anyone gone back to jpeg after shooting raw

droiby wrote in post #3327763
A lot of people here seem to have the impression that doing RAW-like operations on jpegs in LR/CS3 is exactly the same as performing them on RAW files. This is not the case.

From my understanding, in the jpeg case, all the program is doing is tweaking the curves on the 8-bit data from the jpegs. However, in the RAW case, the program is actually adjusting the sensor data from the RAW file.

Example 1: Changing exposure
JPEG: Edit the curves to remap the tones.
RAW: Adjusts the gain from the sensor data. (In effect, changing the ISO).

Example 2: Adjusting WB
JPEG: Edit the curves to eliminate colour casts.
RAW: Adjusts the white point from the sensor data.

What's the advantage of adjusting sensor data? First of all, you have more bits to play with (12 instead of 8) which means posterisation issues are reduced. Also, every time you adjust the curves, you're losing tonal information. More importantly, adjusting RAW data means you're not adjusting lossy data. You're not adjusting curves on jpeg artifacts.

Now, I agree that for all intents and purposes, you can stick with whatever you're comfortable with (jpeg or raw), and only experience will determine what you can/cannot do in PP. However, there will be times when you come across a difficult/pathological scenario and it's in times like these that I'll always stick with RAW.

Exactly! I think the reason everyone thinks this is because Adobe has never said anything about it. They only mention that ACR4 will work with all files, not just RAW.

If people really want to grasp the benefits of RAW read Fraser's book Real World Camera RAW for CS2.

davidcrebelxt wrote in post #3326003
I noticed server busy errors that day too; I've done the same thing.

Ahh... linux.
Just wish it was colormanaged!

It is color managed actually, just a little more complicated....(surpis​e huh? )

Checkout the Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Linux_color_man​agement

Digikam itself is colour managed using little CMS. It works really well actually, I use the ICC profile I generated under windows. Thing is... I am not sure how the linux ICC profile will interact with the ICC profile in windows when it is running in vmware under linux. Does the windows one take over for its windows space, does it conflict, have an additive effect? Those uncertainties is what keeps me dual booting into windows for serious editing rather than rocking a vmware CS2. Although after I do my edits in windows and boot back into linux the pictures I was working on seem to be a spot on match. But it is so hard to say for sure when there is a 2 minute delay between looking at the images for comparison.

Sathi wrote in post #3331208
It is color managed actually, just a little more complicated....(surpis​e huh? )

Checkout the Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.or​g/wiki/Linux_color_man​agement

Good info... I learn something new everyday.
Have to look into that if I get around to putting Linux back on my machine. (New hard-drive in laptop recently... and didn't bother putting Linux back on it when rebuilding.)

LightInspire wrote in post #3339605
Hummm..have you processed any jpegs in CS3 yet in the raw module? If not then wait and comment after you do. I'll never go back to raw. I shot an underexposed jpeg on purpose and cs3 (in raw module) let me push the exposure 4 stops to get the image thru. You use the same CS3 sliders for jpeg as in raw so you are working on exposure, etc. Just because jpeg is the result of camera processing and compressed don't mean the same principles of raw doesn't apply. If you get it right in camera with a few test shots then your workflow will be a heck of a lot quicker and smoother..raw is too much of a safe guard not to learn proper exposure. Jpeg is like slides..get it right in the camera first and then everything else will be great..no need for raw. Learn your equipment and your craft and you won't need the crutch of raw.

No, unfortunately I'm limited to Lightroom as I don't have PS.

The control over blown highlights in LR is quite a bit better with RAW than JPEG; this is important for me as never overexposing the highlights in a white flower is extremely difficult.

I took some shots of blue irises about three hours ago, and on the miniscule display, I did not notice any blow-outs flashing. When I looked at them in LR, there were about 6 images that had some blown highlights - even to the extent of a whole flower petal - I've recovered the detail.

So, yes, I'm not perfect and need the RAW crutch.

I started out on Jpeg, then once I became a bit more confident I went to RAW, I now shoot exclusively RAW knowing I can fix small things later on, however I'm still not happy if I look at the preview and notice blown highlights etc, I still aim to get it spot on first time, that way reduces pp time later.

LightInspire wrote in post #3339605
I shot an underexposed jpeg on purpose and cs3 (in raw module) let me push the exposure 4 stops to get the image thru.

Can you post the histograms of before and after, as well as the original and the resulting jpeg?

Sure, but the way it adjusts exposure is different. With jpegs, it modifies the curves for each channel. With raw, it modifies the gain. You can do the same thing as CS3 to jpegs in CS2 and earlier too, if you knew how to use the Curves tool. CS3 just made it substantially easier.

Of course, one should always try their best to nail it right first go. The problem is that people make mistakes, and it's a lot easier to make up for it with RAW than with jpegs.

I have gone back to Medium JPEG for the easier light. If inside a cafe or a live house, wedding, where lighting is inconsistent, I use RAW.

For work I use RAW all the way.
For traveling, most of them is JPEG.

Everything is raw, from any advice i give people... to my photographs ...even the kind of food i feed my dog.....it's all raw!

I've been all RAW ever since I found out that F-Spot works perfectly with RAW files, and that there's a decent RAW plugin for GIMP (UFRAW). Now I just leave it in RAW mode all the time. Shooting JPEG, you're just losing data, even if not that much. It's just a nice assurance to know that if I mess exposure up a little too much, or if my white balance is WAY off, I can fix it without too much mess. Besides, if I switched to JPEG, I'd be liable to forget I was out of RAW, and still expose to the right intentionally

Editing a jpeg is like trying to modify a cookie after the cookie has been baked.

Lightroom makes editing the RAW image just as easy if not easier than editing the jpeg. All you have to do is correct the first one and then sync the rest of the photos that were taken under the same conditions.

LightInspire wrote in post #3350582
Nothing different than shooting jpeg that is processed by the camera or a jpeg resulting from processed raw that you did yourself..it is all the same..

But you miss the point here in your own statement... YOU process that original RAW into jpeg, not the camera... you could possibly do all the adjustments needed to your camera's sensor data BEFORE the inital conversion into jpeg. (Jpeg is limited to 8bits of data, while many sensors capture 12+)

As mentioned earlier, however, if the end result you get suits your needs (or client's) than that is what matters... some of us however like the peace of mind and the power that RAW gives (even if it costs extra MB's)

A comment on using JPEG because it saves "MB's" over RAW:

MB's are reusable.