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

 
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 08:53 |  #31

rral22 wrote in post #17118481 (external link)
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.

yup.

i can do with a RAW file twice as much in a quarter of the time when compared with JPG. And that is a conservative estimate. Somethings simply cannot be done in JPG. For a guy that started with film, moved quickly to scanned glossy prints, ended up taking the first digital camera into "my" photographer's studio and editing jpegs from that camera, and who has edited who knows how many digital pictures, RAW is an absolute necessity for the vast majority of work I do. I would guess that 5 percent of the pics i take are SOoC, and another 5 percent are edited JPG the rest are RAW.


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
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
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 11:21 |  #32

Did anybody notice that I used the word "amateur" ? I'm getting every bit of photo quality that I need from JPG. Although Jon only mentions SOOC in his item 2 above, JPG's can also be edited to enhance their characteristics. Yes, RAW provides the "highest" quality ... but even lower quality JPG from a Canon prime is pretty darn good.


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
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 11:33 |  #33

bubbygator wrote in post #17118762 (external link)
Did anybody notice that I used the word "amateur" ? I'm getting every bit of photo quality that I need from JPG. Although Jon only mentions SOOC in his item 2 above, JPG's can also be edited to enhance their characteristics. Yes, RAW provides the "highest" quality ... but even lower quality JPG from a Canon prime is pretty darn good.

amateur or not, with even the slightest bit of training, editing RAW is easier than editing JPEG. Seriously, it is easier. And you get better quality. You can buy a massive hard drive probably cheaper than your cheapest lens.

so IMO, unless you are using SOoC jpgs, switching to a RAW workflow requires a small investment on the front end that will pay dividends down the road.

Actually, It just occurred to me that the social media/instant gratification thing is losing relevance too. I use my iPhone to connect to my 6D and post jpgs processed in camera from my RAW files all the time. I had my kid's first day of school pics out of my camera and on facebook before they got to school, which is only a mile from the house!


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
rral22
Senior Member
885 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jul 2008
Location: Saskatchewan, Canada
     
Aug 26, 2014 12:37 |  #34

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.

Did anybody notice that I used the word "amateur" ? I'm getting every bit of photo quality that I need from JPG. Although Jon only mentions SOOC in his item 2 above, JPG's can also be edited to enhance their characteristics. Yes, RAW provides the "highest" quality ... but even lower quality JPG from a Canon prime is pretty darn good.

YOU are the one who suggested you are working hard to get the "best pic I can". We are only trying to tell you that the best pic you can get can be got from Raw.

Make up your mind. Do you want "the best pic I can" or not? If good enough is good enough, stop "slaving" over your Jpegs. If you want the best, try a good Raw converter and see what happens.




  
  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 14:54 |  #35

I apologize for my miss-use of wording. I was only trying to point out that some people are quite satisfied with JPG's.


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
Davenn
Senior Member
Avatar
991 posts
Gallery: 32 photos
Likes: 485
Joined Jun 2013
Location: Sydney, Australia
     
Aug 26, 2014 19:26 |  #36

Antarion wrote in post #17118319 (external link)
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.

HUH ??

terabyte HDD's a dirt cheap these days
No-one should have storage problems ! :)

Dave


A picture is worth 1000 words ;)
Canon 5D3, 6D, 700D, a bunch of lenses and other bits, ohhh and some Pentax stuff ;)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
yogestee
"my posts can be a little colourful"
Avatar
13,845 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 36
Joined Dec 2007
Location: Australia
     
Aug 27, 2014 10:15 |  #37

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #17113778 (external link)
You can put some very nice very affordable used all weather radial tires from a celica on your Mercedes if you want to. It will still get you to work.

One of the Mercedes my mate drives you'd be better off driving a Celica.


Jurgen
50D~700D~EOS M~G11~S95~GoPro Hero4 Silver
http://www.pbase.com/j​urgentreue (external link)
The Title Fairy,, off with her head!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
shanehawley
Member
89 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2013
     
Aug 27, 2014 12:09 |  #38

MrWho wrote in post #17113284 (external link)
http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …photo-world/#.U_jJt_ldUjw (external link)

This article was a good read, although I have no clients, no one to answer to but myself. My T1i was producing very pleasing JPEGs, so what the article is discussing isn't exactly new. It's written from a business point of view, but the point can still apply to hobbyists. Why spend hours in front of a computer if you're not getting paid*?

I myself always use RAW + JPEG, usually posting SOOC or printing the JPEG version.

* - assuming you've got other things going on.


this is the dumbest thing i have ever read sorry. You could say the same thing for any hobby. Why spend hours in the kitchen making all this food if you are not getting paid? Why go to the park and spend hours playing basketball if you are never going pro? Why spend all this time painting if you're not getting paid? etc etc


i personally enjoy the editing part of it




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Meanderthal
Senior Member
Avatar
532 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Canada, btw Ottawa-Toronto
     
Aug 27, 2014 12:42 |  #39

OP, since you shoot RAW+JPEG, take an JPEG that is not so great SOOC, edit the RAW version and compare. I'm a bit sloppy about framing and keeping the camera level, and otherwise have never taken an image that I couldn't make more effective in 15-20 seconds in Lightroom. But then I'm never in such a hurry as to send an inferior product to my friends. Enjoy your photography any way you like it, of course!


http://spitzhaven.zenf​olio.com/ (external link)Photo gallery (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thomas ­ Campbell
Goldmember
Avatar
2,105 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Jun 2010
Location: Kingwood, TX
     
Aug 27, 2014 12:43 |  #40

Tyler Wirken said on Creative Live this week that he shot 100% jpeg until about a month ago.


Houston Wedding Photographer (external link)
Houston Sports Photographer (external link)
Current Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luckless
Goldmember
3,064 posts
Likes: 188
Joined Mar 2012
Location: PEI, Canada
     
Aug 27, 2014 13:22 |  #41

shanehawley wrote in post #17120901 (external link)
this is the dumbest thing i have ever read sorry. You could say the same thing for any hobby. Why spend hours in the kitchen making all this food if you are not getting paid? Why go to the park and spend hours playing basketball if you are never going pro? Why spend all this time painting if you're not getting paid? etc etc


i personally enjoy the editing part of it

Better yet, why spend all that time doing work IF you are getting paid? If you can do less work and still get paid the same, then it makes sense to do as little as you actually need and move on to the next project.

Those of us who are into photography for the hobby are the ones who can afford to spend the extra time on a project, often buy the extra gear, and otherwise 'get away' with all the 'wasteful' stuff in the hobby that can sink the business of a professional photographer.

(Most of the photographers I know who own the latest and top end bits of kit are programmers, engineers, or oil field workers, while the full time photographers continue to use older gear that is 'good enough' for the time rather than flushing money down the drain on a needless gadget upgrade that won't give them any real financial benefit.)


Canon EOS 7D | EF 28 f/1.8 | EF 85 f/1.8 | EF 70-200 f/4L | EF-S 17-55 | Sigma 150-500
Flickr: Real-Luckless (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
LincsRP
Senior Member
427 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 40
Joined Mar 2007
Location: Lincolnshire,UK
     
Aug 27, 2014 17:46 |  #42

MrWho wrote in post #17113284 (external link)
http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …photo-world/#.U_jJt_ldUjw (external link)

This article was a good read, although I have no clients, no one to answer to but myself. My T1i was producing very pleasing JPEGs, so what the article is discussing isn't exactly new. It's written from a business point of view, but the point can still apply to hobbyists. Why spend hours in front of a computer if you're not getting paid*?

I myself always use RAW + JPEG, usually posting SOOC or printing the JPEG version.

* - assuming you've got other things going on.

As an almost total jpeg shooter shooting 80-100 thousand images a year I could ask which of you can process your raws at 14 frames a second?

I can and do. Yes they are called jpegs and I set the parameters in the camera before I press the shutter button. This begs the question: why does any amateur suggest they're not good enough or don't have the time to get it right? If you have the time then fiddle with the plastic box called a camera and if you're a pro you'll pre-set your box with the right settings, surely?

Personally I don't shoot raw because it needs interpretation: that is a colour corrected screen, a raw workflow to obtain an end result to equal a jpeg that I can squeeze out of the plastic box.

Does that make the raw shooters better post-processers than me. Of course it does. Does it make them better photographers than me? That's probably open to discussion.

If someone shoots raw instead of jpeg then perhaps we should offer them councelling ... ok, just joking folks. Seriously tho, are the raw processor providers gaining a financial edge because you favour raw? How many of you are 'buying' a raw converter package? How much of your photographic budget is on your raw converter?

Say you shot jpeg? What would you save?

Just a thought.


Steve
www.lincsracephotos.co​.uk (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
seattlebruin
Member
245 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 21
Joined Jan 2014
Location: San Diego
     
Aug 27, 2014 18:18 |  #43

it's half the fun. So much more control and ability to fix my own composition mistakes

MrWho wrote in post #17113284 (external link)
http://www.thephoblogr​apher.com …photo-world/#.U_jJt_ldUjw (external link)

This article was a good read, although I have no clients, no one to answer to but myself. My T1i was producing very pleasing JPEGs, so what the article is discussing isn't exactly new. It's written from a business point of view, but the point can still apply to hobbyists. Why spend hours in front of a computer if you're not getting paid*?

I myself always use RAW + JPEG, usually posting SOOC or printing the JPEG version.

* - assuming you've got other things going on.


Canon 5DIII || M5 || Sigma 12-24 II || 24-105 f/4L IS || 70-300 f/4-5.6L IS || 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS || 200 f/2.8L || Sigma 150-600 C || Tamron 45 f/1.8 VC || Sigma 85 f/1.4 || 40 f/2.8 || 10-18 IS || Sigma 17-70 C || 55-250 STM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Radders
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,017 posts
Likes: 19
Joined Oct 2009
Location: UK
     
Aug 27, 2014 18:23 as a reply to  @ seattlebruin's post |  #44

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.

bubbygator wrote in post #17119216 (external link)
I apologize for my miss-use of wording. I was only trying to point out that some people are quite satisfied with JPG's.

I do mostly edit JPEGs now even though I shoot in RAW+JPEG, if I'm shooting high ISO, I edit the RAW. I'm happy with my photos and still learning my editing. Maybe one day i'll just shoot RAW once I'm fully happy with the editing side.


| 1DII | 7D | 60D | 6D | 100 2.8 | 50mm 1.4 | 11-16 2.8 | 24-105 4 | 70-300 IS USM |
Totallyrad.co.uk (external link) | Airplane-Pictures.net (external link) |Facebook Page (external link) | Russianplanes.net (external link)Gear list

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,564 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2002
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Aug 27, 2014 22:50 |  #45

LincsRP wrote in post #17121525 (external link)
As an almost total jpeg shooter shooting 80-100 thousand images a year I could ask which of you can process your raws at 14 frames a second?

I can and do. Yes they are called jpegs and I set the parameters in the camera before I press the shutter button.

It really is horses for course though. You are shooting bulk documentary images where capturing each event participant is what is important. You could certainly make those images look artistically better by shooting RAW and post processing but that would be totally unrealistic time wise for the type of work you are doing. Of course you could also shoot RAW, apply a preset and hit export and get images that are just as good with basically no post processing time. That is what I do when I shoot Rugby - http://danmarchant.com​/2014/04/gfi-hkfc-rugby-tens/ (external link).

But that isn't going to work for the other images I shoot. I want images that aren't purely documentary.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

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

8,596 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 was a spammer, and banned as such!
1049 guests, 309 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.