j peg or raw

[hollis_f]

At least that's cleared one thing up Frank - I wondered what the heck it was!

An excellent tool for travellers. Converts between UK, European, US and Australian (I think) plugs. Only thing it dosan't do, AFAIK, is South African.

 

[straycat]

It must be so great to be perfect.

Unfortunately I am a human being and I make mistakes. I once shot half an hour in Africa with the wrong WB (hey, it was 06:00 the day after my 50th birthday - I think I had an excuse).

i am far from perfect

please post your raw produced photos so i can see where i am going wrong,thanks.

 

[straycat]

Well next time I need to WB a carrier bag and a red power adaptor I now know who the absolute authority is on this. Cheers Frank.

agreed this is the equivilent of the people who shoot walls and lines to check lens.

please post RAW photographs that show how much better the photo is than one taken in JPEG.
by that i mean a nice portrait or well composed landscape,maybe a rock and roller in full flow

 

[Marcus Geezer]

agreed this is the equivilent of the people who shoot walls and lines to check lens.

please post RAW photographs that show how much better the photo is than one taken in JPEG.
by that i mean a nice portrait or well composed landscape,maybe a rock and roller in full flow

And I just wanted to say no offence to you Frank. Your not wrong in what you say or your approach, but I think we look at our photography in different ways, whereas although I'm trying to get it as technically right as I can, under commercial pressures you sometimes have to find that half-way house where it is 'good enough' to meet and normally exceed most clients requirements. I stand by the fact that jpg's are good enough to fix most problems or allow PP editing, but also acknowledge that you get a bit more data in the RAW file which allows more scope for 'fixing' errors.

 

[straycat]

in the end all that matters is a good photograph



A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.
Ansel Adams

 

[DemiLion]

A true photograph need not be explained, nor can it be contained in words.
Ansel Adams

Indeed.

Proof positive that some of Adams' sayings are pure bunkham and over quoted.

 

[ernesto]

in the end all that matters is a good photograph

What about a potentially good photograph that is ruined by a blown area, out of whack WB etc,. that when amended in RAW makes it better than when amended in JPEG.

Both the same content but one looks better and in the end that is all that matters.

 

[hollis_f]

agreed this is the equivilent of the people who shoot walls and lines to check lens.

please post RAW photographs that show how much better the photo is than one taken in JPEG.
by that i mean a nice portrait or well composed landscape,maybe a rock and roller in full flow

Oh! Sorry, I was mistaken.

I thought the discussion was 'it is possible to change White Balance in a jpeg exactly the same as it is in raw'. Obviously I was wrong. It's only with 'pretty' photos that this is possible.

You can all prattle on and on about 'art' and 'prettiness' and 'true and utter faithful reproduction of reality' as much as you like. Can you process a jpeg to get the same results as a raw? No. That was the claim - that was the test - that was the epic fail.

 

[Phil V]

I'm not sure I follow your logic there (and note that you haven't done the experiment yourself either!).

If you photograph different coloured objects under different coloured light, yes the tonal relationship between them is fundamentally altered. Same principle as using an orange filter in balck & white photography to make clouds stand out - darkens blue/green and lightens red/yellow. But that happens before any light reaches the sensor and what is recorded is the same regardless of Raw/JPEG.

Putting a filter between the subject and the lens is not the same thing as changing the colour of the light falling on the subject. But I'm glad that you can kind of understand the relationships between colours.

I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, but is it that with a JPEG that tonal relationship is locked, and on the Raw it's fluid? Meaning perhaps that you can't adjust individual colours? In which case, I beg to differ.

I don't believe that with the RAW it's fluid, but more colour information exists (lots more), which is more data for a RAW converter to read when the RAW converter is recreating a scene with a correct White Balance. A correction of white balance is fundamentally different to balancing one colour shift with another - which is all that's available when altering a JPEG.

I'm not suggesting that you can change a JPEG in absolutely the same way as Raw or that there is the same room for manoeuvre (there isn't) but if all you want to do is tweak the colour a bit to make things look better, rather than correct a total disaster, then JPEGs are fine.

Exactly, I'm not suggesting that most of the time JPEG isn't 'good enough'. But this is the fundamental point here and where we need to be intelligent. There is no right or wrong, there isn't even a definitive 100% correct process to follow. Therefore it's subjective and all we have is 'good enough'.

Like I said in my first post here, if you're shooting hundreds of portraits in uniform lighting, then you'd be foolish not to set all your parameters in camera to make your workflow simple. JPEG will be great for this - for a lot of shooters they won't even need full size JPEGS because they know their output size can be handled by a smaller JPEG.

However, if you're shooting in continually changing lighting conditions, then shooting RAW is the best way to ensure consistent quality results. Not only for accuracy but for speed - because you can pull the colours about in a JPEG file all you want, but it takes time. Where in a RAW converter you can change the WB in hundreds of files in seconds. For what I shoot, mostly I prefer RAW as it's easier for me to get the results I want and that keep my customers happy.

 

[Marcus Geezer]

Oh! Sorry, I was mistaken.

I thought the discussion was 'it is possible to change White Balance in a jpeg exactly the same as it is in raw'. Obviously I was wrong. It's only with 'pretty' photos that this is possible.

You can all prattle on and on about 'art' and 'prettiness' and 'true and utter faithful reproduction of reality' as much as you like. Can you process a jpeg to get the same results as a raw? No. That was the claim - that was the test - that was the epic fail.

It was claimed that you could manipulate WB amongst others in a jpg where the common mis-conception is that you can't, when indeed you can. Maybe not in the same manner by applying camera WB presets although I'm sure you could create or install actions/plug-ins that replicate these if you wanted. The output can be the same if you know how to use your software properly.

 

[Phil V]

It was claimed that you could manipulate WB amongst others in a jpg where the common mis-conception is that you can't, when indeed you can. Maybe not in the same manner by applying camera WB presets although I'm sure you could create or install actions/plug-ins that replicate these if you wanted. The output can be the same if you know how to use your software properly.

And it'd be so easy to recreate that simple job and create an action to make it easy to reproduce that the internet is awash with plugins / actions to do this....

The truth is closer to this:
You can manipulate a JPEG to get pretty close to a correct WB adjustment most of the time.

It really isn't a winning argument We can already batch WB hundreds of shots in seconds to give us great results, with tools we already posess.

Please tell me what the benefit is of ignoring what works in order to use something else that might work almost as well. Other than to score points in an argument

 

[straycat]

Oh! Sorry, I was mistaken.

I thought the discussion was 'it is possible to change White Balance in a jpeg exactly the same as it is in raw'. Obviously I was wrong. It's only with 'pretty' photos that this is possible.

You can all prattle on and on about 'art' and 'prettiness' and 'true and utter faithful reproduction of reality' as much as you like. Can you process a jpeg to get the same results as a raw? No. That was the claim - that was the test - that was the epic fail.

are you a politician? talk about putting words in my mouth this is the op question

"the big question, to shoot jpeg or in raw. I am new to dslr photography and am interested in which way to go.It seems to me raw is a lot of hasel for only a little more benefit albeit better but is it worth it
What dose everyone else think?"


i think i can do well enough with JPEG,ive had enough published with no question on whether i used RAW to come to that conclusion


please post some of your RAW photos so i can see how i can improve my work

thanks


imelda says not this pointless argument again

ps its another JPEG

 

[fracster]

the big question, to shoot jpeg or in raw. I am new to dslr photography and am interested in which way to go.It seems to me raw is a lot of hasel for only a little more benefit albeit better but is it worth it
What dose everyone else think?

Back on topic.

The OP is not a photographic God, he will make mistakes with exposure/wb/etc.

So, for him, in my opinion, he is better off starting with RAW, or indeed both as pointed out previously. Once he reaches the giddy heights of never making a mistake, then he may as well shoot jpeg only......

 

[u8myufo]

JPEG and the colours are exactley as they where in real life.

shoot raw to fix mistakes if you like,i prefer to get it right at the start.



"could you see this is a JPEG if i hadnt told you"?

more JPEGs

rock and roll JPEG taken in changing light WB what WB?

robin JPEG

fast action,moving lights JPEG

Three out of six aint bad I suppose

 

[DemiLion]

Back on topic.

The OP is not a photographic God, he will make mistakes with exposure/wb/etc.

So, for him, in my opinion, he is better off starting with RAW, or indeed both as pointed out previously. Once he reaches the giddy heights of never making a mistake, then he may as well shoot jpeg only......

Except that he rather sensibly legged it after starting the thread!

 

[fracster]

Except that he rather sensibly legged it after starting the thread!

I know people mean well, but sometimes I think people forget that this is the talk Basics section, keep it simple........

 

[HoppyUK]

Putting a filter between the subject and the lens is not the same thing as changing the colour of the light falling on the subject. But I'm glad that you can kind of understand the relationships between colours.

<snip>

It's exactly the same

And it'd be so easy to recreate that simple job and create an action to make it easy to reproduce that the internet is awash with plugins / actions to do this....

The truth is closer to this:
You can manipulate a JPEG to get pretty close to a correct WB adjustment most of the time.

It really isn't a winning argument We can already batch WB hundreds of shots in seconds to give us great results, with tools we already posess.

Please tell me what the benefit is of ignoring what works in order to use something else that might work almost as well. Other than to score points in an argument

I can't speak for others, but for me the point of a JPEG is, or was, two fold.

Firstly, when memory cards were both small and expensive, it made economic and practical sense. Not any more.

But secondly, it's not a case of trying to post process a JPEG in the same way as a Raw. That would be pointless. The big advantage of shooting JPEG is that you don't have to go anywhere near a computer at all - it's a small and manageable file and good to go SOOC.

That is a huge benefit, and one that many pros use all the time. The fact that you can also tweak it a bit later is just a nice bonus.

<snip>

imelda says not this pointless argument again

ps its another JPEG

She's a Goddess, and that's good enough for me

 

[pete.rush]

I shoot mainly action photography and really see no point in using RAW. I'm very happy with the images I take using JPEG. The other reason is, space on my computer and decent software to process the images. I have Phase One LE which seems to do a decent job of processing raw images (the few I've tried), and I also have Photoshop Elements 9 which meet all my requirements as well. Perhaps if I was selling my images, then RAW would be more of a requirement, but as the images are just for me, family and friends to enjoy, JPEG's do just fine and can't complain when they've been printed out either.

 

[Phil V]

But secondly, it's not a case of trying to post process a JPEG in the same way as a Raw. That would be pointless. The big advantage of shooting JPEG is that you don't have to go anywhere near a computer at all - it's a small and manageable file and good to go SOOC.

That is a huge benefit, and one that many pros use all the time. The fact that you can also tweak it a bit later is just a nice bonus

I can't see any disagreement here other than we're apparently in separate 'camps' on this issue.
We both agree that you can't do exactly the same processing to a JPEG as a RAW, and that for many people JPEGs are the best way forward.

Exactly, I'm not suggesting that most of the time JPEG isn't 'good enough'. But this is the fundamental point here and where we need to be intelligent. There is no right or wrong, there isn't even a definitive 100% correct process to follow. Therefore it's subjective and all we have is 'good enough'.

Like I said in my first post here, if you're shooting hundreds of portraits in uniform lighting, then you'd be foolish not to set all your parameters in camera to make your workflow simple. JPEG will be great for this - for a lot of shooters they won't even need full size JPEGS because they know their output size can be handled by a smaller JPEG.

Many pro photographers shoot JPEG with all of their processing set within camera to achieve their objectives. That minimises the amount of work they need to do, therefore maximising profitability. If that makes them unprofessional, then professional doesn't mean what I thought it did.

For new shooters I'd recommend JPEG, because there are enough variables involved getting a competent shot out of the camera without the added ability to completely wreck it during RAW conversion.

 

[u8myufo]

The Op`s opening thread.

1.The big question.
2. Shoot jpeg or in raw.
3. I am new to dslr photography.
4. I and am interested in which way to go.
5. It seems to me raw is a lot of hasel for only a little more benefit.
6. Albeit better.
7. But is it worth it
8. What dose everyone else think?

Advising the Op to use one or the other would never suffice as an answer imo It has probably made him more confused than ever, but with threads like this unless people have a basic understanding then the only option is to go out there and try both.

 

[modchild]

I shoot in Jpeg's as I don't do PP. If I don't get it right first time I'll shoot it again. If it's a majorly important event then I'll shoot it in RAW so if I do make a cock-up I can alter it in PP as best I can. Though as I've only ever messed about with PS and PSE I really can't claim to be very good at PP.

 

[Oggy]

You don't lose pixels, not with a highest quality JPEG, eg fine or super-fine or whatever different manufacturers call it. Sure you do if you start crunching them down to really tiny files for web output or whatever.

The reduction in file size is obtained by locking clusters of common tones/pixels together mathematically. But they're all still there, you just can't separate them out individually and can only process/reprocess them in clusters.

Edit: you lose very subtle tonal range, not sharpness. In fact you gain sharpness, as that is applied in the JPEG process.

Riiiiight.

 

[BarryG]

The best advice you can take is shoot both and save the RAWs.

There are lots of pictures I have revisited since realising RAW is the way forward and wished Ihad a RAW.

Whether you choose RAW now or later, if you are serious about photography, you will at some point.

 

[ernesto]

Exactly, why not just do both. Memory is cheap these days and to save space on hard drive delete the RAWs if not required at later stage.

Although a good reason not to do this is if you have a camera as slow as mine where a RAW can take over 10 seconds to write!!

 

[Marcus Geezer]

Why not shoot jpg and open them in your raw editor? Voila best of both worlds! ;-)

 

[Gazbag]

As a beginner in Digital Photography and a very limited understanding of the differences between Jpeg and RAW, I am so glad I read this thread.....