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 Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 05 Apr 2010 (Monday) 15:08
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RAW vs. JPG - A good read

 
scobols
Goldmember
Avatar
1,262 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 384
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Waconia, MN
     
Apr 05, 2010 15:08 |  #1

I saw this today and thought others may be interested in reading it:

Taking a byte out of bit depth – Jpeg vs. RAW (external link)


If nothing else, at least we can start another argument about RAW vs. JPG.

Scott


www.scottbolster.com (external link)
facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
MLphoto
Goldmember
1,469 posts
Joined Nov 2007
     
Apr 05, 2010 15:25 |  #2

I shoot RAW rarely, I almost always shoot JPEG. With advanced editing programs like Photoshop CS4, Lightroom, I can edit basically everything the same as if it was a RAW file...


http://flickr.com/marc​el-lech-photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scobols
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,262 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 384
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Waconia, MN
     
Apr 05, 2010 15:28 |  #3

MLphoto wrote in post #9938139 (external link)
I shoot RAW rarely, I almost always shoot JPEG. With advanced editing programs like Photoshop CS4, Lightroom, I can edit basically everything the same as if it was a RAW file...

The article explains why editing is different with RAW, it's not the same.


www.scottbolster.com (external link)
facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,002 posts
Likes: 986
Joined Dec 2006
     
Apr 05, 2010 15:30 |  #4

MLphoto wrote in post #9938139 (external link)
I shoot RAW rarely, I almost always shoot JPEG. With advanced editing programs like Photoshop CS4, Lightroom, I can edit basically everything the same as if it was a RAW file...

It may seem that way to you, but there are significant differences.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,651 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 523
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Apr 05, 2010 16:44 |  #5

Not to engage a debate, but a very interesting post showed up in our RAW Conversion Thread -- check it out!:

https://photography-on-the.net …?p=9937998&post​count=2058


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Damo77
Goldmember
Avatar
4,589 posts
Likes: 85
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Apr 05, 2010 19:09 |  #6

I only read to the third paragraph to find something I didn't agree with:

To me, the biggest technical difference between JPEG and RAW is bit depth.

Bit depth is handy, but it's definitely not the most important difference. It's the dynamic range that sets raw apart IMO.

If it were possible to shoot a high-bit jpeg, you would still only have limited dynamic range, and not much advantage. But if it were possible to shoot 8-bit raw, you would have the extended dynamic range, to be able to recover highlights etc. Sure, it would be a bit "noisy" (for want of a better word), but it would be there.

Give me a hatchback car I can drive to the beach, over a BMW that I can only drive to the end of my street, any day. But as it happens, a Raw file is a luxury car that you can drive almost as far as you want!


Damien
Website (external link) | Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
82NoMe
Goldmember
Avatar
2,262 posts
Gallery: 49 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 760
Joined May 2008
Location: Battle Born
     
Apr 05, 2010 20:43 as a reply to  @ Damo77's post |  #7

i can't think of a reason why not to shoot RAW with how cheap storage is now.


Cheers... jim

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ChasP505
"brain damaged old guy"
Avatar
5,566 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2006
Location: New Mexico, USA
     
Apr 05, 2010 20:51 |  #8

scobols wrote in post #9938034 (external link)
If nothing else, at least we can start another argument about RAW vs. JPG.

No argument from me. :D


Chas P
"It doesn't matter how you get there if you don't know where you're going!"https://photography-on-the.net …p?p=10864029#po​st10864029

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
scobols
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,262 posts
Gallery: 84 photos
Likes: 384
Joined Dec 2006
Location: Waconia, MN
     
Apr 05, 2010 21:45 |  #9

82NoMe wrote in post #9940041 (external link)
i can't think of a reason why not to shoot RAW with how cheap storage is now.

I ALWAYS shoot RAW and won't change. But, the one time I can think of that I would prefer JPG is when I'm shooting burst on my 5D and the buffer fills up before I'm done. It would be nice to get a few more shots and not have to wait for the buffer to clear.


www.scottbolster.com (external link)
facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,923 posts
Likes: 334
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Apr 05, 2010 23:49 |  #10

I can summarize the arguments...
Jpeg = fast workflow (if you get it right in camera).
RAW = more flexibility.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Apr 06, 2010 08:06 as a reply to  @ tim's post |  #11

First off, your camera ONLY shoots RAW. When you select JPG, the camera takes the RAW data and pipes it into its on-board JPG processor to generate the JPG "image" to save to the card.

When you shoot RAW, the RAW "data" goes directly to the card and is not an image.

To generate an image, you use a RAW processor (software on your PC) which turns the data into a viewable image, much like the camera's JPG processor. The difference is that YOU have complete control over the image generation process. You can change the white balance, adjust the contrast/brightness/bl​ack point/etc....

So you can leave these decisions up to the camera's little processor (and hope it makes the right decisions since they are irreversible), or save the decisions for later where YOU have complete control over it.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magwai
Goldmember
1,094 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Guildford, UK
     
Apr 06, 2010 09:11 as a reply to  @ egordon99's post |  #12

i usually shoot raw + jpg. i do that because i trash the raws from the so-so images to save space, so shoot me.

now the interesinng thing is that occasionally the jpg from the camera comes out better than i can produce in my 30 secs of standard pp using ACR. i have no idea why this is - most likely reason is that my pp skills are lacking, but to me it demonstrates that the jpg process on the camera is not completely trivial.

btw, if anyone would care to educate me as to how to match my camera in pp i would be very grateful.

before someone takes this as me saying "jpg is better than raw" i am not. my opinion is that raw is always better given enough pp time. jpg is sometimes better with limited pp time and inferior pp skills.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Apr 06, 2010 09:13 |  #13

magwai wrote in post #9942658 (external link)
i usually shoot raw + jpg. i do that because i trash the raws from the so-so images to save space, so shoot me.

now the interesinng thing is that occasionally the jpg from the camera comes out better than i can produce in my 30 secs of standard pp using ACR. i have no idea why this is - most likely reason is that my pp skills are lacking, but to me it demonstrates that the jpg process on the camera is not completely trivial.

btw, if anyone would care to educate me as to how to match my camera in pp i would be very grateful.

DPP and ACR use different algorithms, so you will not be able to match exactly what the camera would give you (as the on-board JPG processor uses the same/similar engine as DPP) vs. what you can do in ACR (or Lightroom)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
magwai
Goldmember
1,094 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2010
Location: Guildford, UK
     
Apr 06, 2010 09:15 |  #14

egordon99 wrote in post #9942666 (external link)
DPP and ACR use different algorithms, so you will not be able to match exactly what the camera would give you (as the on-board JPG processor uses the same/similar engine as DPP) vs. what you can do in ACR (or Lightroom)

what are the main differences? (for dummies)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
egordon99
Cream of the Crop
10,247 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Philly 'burbs
     
Apr 06, 2010 09:19 |  #15

magwai wrote in post #9942675 (external link)
what are the main differences? (for dummies)

They're just different....Sorry I can't be more specific but take a raw file and use the default in DPP (the "As Shot" settings) to view it, and compare with what Lightroom gives you.

Lightroom DOES give you finer control over most aspects of the demosaicing process (most settings in DPP are 1-7, whereas ACR/LR is 1-100) but the Canon engineers know their sensors better than Adobe, so a lot of times DPP gives you a "nicer" image.

That said, I'm perfectly happy using LR for my 40D/Xsi images, not so much for my S90 low-light images (DPP works much better, not sure how to get this into my workflow yet :( )

BTW - Your username is from the Gremlins, right? Mogwai was my fraternity "pledge name" in college :lol:




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

4,719 views & 0 likes for this thread
RAW vs. JPG - A good read
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
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 Jeff Fenn
522 guests, 410 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

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.