Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 23 Aug 2014 (Saturday) 12:39
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RAW vs JPEG

 
Sin ­ City ­ Stan
Member
99 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Aug 2013
Location: Henderson. NV
     
Aug 24, 2014 21:54 |  #16

I shoot RAW because I'm not always pleased with the renditions JPEG comes up with. As far as time; It's mine and I spend it as I please. To each his/her own.


Sin City Stan
Canon 6D & 5D3 EF24-70L 2.8 EF17-40L 4.0 EF70-300L 4.0 EF50 1.8
Yongnuo YN-560 II, 565 EX & Canon 430 EX
http://creationsbysinc​itystan.smugmug.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
panicatnabisco
Senior Member
Avatar
972 posts
Gallery: 33 photos
Likes: 328
Joined Apr 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
     
Aug 25, 2014 00:30 |  #17

I see post processing as the second half of the whole photography experience


Canon 1DX III | 1DX | 6D II | 6D | 16-35/2.8 II | 24-70/2.8 II | 35/1.4 II | 50/1.8 | 70-200/2.8 IS II | 85/1.4 IS | 100/2.8 IS macro | 200mm f/2 | 400/2.8 IS II | 2xIII
Leica M8.2 | Noctilux 50 f/1 | Elmarit 90/2.8
afimages.net (external link) | Facebook (external link) | instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Clean ­ Gene
Goldmember
1,014 posts
Joined Nov 2010
     
Aug 25, 2014 02:01 |  #18

The article says, "Why can’t we just get it right in the camera in the first place while shooting a JPEG and be happy with the result?"

Or you can get it right in camera in the first place while shooting RAW. The dude's totally right that a lot of work doesn't need to be shot in RAW, but (generally speaking) why NOT shoot RAW if you've got the option?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 559
Joined Mar 2011
     
Aug 25, 2014 08:13 |  #19

I hate articles like this, its just as bad as "why film is better than digital".

the article make weak points trying to persuade the reader they should do things differently. There are valid points for shooting jpeg but the article doesn't even mention them.

personally id rather start seeing article that explain the benefits of both and let the reader decide not a persuasive article telling me why my workflow is wrong.


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
watt100
Cream of the Crop
14,021 posts
Likes: 29
Joined Jun 2008
     
Aug 26, 2014 04:11 |  #20

Clean Gene wrote in post #17115882 (external link)
The article says, "Why can’t we just get it right in the camera in the first place while shooting a JPEG and be happy with the result?"

Or you can get it right in camera in the first place while shooting RAW. The dude's totally right that a lot of work doesn't need to be shot in RAW, but (generally speaking) why NOT shoot RAW if you've got the option?

I shoot RAW because I want all the options




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Overread
Goldmember
Avatar
2,218 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 68
Joined Mar 2010
     
Aug 26, 2014 04:21 |  #21

You know the article mentions the qualities social media like. Social media likes cute blurry cat photos - missed focus - heck social media has very very low standards. So heck if that's the measuring stick they are using why only go as far as JPEG - why not throw focusing, motion/handshake blur out the window - forget proper subject positioning and trees/poles coming out of peoples heads? Instant extra likes make sure everyone has a tree out of their head.


It's a very poorly written article because it doesn't actually make mention of any real advantages to RAW and is instead aimed mainly at the kind of person who was shooting JPEG when they started reading the article and just wants some moral support to continue and not have to worry about RAW. It's a "feel good" for that market sector whilst also a "generate drama" one for those who are shooting RAW (ergo most of us) so that we share it to all our friends and talk about it (mostly the sharing though to boost exposure).

So yes we can punch more holes in this than a machinegun can to the side of a van - we are almost intended to do so and then to post our superior thoughts to our social media with a linkback to their article.

You see the same thing being done by a lot of sites today - the key isn't informative articles, the key is a snappy attitude bound to attract interest, be that positive or negative.


Tools of the trade: Canon 400D, Canon 7D, Canon 70-200mm f2.8 IS L M2, Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 OS, Canon MPE 65mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 150mm f2.8 macro, Tamron 24-70mm f2.4, Sigma 70mm f2.8 macro, Sigma 8-16mm f4.5-5.6, Raynox DCR 250, loads of teleconverters and a flashy thingy too
My flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Antarion
Member
104 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Mar 2010
     
Aug 26, 2014 07:14 |  #22

I sometimes wish RAW were smaller files like JPG. Because my Storage gets loaded, even when I strictly remove all mediocre and bad shots.

Otherwise I like post processing as much as shooting.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
Combating camera shame since 1977...
Avatar
9,913 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 2383
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:11 as a reply to  @ Antarion's post |  #23

In defense of the author, he does mention that RAW is necessary in some situations.

I shoot it all the time. Sometimes with jpg added. There will never be a jpg engine that will be able to see the image as I see it. There will never be enough preset in camera profiles to just choose one for each shot, and if there were it would be a nightmare to manage them all. It really doesnt take much time to process a raw image anyway. End of story.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Eddie
xpfloyd lookalike
Avatar
13,714 posts
Gallery: 635 photos
Best ofs: 7
Likes: 9227
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Glasgow, Scotland
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:15 |  #24

Love these threads


α7R III | Mavic 2 Pro | Osmo Pocket | GoPro Hero 7 Black

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike_311
Checking squirrels nuts
3,761 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 559
Joined Mar 2011
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:22 |  #25

How many times have you come home from shooting and did some very minor adjustments in Adobe Lightroom via sliders then exported them and put them on the web? And why couldn’t you just dial those settings in your camera’s color profile?

because the camera only lets you dial in sharpness, contrast, brightness and color. whereas the raw editor gives you many more options...


Canon 5d mkii | Canon 17-40/4L | Tamron 24-70/2.8 | Canon 85/1.8 | Canon 135/2L
www.michaelalestraphot​ography.com (external link)
Flickr (external link) | 500px (external link) | About me

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bubbygator
I can't tell the difference
Avatar
1,477 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 63
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Sarasota, sunlight, butterflies, fish, Gators, and Seminoles
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:24 |  #26

Why does everybody assume that nobody edits jpegs? I'm an amateur and shoot only jpegs with my T2i. But I still slave over my editing of them to get the best pic I can.


Gear List
The avatar is my middle grandson. (the TF can't tell the difference, but the fish is frowning and the kid is grinning)
Sarasota, sunlight, butterflies, fish, Gators, and Seminoles

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LV ­ Moose
Moose gets blamed for everything.
Avatar
23,412 posts
Gallery: 222 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 4582
Joined Dec 2008
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:28 |  #27

bubbygator wrote in post #17118430 (external link)
Why does everybody assume that nobody edits jpegs?

I don't see a lot of people assuming that. You can just do more robust edits in RAW.


Moose

Gear... Flickr (external link)...Flickr 2 (external link)...
Macro (external link)...Hummingbirds (external link)
Aircraft (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rral22
Senior Member
885 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:42 |  #28

bubbygator wrote in post #17118430 (external link)
Why does everybody assume that nobody edits jpegs? I'm an amateur and shoot only jpegs with my T2i. But I still slave over my editing of them to get the best pic I can.

If you "slave" over Jpegs to get the "best pic I can", you would really enjoy slaving over a Raw file in a good editor, and you would soon see the advantages.

THAT is the whole point of Raw. If you want to, or enjoy editing your pictures to get the very best as YOU see it, Raw is a really great tool.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,198 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 8064
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:49 |  #29

bubbygator wrote in post #17118430 (external link)
Why does everybody assume that nobody edits jpegs? I'm an amateur and shoot only jpegs with my T2i. But I still slave over my editing of them to get the best pic I can.

Subtract the words in bold. The best you can is only possible if you shoot RAW.


Sorry, I don;t mean to single you out, nor do I mean to imply you should not shoot jpeg. It has some very real benefits, but I had to focus in on that statement as the "best" image quality can only come from RAW and this is fact that can not be debated.

Why is it that no one questions or argues why we chose not to let our cameras do all the thinking at the time the photo is taken, but so many chose to question our need to take control after the photo is taken. What is different here?

When shooting, I do not use the "green Box".. I know better than the camera what aperture to chose, what shutter speed, what focus point, what ISO, what overall exposure, be it set manually or with AV/TV and EC,. so naturally I make these decisions.
Truthfully, any photographer worthy of the name would do the same.
Yet all of this stuff can be automated by the camera, we can set it to green and shoot and let the camera decide Aperture, Exposure, Shutter speed, ISO (in some cases) etc..

Yet we rarely if ever see threads knocking us for eschewing these auto controls.
When we do, it's a post of complete and utter naivety, one that comes from ignorance (in the real meaning, not to be insulting) of the benefits of taking control of your shooting situation and equipment.

And yet when it comes to the very next step of the same photography process, that of processing the image, so many can not grasp the need/desire for the same sense of control, for the same total hands on approach to the creative process involved with making the image.

Every step we take from the moment we put the camera into our hands is a step that we take to give ourselves the potential for doing a better job, making a better image than either the automated can, or we could last year, or even "the next guy" can. We strive for perfection.

In my mind, questioning the need/desire for us to have total control of the post processing workflow and adjustments, is just as naive and (sorry again) ignorant as questioning why I would not just allow the camera to shoot a portrait in Green box at f/8 instead of manually shooting open @ f/2

Of course I'm going to set the aperture to get the DOF I want, and would never trust the camera to make a better decision automatically.

Likewise, of course I am going to shoot in RAW and post process the image to my standards, and never trust the camera to make better decisions automatically.

Why does the Macro shooter use manual focus or rails when the lens is an autofocus lens? Because the Macro shooter knows they can set the focus more precisely when set manually. The Macro shooter can do it better.

Just as the Camera is simply NOT CAPABLE of bettering me with it's auto settings, it is likewise NOT CAPABLE of processing an image as well as I can with the tools I have at hand.

None of this should be surprising.
We will never likely see a camera with a green box mode that is superior in it's auto choices to those choices a photographer would make when setting up the shoot.

We will never see a camera with an automatically output file that is superior to the choices made by a studied photographer working on there own images in post.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CyberDyneSystems
Admin (type T-2000)
Avatar
51,198 posts
Gallery: 184 photos
Likes: 8064
Joined Apr 2003
Location: Rhode Island USA
     
Aug 26, 2014 08:53 |  #30

RAW: is the raw image information as recorded by the camera (explained more fully in Wilt's post)
Jpeg: is an image file made from that data.

The choice of what to shoot is decided based on your wants and needs and understanding of the compromises involved in the choice you make.

Both file types have their distinct advantages, but the final decision is based on your wants and needs.

Bare in mind that every shot on your memory card starts life as RAW data in your camera.
The Jpeg is simply a result of allowing the camera to take that info and create an image file that can be read by anyone on any computer (one of Jpeg's few advantages, but a strong one to some)

The downside is that a jpeg can not contain all the image information your camera records, information that is available at the RAW level has to be reduced, and compressed to fit into that jpeg file.
First, large amounts of color information are immediately thrown out (most modern DLSRs record 14 bits per channel of color information, older ones 12. Jpeg can only store 8 bits of color info per channel)
Then the compression algorithms go to work, reducing image information further, and creating none image based artifacts from the compression process.

The differences in the resulting file types can be broken down in two categories to simplify.

1. Simple brute force Image quality.

RAW wins. It can not be argued. (some may argue to what degree RAW's superior image quality is visible, but this is a non argument, as obviously it is totally subjective. Different people with different needs has no bearing on the final fact that in every case the RAW files is superior in image quality )

2. Flexibility and workability.

Here the discussion is a valuable debate. Jpeg has smaller more portable Image size, and more "cooked" images due to allowing the camera to make processing decisions. It has universal viewing properties, and is the more useful file for those printing using an outside source. One can use a jpeg straight out of he camera if they are willing to make that compromise. RAW allows far more latitude to the shooter in post process, more room for recovery, and more flexibility in color, white balance etc. It can make the jpeg file for external use, as well as many other superior and equally universal file types like Tiff. It allows the user to control all aspects of the final image, leaving no decisions to the camera.

Most people get hung up on the latter, and seem forget that it's not the only reason to chose RAW. We see accusations of using it as a crutch. etc..

These thoughts do not take into account the simple concept that many simply want the best available to them.


GEAR LIST
CDS' HOT LINKS
Jake Hegnauer Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

8,592 views & 0 likes for this thread
RAW vs JPEG
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is RileyParker8
1012 guests, 291 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.