RAW vs. JPG - A good read

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

Taking a byte out of bit depth – Jpeg vs. RAW


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

Scott

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...

MLphoto wrote in post #9938139
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.

MLphoto wrote in post #9938139
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.

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

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

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!

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

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

No argument from me.

82NoMe wrote in post #9940041
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.

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

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.

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.

magwai wrote in post #9942658
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)

egordon99 wrote in post #9942666
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)

magwai wrote in post #9942675
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