web presentation, but you will be feeding the best possible quality into that final transformation.

I want to point to that artical again, where the author says that nothing outputs at 16 bit.
I totally appriciate that starting with a 16bit image and doing adjustments in 16bit will give finer results. But you are going back to 8bit in the end anyway.
If you have colour corrected an image to be 100% accurate in 16bit and then convert it to 8bit all those colour values will change, even more so if you convert to CMYK. you will end up losing most of the colour values you put into your image. So regarding colour only - at present 16bit is useless for anything other than on screen images.

Isn't this a contradiction?
Shooting raw for web photos, highest quality for lowest output :wink:

[karusel]

I was curious enough to do the following. I took a random image in RAW, then converted it to highest quality JPG and 16 bit TIFF, opened both in PS, used inkdropper on two pixels that I chose. What you see are RGB values in the 16 bit image and the regular 8 bit jpeg, followed by a difference of values.

pixel A
16 bit TIF 255/232/94
8 bit JPG 249/230/92
diff 6/2/2

pixel B
16 bit TIF 198/109/20
8 bit JPG 195/108/15
diff 3/1/5

after applied -5 hue, +20 saturation, -5 lightness:

pixel A
16 bit TIF 255/214/76
8 bit JPG 255/217/70
diff 0/-3/6

pixel B
16 bit TIF 207/86/0
8 bit JPG 200/87/0
diff 7/-1/0

Also note that I was unable to find pixels with identical values. It seems jpeg compression is a proxymous algorythm, it recreates approximate values, that can never be identical to the original, however, from far enough it looks the same. In other words, as long as you don't print it huge poster size you'll be unable to tell the diffrence when directly comparing prints, much less would you be able to identify which is which if you didn't know which print is made of 16 bit tiff and which of 8 bit jpeg.

As you can see, my modest color manipulation did not seem to potentiate the discrepancies. From _this_ point of view it does practically make 16 bit editing nonsense and an argument in favor of raw shooting lost.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Thats true, but the part that concerns me is where the "extra" bits come from, and are they enhancing the 12 bits or degrading them? Isn't this like resizing an image 150%?

I think they just "pad" the data out with zeroes. For some reason I can't remember, 16-bit files in PS are 15-bit precision, which means 32k values per channel. I don't believe the 12-bit data is degraded, the values are just spread out, so black is 0/0/0 and white 32k/32k/32k with everything else spread out between. In PS CS, you can set the info palette to show 16-bit values (can't remember whether this is the case for PS7 too).

Sure there are plug ins that do work, but the vast majority don't work. In the link you provided about 16bit the autor recognizes this.

That's the kind of general statement that you have objected to other people making. Where is your evidence for the "vast majority"? Bruce's article was written some time ago, so his statements about current software are out of date.

I want to point to that artical again, where the author says that nothing outputs at 16 bit.
I totally appriciate that starting with a 16bit image and doing adjustments in 16bit will give finer results. But you are going back to 8bit in the end anyway.

Yes, but the cumulative effect of edits in 8-bit may be more destructive than the cumulative effect of edits in 16-bit. You pays yer money and you takes yer pick. Quite often there will be no visible difference, so do you want to be pragmatic or purist. There's nothing wrong with pragmatism, but if purism has a price that you don't mind paying, why not pay it?


If you have colour corrected an image to be 100% accurate in 16bit and then convert it to 8bit all those colour values will change, even more so if you convert to CMYK. you will end up losing most of the colour values you put into your image. So regarding colour only - at present 16bit is useless for anything other than on screen images.

The colour values may change, but that doesn't really matter. You will have minimised the impact on the image data. And since we're being picky, you can't even see all 48-bits (3x16) on the monitor - mine only goes up to 32-bit.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

As you can see, my modest color manipulation did not seem to potentiate the discrepancies. From _this_ point of view it does practically make 16 bit editing nonsense and an argument in favor of raw shooting lost.

Er, I don't see how this conclusion follows from the data you have presented. If it's that it's impossible to distinguish colours with such small colour number differences, that's not true - it's easy to see this by playing with the colour picker.

Regards,

[defordphoto]

Great stuff here. One of the best (and we've had hundreds) of JPEG vs. RAW debates. The only other thing I can offer here is that my published photos that will appear in the upcoming issue of HeritageUSA magazine were shot LARGE-FINE. I offered them a TIFF version of the JPEG, but they said they preferred JPEG. I did some minor tweaking on them, re-saved them (Yes. RE-compressed at 12 in PSCS) and that's what's being printed in the magazine.



Jim's comment reminded of the article on Rob Galbraith's site, Sports Illustrated's Digital Workflow (http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6453-6821). If you haven't read yet, you should - fascinating stuff. This is one quote from early in the article:

It's a workflow based on using JPEGs for most editing tasks and RAW files to make the highest quality images for the printing press.

Regards,

I am so far out this conversation loop, but I do have to comment here as I agree so, so much with this. In comparing film to digital I consider JPEG a digital slide. You do have some tweaking and adjusting you can do, but you're pretty limited. Produces excellent prints, though super-large prints start showing its limitations.

RAW is the digital equivelant of a film negative. You can take RAW to the end of the world and back and it barely whinces. You can twist the color spectrum upside down and tweak 1-2 stops either way in comfort. Tweak the white balance and color temp wherever you desire. All after the shutter button has been pushed.

So, yes, I love JPEG for the everyday shoots, including magazines, and of course, news print, and RAW for those professional enlargements.

And that's how I shoot. For most sports shoots I am shooting 98% JPEG. When I go shooting landscapes, etc., I am 100% RAW.

Both formats have their respective advantages and disadvantages and neither format is right or wrong. They both have their place.

BTW: Great thread gang! Probably the first JPEG vs RAW debate that hasn't turned into a stupid yelling fest of idiocy. I need that thumbs-up emoticon... 8)

[karusel]

Roger, I know it sounds contradictory, but the thing is, jpeg has not even one pixel equal to tif, yet if you would take average of, say, 3x3 or 9x9 surrounding pixels the values would be the same, in addition it is very difficult to differentiate between those differences in one pixel, provided that one takes a probe of each, and throws paintbucket on two differend layers than moves one layer a bit - then you can tell the difference - sometimes easier, somtimes harder, sometimes not at all. So I concluded, the differences are subtle enough not to deminish overall quality. I am playing devil's advocate here, as I am certainly still going to use RAW, but, if you still disagree, prove me, that those differences make the outcoming photography visually worse.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

... then you can tell the difference - sometimes easier, somtimes harder, sometimes not at all.

That is exactly my point: sometimes you can tell the difference, so personally, I choose to raw so I never have to worry whether there would have been a difference.

So I concluded, the differences are subtle enough not to deminish overall quality.

Depends what you mean by quality, 8-bit JPG means approximation, data loss and invented data (dithering) and if you are going to make signficant adjustments those errors can accumulate. With 16-bit data, tonal adjustments will result in smoother gradations between colours and mean less chance of posterisation. Does it happen all the time? Of course, not I've said this many times. (I do admit to a certain anal retentive obsessiveness: it varies a bit with the colour, but I can see a difference when colours numbers are 3-4 different. I know the 16-bit version is based on better data, so I'd rather use that one.)

The reason that this argument goes on and on is because there is no definitive answer to the question "Which is the better format?". The choice between the two comes down to one of attitude and mindset. The JPG shooter chooses the advantages of reduced file size and increased throughput over the occasional negative consequences on image quality (including the ability to more easily recover from operator error). The raw shooter prefers to avoid any course of action that could compromise image quality and is prepared to live with the fact that more CF cards and bigger hard disks is the consequence.

JPG shooters who try to claim that there is never a difference are just pissing into the wind - a lot of which, I admit, is generated by me. :)

Regards,

[chris.bailey]

Anyone up for a round of sRGB vs. AdobeRGB?

:P


:lol: :lol: :lol:

[karusel]

Roger, that is true, and I was not really talking about taking jpeg's or raw within camera, but rather the conversion. There is only one thing I'm not sure of; as far as I know, the camera captures at 12 bits per channel which is then transformed either to 8 bpc when shooting jpeg, or i raw which is 16 bpc, when converting to jpeg via raw converter those 16 bpc are again converted to 8 bpc, but before that happens the image can be manipulated in 16 bit mode, white balance for example can be adjusted as one pleases - without any kind of deteriorations to the image.

If it were only for those subtle tonal inaccuracies between 16 bit tiff and 8 bit jpeg, I would not think twice to shoot jpeg, but it is this... well, that a raw file is very much like a negative, it enables all freedom that you can have at highest quality possible, and as a bonus - at highest tonal accuracy possible. This is my reason for shooting raw.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

Roger, that is true, and I was not really talking about taking jpeg's or raw within camera, but rather the conversion. There is only one thing I'm not sure of; as far as I know, the camera captures at 12 bits per channel which is then transformed either to 8 bpc when shooting jpeg, or i raw which is 16 bpc, when converting to jpeg via raw converter those 16 bpc are again converted to 8 bpc, but before that happens the image can be manipulated in 16 bit mode, white balance for example can be adjusted as one pleases - without any kind of deteriorations to the image.


karusel,

I don't know whether conversion processing is 12- or 16-bit, but I did ask once Michael Tapes (YarcPlus and C1) whether there was a difference between making an adjustment in conversion or the equivalent edit later in Photoshop. His view is that it is better to make adjustments during conversion.

Regards,

[robertderobert]

Hi,

Interesting topic -- would like to learn more about processing RAW images using the 16bit mode. Looking for links to past postings/topics/other that have dealt with some of the basics/methods of RAW conversion to TIFF.

Thanks Robert

[chris.bailey]

= Flame proof suit on and zipped up =

My experience (limited admittedly) of the two (RAW & .jpg) is that a well exposed contrasty picture will produce good results in either.

If you get the exposure more than a bit out (but not blown), have a not particularly contrasty shot (and want one) then 16 bit RAW conversion tweaks taken then into PS for some more tweaks responds better. A flat .jpg remains a bit flat whereas you can get a bit more out of a 16 bit RAW. Comparison of the gaps that appear in the histo confirms what the eye can see in this regard. Whether that is worth the extra effort RAW conversion takes I dont know. Now and again I would say yes.

Good discussion by the way guys!

[chris.bailey]

JPG shooters who try to claim that there is never a difference are just pissing into the wind - a lot of which, I admit, is generated by me. :)

Regards,

What a line :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

ROFLMAO....

He IS a long winded cuss ain't he... :roll:

I'm one to talk... :roll: ..a lot.. ...too much in fact,.. :wink:


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[BDM]

I really don't want to tick everyone off here, but I am still grappling with the RAW vs. JPEG issue. I started a thread on that topic yesterday, and another forum member PM'd me with some links that discuss the topic. Like I said, it is not my intention to "rock the boat" here, it just seems like RAW might not be the way to go for everyone and I wanted any "non-pro's" like myself to hear the other side of the argument as it seems like any time someone asks the eternal "RAW vs. JPEG" question, they get flooded with "RAW all the time" recommendations. I truly welcome any comments on the links.

http://www.theimageplane.net/tip2_014.htm
There are three pages to this one, make sure you read them all.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

I won't presume to get technical with the raw vs jpeg discussion. I am very new to digital photography. I have been shooting raw because I liken it to the film based darkroom workflow I am very used to after years of film photography. I also want to learn Photoshop and so I thought it would be wise to start with files which offered maximum flexibility.

That being said, it sometimes comes down to what a customer wants. A couple of weeks ago I made some shots during the spring fund raising campaign at he local public radio station where I work parttime as a sort of hobby. The PR folks asked me to give them copies on CD but in jpeg format. I did and the following week I was handed a copy of a very nice montage the station's graphic artist did from the shots. Type was added and it is going to be used for promotion. (They even gave me a photo credit)

The results were quite nice. Why they wanted jpeg rather than tiff files I don't know but I gave them what they wanted.

I also think that if you are a pro who needs to transmit hundreds of shots from, say, a sporting event, to meet a publication deadline, you might find that the smaller jpeg files are better because of faster transmission time and no delay caused by extensive file processing prior to transmission.

Bruce

[CyberDyneSystems]

Johnny,
Regarding Rockwell's article,. did you read this thread?

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28262#177480