Beginner I think I prefer JPG to Raw..Please dont kill me!

L

LumixNoob

Messages
233
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
For a while now I've been thinking about going back to shooting jpg instead of raw for a few reasons:

A. My PC is a little slow, but not slow enough to justify a new one and there's not a lot to upgrade that I haven't done already. JPGs are way easier to manage in pretty much every way.

B. Shooting raw was making me a little bit lazy. Knowing that I could get away with fixing more in PP had become a bit of a crutch and I think ultimately my pictures were suffering. I'm not really getting better at shooting, just editing. I would rather concentrate on composition and good shooting practices. I think JPG would force me to do this. The last few times I've shot jpg only, the pictures I've binned were binned because they were rubbish, not because they were unsalvageable for any reason raw could have fixed. I just didn't like them or they were blurred, hazy, badly composed etc.

C. I was already for the most part happy with camera jpegs and now I've got a decent tripod for landscape stuff I'm going to start doing multiple exposures to merge rather than relying on pulling/pushing the shadows/highlights of a single image in raw.

D. Most stuff I've tried with flash or controlled lighting has come out as I wanted (after some trial and error) when shooting raw and jpeg and I end up deleting untouched raws anyway.

E. I don't shoot much at high iso so noise reduction isn't a big factor in my editing process.

F. I would like to spend less time in front of the computer. We all have limited spare time and don't want to spend it hunched over a desk on my lonesome, especially considering I have no intentions of even trying to make any money off photography.

G. So this pretty much extends to learning any new software. If this was back in the film days I wouldn't have my own darkroom and would be taking my film to the shop and would have to be getting it right in camera. I would like to draw a line in the sand and say enough is enough with the computer/PP side.

H. Most editing tasks I can already do with the software I've already got for jpegs. Raw would require me to spend money to upgrade as well as time spent learning. I would rather spend the money/time on travel or whatever.

In a nutshell, photography is expensive in both time and money and I would like to keep both to a minimum and enjoy the shooting not the editing and gear buying.

So...I decided to downsize to a Fuji X30 from a dslr after thinking about what I need and what I want to do, and am also going to step away from raw for the time being and enjoy taking pictures, not clicking a mouse.

On top of all that I really like the classic film settings for jpgs on the X30!

I know I'll get hammered for shunning raw, it seems like it's the in thing :D

The 'no true Scotsman' thing seems to apply to shooting jpg.
 
Last edited:
Not from me,more would shoot it if they where good enough ;) (that should take some of the flack off you)

You should do what makes you happy and enjoy
 
Nothing wrong with JPEGs. If you have a measure of photographic skill and are shooting tractable subjects, shooting RAW would just mean more work for no gain. RAW comes into its own when a lot of processing is required - if your pictures don't need the processing why do it?
 
I shoot both usually these days. But the thing you can think of is shooting raw is like developing your own film, where as out of camera jpg is like getting your negatives developed by someone else.

Of course you should have been able to batch convert the raw to jpg without any needed input, giving you more scope for editing if needed...
 
J Veitch said:
I shoot both usually these days. But the thing you can think of is shooting raw is like developing your own film, where as out of camera jpg is like getting your negatives developed by someone else.
Click to expand...

True... but just as you can ask someone else to process a film the way you like, you can set up your camera to process your JPG files as you want them.


Steve.
 
Of course the other thing to remember is that jpgs use lossy compression. This means you lose image quality each time you edit and save them. But for what it's worth, if you are happy with the images you are producing, you should keep doing it. There are plenty of people who get caught up pixel peeping, rather than enjoying the picture.
 
It's your choice. However the day may come, when you get the great shot you want to print that could have been superb if only you had the raw image!
 
Using a tripod is one of the great skills in photography, and usually the first to go out the window when you're going to be walking any distance! If you have the discipline to carry one with you, then shooting multiple shots (bracketing) for subsequent merge may work just fine for you. My X10 is my carry-camera and I've never used it with a tripod, so I guess I need to see what it could do if used with one. If your X30 can shoot raw + jpeg you can set Lightroom to only show jpeg and it will quietly store your raw files anyway. This gives you the benefit of being able to go to the raw files if the jpeg doesn't quite hit the spot, but otherwise forget about them. Memory cards are silly cheap, so just get a bigger one and carry on shooting with the best of both worlds. ;)
 
Another stake in the chest of photosnobery! :)

Like Dean said above, it's for you to decide and it's good for your mental health to ignore the keyboard warriors who insist otherwise :D
 
If you can not produce consistantly better results than a camera produced Jpeg, then stick with Jpegs
That is both logical and sensible.

Raw offers the ability to produce better results from situations that fall outside the narrow confines of the cameras presets.
There is absolutely no reason to suppose that everyone has the necessary skills to achieve this.
Or the inclination to even try.

Fuji Jpegs, for one, take some beating... or even equalling in normal subjects.
 
BrynBoru said:
It's your choice. However the day may come, when you get the great shot you want to print that could have been superb if only you had the raw image!
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that great prints cant be made from jpgs ?
 
LumixNoob said:
I know I'll get hammered for shunning raw, it seems like it's the in thing :D
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, who cares what others think of your methods, it's the results that matter.
I went through a similar thought process about 9 months ago, though I still shoot jpg +raw, the raw files just sit on an external HD for if they are ever needed.
The last time I opened a raw file, was for shots of the lunar eclipse last september, everything else, I have just used the jpg's.
One of these days I will get some shots printed, so it's nice to know that the raw files are sat there to be processed when the time comes, but for everyday use, there is no reason not to use jpg's if they give the results you want.
 
Steve Smith said:
I encounter similar photosnobbery when I admit to preferring resin coated paper over fibre paper.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Preference is not snobbery.
Resin papers are certainly easier to handle and process. However, I far prefer the look of a large mounted fibre based print. Though some makes of fibre paper were definitely sub standard.
in the 60's I would only use Kentmere bromide for proofing as it did not have the brightness range of Kodak, but was nearly half the price.

When it comes to dry mounting, a fibre print is far easier, and less likely to be damaged by the heat and pressure. So much so that heat presses though superior are almost obsolete with the advent of Resin papers.
None of this is a question of snobbery.
 
KIPAX said:
Are you suggesting that great prints cant be made from jpgs ?
Click to expand...

Actually the brightness range and data contained within a Jpeg far exceeds that that can be displayed in any print. So Jpegs are the most sensible option to print from, even if the original is stored as a raw or Tiff.
the data handling needed for the larger files is sheer waste of time and effort. as it is never transferred to the paper.

The same is not true if producing large transparencies.
 
Jpeg/raw, Canon/Nikon, film/digital, full frame/crop, filters/HDR. None of it matters. They're all just different tools to do the same job. As long as you're happy with the end image then it doesn't matter how you get there
 
Carl Hall said:
Jpeg/raw, Canon/Nikon, film/digital, full frame/crop, filters/HDR. None of it matters. They're all just different tools to do the same job. As long as you're happy with the end image then it doesn't matter how you get there
Click to expand...

Sounds about right............

All roads lead to a good image...................

Mj
 
Loving your title...it's nice to see most are encouraging and no killing has taken place! :D

As already said at the end of the day you do what makes you happy, that's what keeps it fun and you continue to enjoy what you do!
 
I have printed a few pictures at around A3 and the one I'm most happy with is from a jpg and from the smallest sensor camera, which has taught me a couple things - one of which is that pixel peeping is pointless for general use and the other that I don't *usually* need the added data that raw provides. The few raw files I have printed (via jpg conversions) I have grown to dislike. They've been rescued rather than processed, and by the time I've done messing around with them I'm sick of seeing them! The jpgs might've been binned but at least I wouldn't have wasted the time and money processing and printing things that I'm not happy with. But maybe if I'd spent more time planning the shot and using better technique the jpgs would've been fine.

On a side note, the 12mp jpgs from the x30 are more or less the same size as those from my 18mp 600d, and appear to retain more data.
 
Last edited:
LumixNoob said:
I have printed a few pictures at around A3 and the one I'm most happy with is from a jpg and from the smallest sensor camera, which has taught me a couple things - one of which is that pixel peeping is pointless for general use and the other that I don't *usually* need the added data that raw provides. The few raw files I have printed (via jpg conversions) I have grown to dislike. They've been rescued rather than processed, and by the time I've done messing around with them I'm sick of seeing them! The jpgs might've been binned but at least I wouldn't have wasted the time and money processing and printing things that I'm not happy with. But maybe if I'd spent more time planning the shot and using better technique the jpgs would've been fine.

On a side note, the 12mp jpgs from the x30 are more or less the same size as those from my 18mp 600d, and appear to retain more data.
Click to expand...
I think most people will agree that if you shoot raw doesnt mean that you dont need to think about your exposure.. etc.. you can make a good picture look great and the way you want it to look with raw converting. But you must like the convertion process or you will end up doing half a job which will lead to result which is similair to jpeg if not worse.
 
boliston said:
if you resize a jpeg and then resave it is anything lost? for me the ability to choose the output size is the main advantage of raw
Click to expand...
Every time you save a JPEG, something is lost. If you save at maximum quality, that loss is very small. If you do all your editing and resizing in one session, the loss is too small to matter. It only starts to matter if you edit in 20 separate sessions and save the file 20 times when you will get visible artifacts in the image.

Another thought: if you have your camera produce JPEGs there is no need to keep saving as JPEGs. If you use Photoshop you can save as PSD files which are lossless. In that case, you can edit/resize and save as often as you want with no image degradation.
 
Last edited:
^Demon said:
Why not to shoot raw + jpeg?
Click to expand...
I have been doing so far, but I'm using Elements for raw and having to process the jpegs afterwards anyway for fringing/keystoning etc because the raw processor in PSE is very basic. I don't want to be signing up or buying Lightroom for the odd raw shot im trying to salvage. If I bought LR it would need to have more of a justification. Between the free, older and already bought jpeg software I'm all set.

I don't want to buy any more software that is just gonna increase my time spent at the PC.

I know that LR has batch processing that makes things easier, but most of that is just doing myself what camera already does.

I'm not necessarily saying jpg is better, just that I prefer to work with them and if there is a slight drop in quality, depending on where that drop is it doesn't always matter.
 
Last edited:
JPEG , crayon or pencil - not that I can draw a straight line using a ruler- does not matter really. My favourite family picture was taken with a phone a few years ago, much prefer it to the pro wedding and family studio pics also on the wall. Its the moment and the memory that counts not the format. Anyway think I might sell the full frame D750 and go back to Fuji cos I`m too lazy to mess with raw and prefer fuji jpegs. Just IMO.:)
 
As pointed out, if you prefer the camera preset processing to what you can do to a raw file then that's fine. And if your pleasure is in the taking of the image while the processing is a chore then that's even more reason to go the 'Boots' route. .jpg files can still be edited if needed, with the main limitation being control over extremes of exposure.
 
On the other hand, if you know what you are doing, you set up the Jpeg engine in your camera to process the files exactly as you want them. All this 'let the camera decide' is a bunch of ^%&$*£
 
boliston said:
if you resize a jpeg and then resave it is anything lost? for me the ability to choose the output size is the main advantage of raw
Click to expand...

The absolute answer is yes. every time you do a save on a Jpeg it goes through the compression process again and data is lost.
This is the difference between a Lossy file and a lossless one like Tiff.
Save the Jpeg as a tiff and work on the tiff file, when you are all finished resave it as a jpeg . You will have a better result than multiple Jpeg saves.
Also, you will still have the original Jpeg untouched, to go back to if needed.

The shame is that a better form of JPeg has been invented sometime ago that can be lossless. it has many advantages over the normal Jpeg and also produces a smaller file even though it can be lossless.
The down side is that almost no one uses it. though many programmes can work with them including Adobe. and Microsoft. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000 )

It seems to be a matter of scale, every one can read and use Jpegs. whatever its other disadvantages.
If Jpeg 2000 had been made backward compatible with Jpeg, by now every one would be using it.. (in the same way USB 1,2,and 3 are all backward compatible) But it is not possible.
 
Last edited:
My Sony RX100iii has many more options if I switch from RAW to JPEG! On holiday in Wales at the moment and left the Fuji XE2 at home so I'm trying some JPEG shooting as well as some RAW, looking forward to seeing the results on my PC.
 
Interesting post. Having spent the past year in raw only mode I can also see the upside from jpg in terms of much faster workflow. In particular I had good recent experience with architecture shooting with using in camera HDR only saving the final jpg. Completely satisfactory results and only a fraction of the time to produce.
 
James your thread title sounded like a silly thing : you can't see a RAW file until you turn it into something ... for example a Jpeg,
but then I read your reasons and I think you've thought it all out rather well.:)
I'm nut sure I'd agree on your choice to downsize to that camera from DSLR while also dumping the RAWs.
One step at a time is best ... then you'll know whwere things start to go wrong if you run into a problem...
 
O K hear goes if you are a serious photographer you must shoot raw if you are not then you deserve a damned good thrashing,:):)

Only joking of course, as many have already said just do your own thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top