JPEG vs RAW

I only shoot JPEG!!!

Wow.........that was a lot of reading!!!

I have asked this question before and was almost convinced in shooting RAW exclusively but never really got into the habit of doing it. WHY?? you asked..........Let me explain:

1. I am not a pro and I do not get paid for what I do.
2. RAW files are huge - I only have 2 x 256 card and an 80G HD in my computer .
3. I print mostly 4x6 with an occasional 8x10.

So there.........pretty much the big reasons why I haven't shot in RAW.

In the future though - when memory cards becomes cheaper and cheaper, I might get me a bigger HD for my computer and dabble in the world of RAW

Ro1

I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference in a pic sized for the web. I have been able to save jpg's before that needed it, problem was, it took much, much longer to accomplish.

Would be a good experiment though, take 2 underexposed 1 raw, 1 jpg, with the wrong white balance and see how easy is it to fix the jpg. The only way I would judge the results is from a print, because that's what matters. An 8x10 should suffice.

I do know that if the 2 were both nailed correctly for exposure and white balance, you would not see the difference in the prints, maybe you would in a 16x20 or larger. That's been my point all along.

I just posted this over on FM forums. Someone was wanting "proof" that RAW was better than JPEG and wanted to end The Debate.

I also agree there is no debate which format is better, in the long run. If you handle JPEG correctly it would be pretty tough to tell on the web. Also pretty tough to tell the difference on say an 8x12 print. You start enlarging much more than than and JPEG will start showing its weaknesses quickly.

JPEG has its place, there is no doubt about that. Consider JPEG your digital transparency. Produces a nice photo but you are very limited what you can do with it in the darkroom.

RAW is your digital negative. The possiblities are almost endless what you can do with it in the darkroom. You have worlds more information available in a RAW file than a JPEG. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.

JPEG is actually not a format. It's a compression routine, but these days it is treated as a format. It's 8-bit. It's lossy. It's compressed. It's limited.

[/debate]

>>...several nationally published photogs that only shoot jpg.<<

I'll agree that there certainly are advantages to shooting RAW, but here's some food for thought for those considering shooting jpegs.

I don't shoot for publication, but I do run a higher-end, low to mid-volume wedding & portrait studio. Don't mean to sound snooty here either, but last year we sold over $300,000.00 worth of weddings and portraits to our community, and almost none of them were shot RAW. We shoot large/fine jpeg, mostly because of workflow issues. I tested, made the comparisons and for our application, just could not justify the added labor expense for such a tiny difference in final print quality. If done right, we don't even really see a difference.

If you keep your exposure and color controls tight, the camera does a fine job processing images. We sell wallets to 24x30's (we always let the labs printer do the up-rezzing), and they're all coming out awesome--even the large wall portraits, and we sell a lot of them. Pretty amazing for starting out as a tiny little jpeg file.

The funny thing is that when I'm shooting presonal stuff (kids birthday parties, vacation photos, etc.), I shoot RAW (go figure), only because it frees me up to not have worry about exposure & white balance, and I know that I'll process the images myself in my leisure time. For me it's a "time" (or labor expense) thing--I just don't see it as a quality issue.

>>The main thing to remember is to save those untouched jpg's as tiff or psd files before you do anything to them.<<

Absolutely great advice--this makes all the difference in the world if you want great quality shooting jpegs.

>>I think that by the time one 'graduates' to a DSLR, they need to be thinking seriously about RAW, or else wondering why they wasted all that money on a glorified digicam.<<

OTOH, by shooting only RAW on a DSLR, one wastes all the money spent on the processors & software put in the camera to process jpegs . I even paid for 2 processors in my 1DM2 ! I guess I paid for all that processing power in the camera so that I wouldn't have to pay someone else to do it later.

I know there are many valid reasons on both sides, and with all things considered, one size will never fit all applications.

For me, I make my money only when I'm shooting or creating promotions for our portrait/wedding studio, NOT by spending time processing (or paying someone to process), or even printing images. With that in mind, keeping things tight and shooting jpegs just plain nets me more money--my first priority in any business.

I don't know if it's because of the process we're using (we won't print in-house), but quite frankly there's no practical quality issues for us shooting jpegs (vs. RAW), and large wall portraits are still our biggest profit center. Someone mentioned here that a jpeg will start losing it any bigger than 12x18. Geez, I've got 24x30 samples hanging all over the walls of our studio that would knock your socks off. Maybe us portrait guys have it a bit easier in this respect, because the expression & emotional impact of the image is far more important than it's _technical_ excellence--no woman I know wants to spend several hundred bucks on a portrait of themselves in which they can see every pore on their face.

Now, with all that being said, for the few times that we don't get it prefect when we shoot it (we normally trash the bad ones so that the client never even sees 'em), I'm really starting to eye up the RAW + jpeg workflow...

If you need to deliver fast, view fast and you shoot in known places and conditions (fixed wedding hall, racetracks, studios) JPG will work probably just fine. That being said RAW will give you better quality in high ISO for example and of course exposure recovery. Big pro's are not so thick that they do not see this - they just determine what kind of quality is acceptable in current schedule and if there is time to massage the files on computer or not. One comment against RAW is card capacity - that is a problem in some cases. Also, burst speed and fast buffer recovery speed may be very important to some.

All this means only that choice of format should first be practical one, if both can do then you may dig into 16 vs 8 bit and other issues if they matter to you.

I'm seldom in hurry, and I prefer being able to do my own post processing so I shoot RAW (no one else has to). I'm also very fond of C1 workflow and quality and would like to reserve a possibility to reconvert my images when even better solutions or versions come in future.

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'text/html'

whats the C1 workflow?
thanks...

i am sold on RAW because most of my nature photo work involves long walks(and canoes) in spontaneously planned excursions with others
i do not have the patience for planning to be at a specific spot at a specific time
many of my shots are a quick shot at some wildlife with my 70-300 IS or some wildflowers with whatevers handy
i always seem to have a great shot that needs post processing help
i would love to be able to have bigger sharper enlargements
i wonder what the labs printer up-rezzing process knows that i do not
(probably lots)
i use photoshop CS and an epson 2200 and a 300D and have have a real need to have crisper 13x19s
my suspision is part of the solution is:
my lens
(add affordable suggestion here)
my workflow (")
and my aversion to lug and use a big tripod (")
comments appreciated...
(wonder where the spell chaeker is on this forum)

Raw but not for IQ

I use raw exclusively. In fact, not only do I use raw, but I up the size of the embedded JPEG so I get quick previewing to weed out the trash.

(see the SI Workflow for some reasons on why that is a good idea: )

In general I shoot 90% (probabaly more, but I think highly of myself )"snapshot" style pictures. But I still choose raw because I want to preserve the original. I don't want to be in a position when I crop down of managing 2 JPG images.

Regarding card cost, your best bet is to by 2 256 mbyte and something like an xrite portable image disk (20 gbytes should pretty much cover it).

I use my 1gbyte microdrive and it holds pretty well, although a 1 week vacation is pushing it).

Check out my links:

for some of the same info from here and more on raw:

http://www.frontiernet​.net …phy.html#Raw%20​Converters

Mike

Yes, the Canon software (FVU or the newly released EVU) will do what you want and does a fine job at converting RAWs. They aren't as fast as other programs, but the picture quality is great.

Here's where to get EVU (needs FVU installed to install it, get FVU from the disks that came with the camera): http://www.powershot.c​om/powershot2/customer​/evu.html

There was a thread about EVU a week or two ago, I like it so far. Faster than FVU.

I've shot only RAW for awhile now (about a year), and I use EVU/FVU to convert them.

Sorry, but that's wrong.

Not going to try too hard to convince you because you either believe it or you don't, but you don't need 300DPI to get a good print. 6MP will make 16"x20" prints no problem (with a good printer, not a cheap inkjet).

Hanging on my wall right now is a 20"x30" print taken with a 4MP G2 and not up-sampled at all. Looks great.

Here it is next to a couple 11"x14" prints: http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/20526187/original
Unframed: http://www.pbase.com/i​mage/19864539/original

Basically

- download images to computer (I use XsDrive II as card reader).
- open in Capture 1
- tag good ones (and move them to folder "ok")
- adjust WB and exposure if needed
- output to 16-bit TIFF

Doing WB and exposure adjusting in C1 is very fast and you can copy specific settings between photos very easily. Also, C1 sharpening is very good and I see no reason to use any other method now. I keep sharpening at 200/0 so when you open photos in C1 they are already set.
I also have some slightly altered color profiles (pro version has color editor), so if I need more "vivid" look I just change the profile inside C1.

workflow

i have been doing a similar process using photoshop CS but it seems rather slow
the flag option in the browser is handy
i looked at C1 but it would have to be pretty special to justify the 500.00+ price tag
is there really a big advantage for using C1?

...

If youshoot in RAW the image has imbedded in it a JPEG file. You can extract the JPEG for web sites or email and still keep the RAW for enhancements.

embedded jpg

the value of the imbedded jpg eludes me
when you open the raw file you can save as tiff or jpg or whatever
why care about the size of - or the the existence of the imbedded jpg...

Take a look at the C1 LE or C1 SE versions, depending upon which camera you have. At $99, the C1 LE is worth considering for 300D, DRebel or 10D.