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

[andyscott]

As I said above, people should shoot whatever they feel comfortable with, and enjoy, but there's no need to mislead people. .

Hardly misleading people, is it. It takes much longer to process RAWs than Jpegs. Culling and importing has nothing to do with it.

Interesting others have commented about 'throwing away' information and data. Well you do that when you print or when you post on here

 

[seriousrikk]

If you like RAW and thereby lose days and days of your life stuck in front of a computer then go for it.

Wrong.

You only lose days and days of your life stuck in front of a computer if you choose to do so. It is not a necessity for people shooting RAW.

 

[andyscott]

Wrong.

You only lose days and days of your life stuck in front of a computer if you choose to do so. It is not a necessity for people shooting RAW.

Really in a life time, please add up the time of the average serious RAW shooter, I bet it works out at least 24hrs and therefore my statement is correct, now off you pop

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

I think that you'll find the vast majority of digital camera users, let's say 99.9%, use JPEG and wouldn't know RAW if it bit them.

I completely agree.

 

[woof woof]

I completely agree.

Most cameras in use these days have to ability to txt and instant chat and can't shoot raw.

I can see the argument for JPEG's especially for those taking large numbers of pictures and needing to produce pictures fast or maybe if they love the in camera processing and filters and the like that can be applied these days but even for those people I think that anyone arguing against the view that if you want the most control and quality the way to get it is to shoot raw would have to be a real hard core JPEG fan.

 

[seriousrikk]

Really in a life time, please add up the time of the average serious RAW shooter, I bet it works out at least 24hrs and therefore my statement is correct, now off you pop

How very patronising, but maybe that is just your way. Lets talk about how long you actually need to spend processing raw files vs how long you need to spend processing jpegs. Assuming the output will be the same result, ie a shot that has a number of pre-determined setting applied to the original image. Well there may be a bit of time up front setting up camera profiles in ones raw editor of choice, but that is usually mirrored by the jpeg shooter setting the camera up with the output they like. Then there is the sorting of images, which either format is about equal. So what's left? Processing - yes? Well since the default profile was applied at import it is just a case of batch export then. A few clicks at the end of the process one normally uses for non raw.

Unless you choose to do more that is. Which of course you can, that is anyone's prerogative. My point in principle, pedantry aside, still stands. You can shoot raw and not be burdened with extra processing on all your images if you don't want to.

 

[woof woof]

How very patronising, but maybe that is just your way. Lets talk about how long you actually need to spend processing raw files vs how long you need to spend processing jpegs. Assuming the output will be the same result, ie a shot that has a number of pre-determined setting applied to the original image. Well there may be a bit of time up front setting up camera profiles in ones raw editor of choice, but that is usually mirrored by the jpeg shooter setting the camera up with the output they like. Then there is the sorting of images, which either format is about equal. So what's left? Processing - yes? Well since the default profile was applied at import it is just a case of batch export then. A few clicks at the end of the process one normally uses for non raw.

Unless you choose to do more that is. Which of course you can, that is anyone's prerogative. My point in principle, pedantry aside, still stands. You can shoot raw and not be burdened with extra processing on all your images if you don't want to.

I shoot raw and I do most of my processing in the raw converter and actually once I've finished in the raw processer most of my pictures are then just batch processed out and saved as JPEG's. I only occasionally open and work on JPEG's if I want to clone something out (I prefer the JPEG tools for that) or want to resize the picture.

Thinking about it I think that if I shot JPEG exclusively I'd probably actually spend more time processing, not less.

I suppose it depends how we all work but for me shooting raw seems to get the best results and doesn't seem to cost me any more time than shooting JPEG would.

 

[Phil V]

Really in a life time, please add up the time of the average serious RAW shooter, I bet it works out at least 24hrs and therefore my statement is correct, now off you pop

What's 'average'?

In my experience, with a decent computer I'm not wasting any time in front of the computer, I make the same changes to a Raw file that I would to a JPEG, the extra time is spent at the import and export stages and I'm sat reading TP (or something more productive) whilst the computer crunches through those processes.

After which I've chosen exactly what bits of data to keep and what I'm happy to throw away. Whereas shooting JPEG I'd end up with the same amount of data, but I'd not have chosen what data gets thrown away.

 

[andyscott]

What's 'average'?

In my experience, with a decent computer I'm not wasting any time in front of the computer, I make the same changes to a Raw file that I would to a JPEG, the extra time is spent at the import and export stages and I'm sat reading TP (or something more productive) whilst the computer crunches through those processes.

After which I've chosen exactly what bits of data to keep and what I'm happy to throw away. Whereas shooting JPEG I'd end up with the same amount of data, but I'd not have chosen what data gets thrown away.

My point being is you don't need to spend any time in front of the computer with Jpeg, you have to with RAW. Unless you convert in camera (if available)

If you spend time processing Jpegs again that's a choice, but its not a must have.

 

[Graham W]

Unless you convert in camera (if available)

.

This may be a bit pedantic, but isn't that exactly what happens when you shoot in Jpeg? As I understand it any and every digital camera collects bits of information and then sends it to the memory card.
If you select Raw it just records it as it finds it and leaves it up to you to sort out later. If you shoot Jpeg it processes the data itself and sends it to the card ready to display/print. (This is the point I was trying to make in post 53.
It's also why I don't understand the "I like to get it right in camera" type comments. If you haven't captured the data at the time of taking then you can't process/retrieve it.

 

[Sejanus Aelianus]

The way I see it, if the Great Flying Spaghetti Monster meant me to use RAW, s/he'd have created a standard for it, like s/he did for JPEG.

 

[andyscott]

This may be a bit pedantic, but isn't that exactly what happens when you shoot in Jpeg? As I understand it any and every digital camera collects bits of information and then sends it to the memory card.
If you select Raw it just records it as it finds it and leaves it up to you to sort out later. If you shoot Jpeg it processes the data itself and sends it to the card ready to display/print. (This is the point I was trying to make in post 53.
It's also why I don't understand the "I like to get it right in camera" type comments. If you haven't captured the data at the time of taking then you can't process/retrieve it.

Some cameras can shoot RAW and you can then convert it in camera with whatever processing you require, such as B&W, film modes etc.

 

[Graham W]

Some cameras can shoot RAW and you can then convert it in camera with whatever processing you require, such as B&W, film modes etc.

Yes I thought that was what you were referring to. As I said I was probably being a bit pedantic but so often on the many Raw v Jpeg threads posters can display misguided knowledge of what Raw actually is.

 

[Phil V]

My point being is you don't need to spend any time in front of the computer with Jpeg, you have to with RAW. Unless you convert in camera (if available)

If you spend time processing Jpegs again that's a choice, but its not a must have.

I thought it was obvious that if you're doing no processimg at all you'd just shoot JPEG.
I don't think anyone realistically advocates shooting Raw and then sitting at the computer to not change anything. That'd be very odd behaviour.

 

[odd jim]

Yup, get it right rather than polish turds! FWIW, JPEGs can be polished but not as much as raw files. As Pete pointed out, batch processing of multiple raw files is no different to setting the camera's JPEG creating soft/firmware up to do it at the taking stage.

I'm wondering if Moose's comment was tongue in cheek??

As I said earlier, it's nothing to do with "getting it right in camera", that shows a misunderstanding of the raw process. In fact, it's further from the truth than you think, as you don't know how much the camera has automatically corrected, especially in terms of exposure latitude. See my post above . Everything you achieve with a raw file is done "in camera" anyway, otherwise it wouldn't be there.

It is different to batch processing to some degree, although you're not having full creative input on an individual level, you'll still be getting more detail from each shot if that's how it's set up.

 

[odd jim]

I used to shoot whole weddings with a paid of Fuji S5 cameras set to large Jpegs. Had no problems whatsoever.

Shoot what you want if you like Jpeg cool. If you like RAW and thereby lose days and days of your life stuck in front of a computer then go for it.

I process RAW files for a number of clients and without outsourcing, they probably would go back to photographing Jpeg. The main reason they shoot RAW is because they deliver 16bit Tiffs to clients.

I've shot weddings in raw and not lost days processing. If that's the case, I'd suggest getting a faster PC

 

[odd jim]

You could if you had a camera that could adjust this for you, boost shadows etc. Load custom curves etc.

Of course. A jpeg is just a file format, nothing more nothing less. It's just that when you shoot jpeg you let the camera decide how the end result turns out, and which 2/3 of the data it chucks away it's then formats it to the viewable JPEG.

But if you did have a camera that does that, how would it know what you want the final image to look like? I'm not talking a stupidly overlooked image, I'm talking subtle adjustments.

 

[odd jim]

Hardly misleading people, is it. It takes much longer to process RAWs than Jpegs. Culling and importing has nothing to do with it.

Interesting others have commented about 'throwing away' information and data. Well you do that when you print or when you post on here

Not to the detriment of the *content* of the image. It doesn't throw away any of the content, only resolution. Every bit of shadow detail I've recovered has arrived safely here when I've posted.

 

[odd jim]

Really in a life time, please add up the time of the average serious RAW shooter, I bet it works out at least 24hrs and therefore my statement is correct, now off you pop

So what if it does?

Some people, like me, enjoy this process. It's as important as the camera stage, it's all part of the photographic process.

 

[jakeblu]

You could have easily adjusted the Jpeg to get the same result or even easier just us the contrast/saturation in camera

A jpg simply by its nature will not have the range of tones and colour of a raw file. There is no argument there, you can say it doesn't matter but by virtue of its increased bit range a raw file will carry much more.

 

[odd jim]

I didn't know jpeg fanboys existed until this thread [emoji3][emoji3]

The fact is a competently shot and processed raw file is far better photographically than a camera produced jpeg, I'm surprised there's even a discussion on that front.

JPEG of course has its advantages on ease and speed of producing the final computer image.

It's down to the individual - quality and full control = raw, speed and ease = JPEG.

And if people want to spend time carefully processing a beautiful landscape image to get the best print possible, then who's to criticise?

And those thinking shooting jpegs with the attitude they are "getting it right in camera" are kidding themselves, as their camera is correcting the image as it processes, so you never know if you got it right or the cameras processing has sorted it for you

 

[andyscott]

And those thinking shooting jpegs with the attitude they are "getting it right in camera" are kidding themselves, as their camera is correcting the image as it processes, so you never know if you got it right or the cameras processing has sorted it for you

I suppose its just a misunderstanding, the same as the fix it later in post is.

 

[odd jim]

I suppose its just a misunderstanding, the same as the fix it later in post is.

This shows your complete misunderstanding of the raw process.

Raw isn't about "fixing" it in post. I won't repeat myself but see my post, #66.

 

[andyscott]

This shows your complete misunderstanding of the raw process.

Raw isn't about "fixing" it in post. I won't repeat myself but see my post, #66.

Or your misunderstanding of what I have wrote, I didnt say that is my view of the raw process, I said it was a misunderstanding.

You dont have to repeat yourself, just read

 

[odd jim]

Or your misunderstanding of what I have wrote, I didnt say that is my view of the raw process, I said it was a misunderstanding.

You dont have to repeat yourself, just read

I did wonder that actually, but based on your previous posts it didn't add up

 

[jonbeeza]

Got a few photos around the park today, glad I shot in RAW as I was able to tweak the exposure and shadows.

 

[Ollie B]

As one that's only gone digital in the last couple of years (the last 50+ years I've been shooting/processing/printing film) I can see that the jpg vs raw debate will go on into infinity (no pun intended ). For me as a film photographer, I've enjoyed the processing of the film just as satisfying as taking the shot. I would happily spend 12 hours in the darkroom with 36 negatives to get the perfect image, generally I would end up with 5 or 6 that I considered to be as near perfect as I could possibly get them.

From what I've read on this forum I find it quite staggering that someone has taken 2000 shots in a day, were all those shots composed with the correct shutter speed, the correct aperture, the correct ISO? or were they all fired off in auto mode? If that's the case I can see why jpg is favoured, because of those 2000 shots there will be a few that are near perfect. Now taking into consideration the time it takes to sort through 2000 shots would it not be better to take a fraction of that number that are thoughtfully composed and saved as a RAW file, this is pretty much the equivalent of a film negative and can be manipulated as required.

I'm still learning how to use LR, but I can see that it's far better to work from a RAW image. But of course it's a case of what works for you, quality or quantity? take you choice

 

[Graham W]

Got a few photos around the park today, glad I shot in RAW as I was able to tweak the exposure and shadows.

You didn't tweak the exposure. The exposure happens at the taking stage.
What you did was make an accurate exposure and because you shot in raw, and therefore preserved all of that data, you were able to extract the data you needed to to create the image you wanted.
And breathe.

 

[jonbeeza]

You didn't tweak the exposure. The exposure happens at the taking stage.
What you did was make an accurate exposure and because you shot in raw, and therefore preserved all of that data, you were able to extract the data you needed to to create the image you wanted.
And breathe.

Yes and I ended up with some pretty good images without losing quality, or at least the images were good for me that is

 

[seriousrikk]

You didn't tweak the exposure. The exposure happens at the taking stage.
What you did was make an accurate exposure and because you shot in raw, and therefore preserved all of that data, you were able to extract the data you needed to to create the image you wanted.
And breathe.

But...but...but the slider in Lightroom is called 'Exposure'...

 

[Graham W]

But...but...but the slider in Lightroom is called 'Exposure'...

 

[d00d]

................ 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.

Hi Terry & all

This is interesting.

I shoot jpeg and edit in Paint.net, a freeby that doesn't work with RAW, OK they say there's a plugin but I can't get it to work.

Anyway I'm wondering what is meant by "every time you do a save on a Jpeg" is it every time you OK each individual Adjustment/Effect, or every time you save the Jpeg to your PC?

Cheers

 

[kennysarmy]

I was under the impression the loss of quality occurred each time you click SAVE. ie when the compression algorithm runs to save disk space.

If you clicked save after each edit then you would be losing quality - also if you did no edits but simply opened and clicked save you would again theoretically be losing detail.

Cheers

 

[d00d]

Cheers Jeff

... just had a look at Paint.net, and for example: Effect > Artistic > Oil Painting ... you can tweak the sliders then click OK, then a little status bar pops up for 2 seconds and it says Rendering 100%. I thought that might count as a save, but you think not.

Hmmm ... about time I invested in Photoshop.

 

[big soft moose]

course another option if you are bothered is to resave your jpeg as a .tiff , do all your edits then resave it as a jpeg - two saves won't make any tangible difference

 

[pjm1]

Yup - it's probably having a play with your camera import apps to see if it can import from raw to tiff before "investing" in PS. Making two big changes to your workflow at once is less likely to feel like the right answer!!

 

[jonbeeza]

I have now decided to leave my Fuji X10 on Jpeg and only very very rarely go RAW if I have a feeling the image could be something special to me. I have now left my DSLR on RAW as Capture NX-D is so easy to use, plus the IQ is so good the extra effort is worth it.

 

[Nod]

I was under the impression the loss of quality occurred each time you click SAVE. ie when the compression algorithm runs to save disk space.

If you clicked save after each edit then you would be losing quality - also if you did no edits but simply opened and clicked save you would again theoretically be losing detail.

Cheers

Sort of. AFAIK, it's save/open cycles that cause problems. If you do all necessary PP on your JPEGs in one hit, (as Pete says) the degradation of the file is minimal. Do it in several sessions and it will cause serious visible problems (or become all arty! ) I always shoot and save at the largest size and maximum quality JPEG and do as little as necessary PP before saving at the highest quality (for printing) or at the highest quality that gives the closest file size to the upper limit for posting here at (usually) 800x533pixels. Transferring the files from the card to the computer's HDD by copy/pasting doesn't cause any degradation.

 

[Graham W]

There's a similar debate going on in the Talk Sport section https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/jpeg-or-raw.622613/
May be worth a read as they're coming at it from a slightly different angle and have very specific requirements.

 

[Nod]

When speed is of the essence, as in sending shots into the desk from pitchside, there's little doubt that JPEGs are faster, as said by Kipax there.