- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Do you use camera raw?
and the site receives a small commission
JPEG or RAW?
- Thread starter CuppaTia
- Start date
- Status
Do you use camera raw?
- Messages
- 15,457
- Name
- Jeff
- Edit My Images
- No
i just cannot believe a college lecturer stating this as fact that will be absorbed by some if not all of there students ,as someone else said it really shows there lack of knowledge of the digital storm that has taken place recently .
yes you should shoot in raw and learn how to process it properly ,once achieved you can then shoot jpegs as a comparison .
but you will return to raw for certain.
how can you remove c/a in a jpeg ,remove noise in a jpeg ,layer a background and de-noise it then sharpen your subject ,none of this can be done properly if at all in j-peg .
jpeg is fine for compacts and phones thats it
yes you should shoot in raw and learn how to process it properly ,once achieved you can then shoot jpegs as a comparison .
but you will return to raw for certain.
how can you remove c/a in a jpeg ,remove noise in a jpeg ,layer a background and de-noise it then sharpen your subject ,none of this can be done properly if at all in j-peg .
jpeg is fine for compacts and phones thats it
How do you process them? Some applications apply sharpening by default.
- Messages
- 1,096
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- No
i just cannot believe a college lecturer stating this as fact that will be absorbed by some if not all of there students ,as someone else said it really shows there lack of knowledge of the digital storm that has taken place recently . yes you should shoot in raw and learn how to process it properly ,once achieved you can then shoot jpegs as a comparison . but you will return to raw for certain. how can you remove c/a in a jpeg ,remove noise in a jpeg ,layer a background and de-noise it then sharpen your subject ,none of this can be done properly if at all in j-peg . jpeg is fine for compacts and phones thats it
Waclos.
Most of the images I've sold have been JPEG.
I do shoot in raw but only display them as a JPEG
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
jpeg is fine for compacts and phones thats it
You kind of had point, and then you go and get stupidly elitist.
That's as bad, if not worse, than the reported throwaway comment by the lecturer. I say "reported', because students don't always hear exactly what's said.
- Messages
- 1,096
- Name
- paul
- Edit My Images
- No
spot on
- Messages
- 5,001
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I use lightroom like most people, but I view them in acdsee. Either way it doesn't matter, because the images are super sharp right out of the camera. I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Both of those programs, will by default, apply a small amount of sharpening to raw files.
- Messages
- 9,060
- Name
- Rob Telford
- Edit My Images
- No
25%, radius 1.0 pixels in the case of Lightroom.
I got my first DSLR in early 2004, a Canon 300D, and started out shooting RAW straight away.
At the time I was regularly taking photos at a VW car enthusiasts' meeting that would often take place after dark under high pressure sodium lighting. The 300D could not adjust its WB to correct white point for the conditions (about 2000K). Using a blue filter helped a bit, but extended the exposure times enormously and didn't really fix it properly.
With the 2003 process, Adobe Camera RAW allowed me to get to the right WB and was generally much better for most colours, but it had an unfortunate side effect of turning all the reds quite pink, which I'd then have to adjust in Photoshop. The earlier versions of Canon DPP had similar problems with extreme WB.
Fast forward a few years and the 2012 process in Lightroom does a much better job of handling colour and I've been able to go back to my RAW files and re-process those photos (with some other bonus tweaks such as corrections of chromatic aberration and lens distortion, though those probably could also have been applied to a JPEG with similar results).
If I'd have shot JPEG only, I'd have been stuck with what in-camera processing was available to me with the 300D. Using RAW has allowed me to take advantage of improvements in technology and my own processing skills to revisit and improve photos that I took nearly 10 years ago. In film terms, I like to keep my negatives as I may get a better enlarger and paper to print on.
Just pointing out that RAW files are processed before you can see them, whether you apply the processing or not.
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
You're seeing the default in-camera setting applied to the raw by Lightroom or acdsee. Unless you're seeing lots of 1s and 0s, you're not actually viewing the raw file.
By the way, you never did respond on your thread in TP&P about the MD 50/1.2 you're wanting to fit to your Canon body. Have you got the adapter yet?
i just cannot believe a college lecturer stating this as fact that will be absorbed by some if not all of there students ,as someone else said it really shows there lack of knowledge of the digital storm that has taken place recently .
yes you should shoot in raw and learn how to process it properly ,once achieved you can then shoot jpegs as a comparison .
but you will return to raw for certain.
how can you remove c/a in a jpeg ,remove noise in a jpeg ,layer a background and de-noise it then sharpen your subject ,none of this can be done properly if at all in j-peg .
jpeg is fine for compacts and phones thats it
Raw offers greater flexibility in post processing, and I generally use it, but I also know a few professionals (wedding and portrait photographers, and one PJ) who routinely shoot JPEG - by choice - and produce exceptional work. I've discussed this with them a few times and they acknowledge raw's benefits, but simply don't find it necessary as a rule.
I usually advise people to explore raw, and getting to know it, but there's no hard and fast rule about this. They're your photographs, use whatever you prefer if it gives you the results you're looking for.
Your comment about JPEG only being suitable for compacts and phone cameras is facile.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
If you brought a car you wouldnt only drive in 1st gear. So why not use a camera to its full potential?
People shooting jpeg 90% of the time still edit to some extent so the reasoning is pointless unless you have to send the photos instantly
People shooting jpeg 90% of the time still edit to some extent so the reasoning is pointless unless you have to send the photos instantly
Except it's not quite the same is it? A hi-res, well exposed JPG will probably contain substantively the same information as a RAW - yes something has been discarded, but the probability that the discarded information will be useful is limited.
So perhaps it the same as not using the seat warmers.
What raw gives me, a somewhat hit and miss photographer, still learning, is more latitude to fix things when they go wrong - and they do, often
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
Raw is not better than jpg, it's just different. They are both tools and sometimes one will be more appropriate for the situation. Deal with it, get on with it. Stop ****ing on other people's choices.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Hahaha you dropped you dummy or just having a bad day :s how it it not better? Gives you far more detail and creative options? More colours and the ability to print bigger?
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Except it's not quite the same is it? A hi-res, well exposed JPG will probably contain substantively the same information as a RAW - yes something has been discarded, but the probability that the discarded information will be useful is limited.
So perhaps it the same as not using the seat warmers.
What raw gives me, a somewhat hit and miss photographer, still learning, is more latitude to fix things when they go wrong - and they do, often
Im sorry I have to disagree. I shoot landscapes and alot of the time a well exposed shot will still have shadows you may wish to lighten. Colours you wish to bring out as the cameras dynamic range cant expose them the same. The best tog in the world wouldnt be able to capture these scenes in jpeg.
There is a reason that most pros shoot raw
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
What is the top speed of this car? How often do you reach that speed?
Haha did I say top speed? Mm no I said 1st gear. So im answer to what should have been you question would be I get into 2nd as I pull off my drive.
We are talking about potential though, no?
- Messages
- 9,818
- Edit My Images
- No
These aren't advantages to everyone. Having to process the raw can be a significant disadvantage. Look past the end of your own dummy and start to realise that what's an advantage to you may not be an advantage to everyone.
And the print size? the raw has the same pixel dimensions as the jpg. So where you get that one from I have no idea.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Haha brilliant. So you dont do any processing at all? Most.. not all but most people pp and shoot raw. Id say the lost info is more of a disadvantage than shooting raw and spending 5mins editing a good shot to make it great. And you cant blow up a shot which has lost info and colours. You also have colour banding issues and WB issues.
Whats the upsides to jpeg then?
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
Sorry I see what your trying to do but not overly well because potential would be full fps also. Shoot jpeg its your call. Personally I choose to habe all the info in a shot for me to decide how its processed and not a bloke working for nikon. Jpeg is 1st gear for me its limiting the info and creativity of the shot taken
Yep, it all hinges on the amount of processing required - if you feel you need the full dynamic range, RAW it is.
- Messages
- 25,385
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd be prepared to bet the opposite
: (how many people with cameras do you know?)Most people with cameras capable of shooting Raw are shooting JPEG, don't visit photography forums and could tell you how many megapixels their camera has but couldn't describe the inverse square law or have any clue what 'Depth of Field' really means.
They shoot pictures, download them to their PC, select the ones thay want to save or print and that's about as much 'processing' as they need to understand. I'm not defending their point of view - but it's perfectly valid for them.
IMVHO.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
I'd be prepared to bet the opposite
Most people with cameras capable of shooting Raw are shooting JPEG, don't visit photography forums and could tell you how many megapixels their camera has but couldn't describe the inverse square law or have any clue what 'Depth of Field' really means.
They shoot pictures, download them to their PC, select the ones thay want to save or print and that's about as much 'processing' as they need to understand. I'm not defending their point of view - but it's perfectly valid for them.
IMVHO.
I know alot of people with dslrs and all but one shoots raw. And its because that guy is afraid of pp. If you take photography seriously them pp is a big part of it. If thats cropping and sharpening for print it doesnt matter. I doubt jpeg is as popular with serious photographers as you think
You going to tell me that most pros shot jpeg also?
- Messages
- 2,775
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Lots of pros shoot jpeg, yes.
Most people, like yourself will choose to shoot RAW because they've heard someone say they should. When it boils down to it (having looked at your shots), you'd be just as well off shooting jpeg.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
You think? I shoot raw because having tried both raw gives me more flexibility to be creative. And how would I be just as well off shooting jpeg? In your opinion what do you think warrents raw then?
Im presuming you shoot jpeg?
Last edited:
The fact is you can shoot in either or indeed both. The trick here is not falling into the trap of what works well for you, will work well for everyone else, thus stating that someone else's approach is 'worse'.
This thread started with a simple question to which an answer was:
but as usual, the thread is they hijacked by the "my way is the right way" brigade and we end up with these highly opinionated statements based on arbitrary statistics (83.245% of which are made up by the way).
I'd love to hear back from the OP with what worked for her.
This thread started with a simple question to which an answer was:
but as usual, the thread is they hijacked by the "my way is the right way" brigade and we end up with these highly opinionated statements based on arbitrary statistics (83.245% of which are made up by the way).
I'd love to hear back from the OP with what worked for her.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 2,775
- Name
- Ben
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Depends on the job. For events I'll usually shoot jpeg as it's quicker. For weddings I'll shoot RAW as I have a particular style which requires more editing to get to a level I'm happy with - it's not something I can do in camera.
You'd be just as well off because the editing you've applied to most of your shots I've seen is extremely basic (assuming you got the exposure right in camera, but that's just as important when shooting RAW anyway). Therefore shooting jpeg will not be noticeably destructive.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
No disrespect mate but I dont see how you can say that having not been there or seen the raws or scene im shooting. Ive also seen your work and though I like it I dare say it needs a little more punch. The b and w looks a little flat. Now im not getting personal but I havent seen what youve done to the shots so I could as easily say you can shoot jpeg. Nothing in the shots on your site shows and great level of editing. Anyways ive work to do.. gota go sort some raw files haha so happy arguing everyone.
- Messages
- 25,385
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I'm going to tell you I know lots of people who use decent cameras who don't hang around the internet to find out what they 'should' be doing.
The marketing men at Canon know them well, that's why we're stuck with modes on our cameras that are no use whatsoever to people who'd call themselves 'photographers'.
Do any of your friends use sports mode? Landscape mode? Direct print? Picture styles?
If most camera owners were like your mates,the millions of consumer camera owners wouldn't have those modes available. But they exist because not everyone is a 'photographer'.
You appear to have a very narrow view of what photography is and who photographers are. What does a professional photographer do?why is raw the best option? Bear in mind they're running a business and time is money.
I shoot Raw, for me it balances in that direction. But if I shot schools? News? Studio portraits? Or don't those count as Pro's?
What if I carried a colorimeter and hand held meter? If I spent 1 minute per location getting a light level and temperature, and had a custom picture style that I was happy to deliver, what benefit would my customers gain from me shooting Raw? I'd benefit financially by cutting my processing time, I could pass on the savings?
There's more than one measure of 'better' and it's not necessarily the measure you think it is; or me either. We can only say what's best for us, not 'what's best'.
- Messages
- 2,531
- Name
- Paul
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Really? Most of my shots taken on digital have nothing whatsoever done to them in post-processing beyond possibly a slight crop to tidy it up, maybe a little colour correction and perhaps a slight brightness/contrast adjustment. To say PP is a big part of it if you take photography seriously is absolutely false. It can be, but doesn't have to be.
I shoot RAW because storage is cheap and I may as well record as much information as I can, but when I've had situations like running low on card space and had to switch to JPEG I've done so without even batting an eyelid.
- Messages
- 1,013
- Name
- Phill
- Edit My Images
- No
robhooley167
Sir, my fingers are stuck together
- Messages
- 4,147
- Name
- Rob
- Edit My Images
- Yes
That is very little...
- Messages
- 6,918
- Edit My Images
- Yes
This is not aimed at PMN specifically, but if this is what the average person does, shooting in RAW adds no more work in processing. :shrug: But you get the benefit of more information to edit with, and that includes colour depth and dynamic range.
Just pointing that out for all those who think that there is a lot more work involved with processing RAW files.
No, it doesn't have to be, but just like the film shooters of years past, (and present
) the person who had the darkroom would normally get better pics than the person who just took their pics into the shop and got the prints back. :shrug: And just like back then, some people chose a darkroom, and some, most didn't. :shrug:Those that wanted a darkroom edit images but were unable to because of time, space and/or cost are now able to because it is much easier, cheaper and quicker to edit your own pictures than it ever was in the past, if you want to.
Just like some people couldn't be bothered then, there will be those that can't be bothered now. Will they still get good pictures? Maybe. Will they get the best pictures they can? The vast majority of times not, imho, unless it is a very controlled situation. :shrug:I would hope that those that shoot Jpegs take the time to optimise the settings in camera to get the best Jpeg they can. Setting an appropriate WB and Picture Style/Control so as to minimise the need for editing whenever possible.
Hi all, I'm interested in the ability to print bigger with pictures taken in RAW. I have a Canon EOS 600D, could someone tell me how much difference it would make to enlarging my pictures if I used RAW as opposed to JPEG?
Many thanks.
- Status