JPEG or RAW?

Status
Not open for further replies.
redhed17 said:
Just like some people couldn't be bothered then, there will be those that can't be bothered now.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to come down to being bothered? If I feel I need to process an image for it to convey what I want then I will, I just aim to not have to. It has nothing whatsoever to do with laziness or "being bothered". :shrug:

redhed17 said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's good basic technique to do that anyway regardless of whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW!
 
Last edited:
Yorkieand said:
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.
Click to expand...

none whatsoever - the number of megapixels recorded doesn't increase just because you are shooting Raw - I've printed an A0 canvas from a jpeg fine shot on a 40D so an 18MP jpeg out of a 650D will be fine for any size you might reasonably want to print

(that's not to say Raw might not be better for other reasons such as greater control in PP)
 
Yorkieand said:
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.
Click to expand...

The theory would be (and it is largely theoretical / academic). That you're more likely to notice colour banding in a large image and that is more likely to happen with the lower colour depth of a JPEG.:shrug:

However I don't know anyone who has suffered in a real world situation from a properly exposed file. In fact the same can be said for most 'crap pictures' allegedly due to gear, it's almost always down to user error.
 
Alastair said:
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.
Click to expand...

I see, I see.

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?
Click to expand...

No, but it should be here like tomorrow.
 
Yorkieand said:
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.
Click to expand...

Very little I'd say...
 
PMN said:
Why does it have to come down to being bothered? If I feel I feel I need to process an image for it to convey what I want then I will, I just aim to not have to. It has nothing whatsoever to do with laziness or "being bothered". :shrug:
Click to expand...

The point I was trying to make that there were people who never thought of using a darkroom in the past, and there are people who will never consider editing images now. I can see how it could have been read/taken the way you did. The vast majority of images are not edited. Although a lot now have effects put onto them, a la instagram.


PMN said:
It's good basic technique to do that anyway regardless of whether you're shooting JPEG or RAW!
Click to expand...
I agree, it should always be the aim to get best picture you can in camera.

While WB is still important, the Picture Style/Control is not really useful shooting RAW for the final image unless you're using the manufacturers RAW processing software, which will apply the Picture Style/Control, and all the in camera settings, to the RAW file when opened. 3rd party software probably doesn't apply the in camera setting correctly.

I use a Neutral Picture Control to have the Histogram slightly more accurate on the camera. It may not be the Picture Control I'd use if I was shooting Jpegs, as I'd want more colourful pictures out of the camera.
 
It is down to using the right tool for the job, just like lens choice, or camera choice.

When shooting landscapes I shoot in raw, for two reasons, firstly I want to maximise the quality I can get from the shot when I edit it and secondly my camera doesn't shoot jpegs.

When I shoot events I shoot in raw and small jpeg, the jpeg is fired straight off to the computer to be able to print on site, on a 6x4 in a strut mount it matters not what format it was shot in. I keep the raw in case anyone wants a big print with lots of editing done.

When I shoot images of cars for my company website I shoot jpeg only, they're a record shot to show what the car looks like, which wheels it has, which aerokit etc. There is no point, for that application, in shooting raw.

Just as I wouldn't use a Big Stopper for a portrait shoot, or an ultrawide angle lens for a motorsport shoot, I choose raw or jpeg according to the job.
 
Furtim said:
A hi-res, well exposed JPG will probably contain substantively the same information as a RAW
Click to expand...


No, absolutely not, this is not about exposure. It might, depending on the scene you shoot but mostly, no, the RAW will more often than not contain a far closer representation of the scene you shot than the jpeg can. Shooting in 8 bits will, mostly, clip highlights or shadows, you're chucking away useful information.

I've never understood this idea that it's somehow wrong to post process the images you shoot. It's a huge step backwards in photography, post manipulation was, and still is common when using film for almost identical reasons that you post digital. Film is capable of resolving somewhere around 15,16 EVs of luminance. A modern, high end DSLR will resolve 12, maybe 13 at a pinch but in both cases often less than the luminance range of the scene shot and somehow you have to deal with that. The challenges when printing analog neg always were about remapping the scene you shot into your display space (7 EVs or thereabouts print ), pulling the shadows up and the highlights down; these issues are the same in digital, arguably more so. No self respecting photographer wouldn't burn or dodge his print in a darkroom, you simply always did.

So if it's acceptable for film, why take the step backward when using digital? Why would you do that?

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that you shouldn't post process a photograph. Leaving aside the judgemental tone of that statement for a moment ... why wouldn't you, what difference does it make to your picture whether you expose it an extra stop or two in camera or whether you push the RAW or the film a bit afterwards; absolutely nothing. In the final analysis the only thing that matters is the picture on the wall. How you got there is completely irrelevant.
 
kimaldis said:
what difference does it make to your picture whether you expose it an extra stop or two in camera or whether you push the RAW, the jpeg, or the film a bit afterwards; absolutely nothing. In the final analysis the only thing that matters is the picture on the wall. How you got there is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

fixed that for you

your other point above is cobblers i'm afraiid a well exposed jpeg won't clip the tones either - Raw certainly allows more recovery of a shot if the exposure is cocked up, but its simply incorrect to say that a jpeg will always clip highlights or shadows
 
big soft moose said:
your other point above is cobblers i'm afraiid a well exposed jpeg won't clip the tones either -
Click to expand...

I'm afraid it does. If a scene's dynamic range is beyond 8 EVs then an 8 bit capture will have to clip highlights, shadows or both. There is no way it can resolve the full range of the scene, it has to clip.
 
Last edited:
kimaldis said:
If you try and push the jpeg you'll run into trouble before you know it.
Click to expand...

but you can edit a jpeg in photoshop should you need to recover shadow detail (its not as easy as raw , and its distinctly prefferable regardless of format to get the exposure right in camera)

At the end of the day your latter point summed it up - the only thing that matters is the finished image, it makes no odds whether it started out as a transparency, a print, a jpeg, or a raw.
 
big soft moose said:
but you can edit a jpeg in photoshop should you need to recover shadow detail (its not as easy as raw , and its distinctly prefferable regardless of format to get the exposure right in camera)

At the end of the day your latter point summed it up - the only thing that matters is the finished image, it makes no odds whether it started out as a transparency, a print, a jpeg, or a raw.
Click to expand...

You are correct the final image is that counts but you can have a perfectly exposed image with dark shadow areas and jpeg cant recover those like raw can. Thats the reason to urmse raw not to cover mistakes
 
big soft moose said:
but you can edit a jpeg in photoshop should you need to recover shadow detail (its not as easy as raw)
Click to expand...

No, you can't, it's not there, what you see, or rather what you don't see, is what you get. You can, if you like, pull up some detail from the low end bits but you will, without any doubt, get noise and banding if you push it to any useful degree.

It is possible to mess with contrast to some degree away from the end regions but even then you have to be careful.

and its distinctly prefferable regardless of format to get the exposure right in camera
Click to expand...



Why?

the only thing that matters is the finished image, it makes no odds whether it started out as a transparency, a print, a jpeg, or a raw
Click to expand...

or what you did to it.

:)
 
kimaldis said:
Why?
Click to expand...

Because people are talking about correcting screwed up images when trying to ensure your exposure is correct in the first place can often mean you don't have to correct at all, or at least not as much. Surely it's better to at least try avoid problems than correct them?

P.S. Off topic but just browsed your Brixton images. Pure class.
 
Last edited:
PMN said:
Because people are talking about correcting screwed up images when trying to ensure your exposure is correct in the first place can often mean you don't have to correct at all, or at least not as much. Surely it's better to at least try avoid problems than correct them?
Click to expand...

I don't see it as a problem, I see it as adjustment that's just a part of the process.

The point I was trying to make was why this obsession with bang on exposure in camera when it's often just as easy, just as quick to adjust in post and when it makes absolutely no difference to the finished product. Just get it right, it doesn't matter where or how.


P.S. Off topic but just browsed your Brixton images. Pure class.
Click to expand...

cheers. :)
 
kimaldis said:
No, absolutely not, this is not about exposure. It might, depending on the scene you shoot but mostly, no, the RAW will more often than not contain a far closer representation of the scene you shot than the jpeg can. Shooting in 8 bits will, mostly, clip highlights or shadows, you're chucking away useful information.

I've never understood this idea that it's somehow wrong to post process the images you shoot. It's a huge step backwards in photography, post manipulation was, and still is common when using film for almost identical reasons that you post digital. Film is capable of resolving somewhere around 15,16 EVs of luminance. A modern, high end DSLR will resolve 12, maybe 13 at a pinch but in both cases often less than the luminance range of the scene shot and somehow you have to deal with that. The challenges when printing analog neg always were about remapping the scene you shot into your display space (7 EVs or thereabouts print ), pulling the shadows up and the highlights down; these issues are the same in digital, arguably more so. No self respecting photographer wouldn't burn or dodge his print in a darkroom, you simply always did.

So if it's acceptable for film, why take the step backward when using digital? Why would you do that?

Someone mentioned earlier in this thread that you shouldn't post process a photograph. Leaving aside the judgemental tone of that statement for a moment ... why wouldn't you, what difference does it make to your picture whether you expose it an extra stop or two in camera or whether you push the RAW or the film a bit afterwards; absolutely nothing. In the final analysis the only thing that matters is the picture on the wall. How you got there is completely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I see no one suggesting that shooting in RAW format does not give you more options. It does.

The point being that while shooting direct to jpeg gives you fewer options in post processing, that's irrelevant if you (a) don't do post processing, or only do so in a very limited way (which is a lot of people!), or (b) you need the size, speed, immediacy benefits a jpeg file will give you over and above a RAW, or (c) the output is good enough.

RAW is not the only way to shoot, jpeg works just fine for an awful lot of people - you have both at your disposal, choose what is right for you for a given shot.
 
kimaldis said:
.. it's often just as easy, just as quick to adjust in post and when it makes absolutely no difference to the finished product. Just get it right, it doesn't matter where or how.
Click to expand...
If you feel a need to recover stuff (and yes sometimes it may be necessary) - first, some things may be beyond recovery and second, recovery has a tendency to degrade. There is often a machine-gun mentality encouraged by the use of even higher-end digital cameras in some hands that equates to the sloppy use of a fully auto film camera. There is actually no substitute for discipline in getting the best result, however humble.
 
droj said:
If you feel a need to recover stuff (and yes sometimes it may be necessary) - first, some things may be beyond recovery and second, recovery has a tendency to degrade. There is often a machine-gun mentality encouraged by the use of even higher-end digital cameras in some hands that equates to the sloppy use of a fully auto film camera. There is actually no substitute for discipline in getting the best result, however humble.
Click to expand...

Im correct in saying that you expose to the right? Thus you get more detail which is visible by bigger files? Thw whole point of which is that you correct this in pp (as long as you havent blown any highlights) this gives cleaner images than lightening a dark shot.

Personally I shoot raw because I want the creativity and full info. The ability to decide how dark the shadows are. And not kick myself because a high contrast shot was lost by shooting jpeg.

It really os each to there own but anyone putting a jpeg in pp may as well do so with a raw and dare I say it get a better end result.

Yes jpeg is enough for some people and thats fine. Happy shooting jpeg guys. But me? I only shoot raw , I dnt have time constraints, in not scared of cs and I enjoy controlling an image. And nothing said here will change my mind on that.

For ME raw is better and the ONLY way to shoot
 
A few people have said in the past, part jokingly, (paraphrasing) ...."I'm not good enough to shoot in jpeg only!"

Maybe college are trying to get the students to fully understand their settings first?
 
For general shots I do prefer Jpeg fine but if I wanted to get the best out of a photo then Raw is the way to go. Of course if undecided a lot of cameras allow shooting in both at the same time. ie RAW= Jpeg basic to fine, that way you have covered both but obviously a memory card gets used up quicker. However cameras now on the market have twin memory card slots such as the Nikon D800 for example,where it can record RAW on one card and Jpeg on the other. To my way of thinking this is the best option, being able to quickly go through the photos in Jpeg and selecting the ones you want to work on with the Raw settings.


Simples:)
 
Last edited:
I do like to get things right in the camera,and most of the stuff i shoot theses days, JPEG is fine for me its whatever suit you and as most cameras will let you shoot both together,so if your unsure shoot both.

:)
 
barratt1988 said:
Haha brilliant. Someone else who thinks you aspire to shoot jpeg. You can keep your 8bit formats thanks ill use a real format
Click to expand...

Nope. I don't aspire to use Jpegs - they are just another tool used to produce an image.

Last week the stuff I was shooting couldn't be achieved in RAW and was being sold to customers within 15 minutes of being taken.

I use what I need to do the job, not to stroke my ego.
 
DemiLion said:
Nope. I don't aspire to use Jpegs - they are just another tool used to produce an image.

Last week the stuff I was shooting couldn't be achieved in RAW and was being sold to customers within 15 minutes of being taken.

I use what I need to do the job, not to stroke my ego.
Click to expand...

Haha do you know what your saying? You say you dont aspire to shoot raw and then you say if I keep practicing I wont need raw :s

I wont rise to daft comments thanks. Shoot what you wish and good luck to you
 
barratt1988 said:
Haha do you know what your saying? You say you dont aspire to shoot raw and then you say if I keep practicing I wont need raw :s

I wont rise to daft comments thanks. Shoot what you wish and good luck to you
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I'm saying use the correct tool for the job. There are advantages to both Jpeg and RAW, the trick is to know when to use them and not discount one or the other.
 
DemiLion said:
That's not what I said. I'm saying use the correct tool for the job. There are advantages to both Jpeg and RAW, the trick is to know when to use them and not discount one or the other.
Click to expand...

How about u let me worry about what I pick :) maybe I only shoot raw as I always have time to... people on here need to fact facts that u get more detail and info from raw. If u have the time to pp its better. If u dnt then use raw. Id say this tgreads comin to a close
 
barratt1988 said:
How about u let me worry about what I pick :) maybe I only shoot raw as I always have time to... people on here need to fact facts that u get more detail and info from raw. If u have the time to pp its better. If u dnt then use raw. Id say this tgreads comin to a close
Click to expand...

Of course you get more detail from a RAW file, that's blindingly obvious, but there are times when shooting in RAW just doesn't work and that's what you don't seem able to grasp.

I'd say that 75% of what I shoot is in RAW but when I need to use Jpeg, I do.

That's the huge difference between professional and amateur photography. People that make money from this game tend to view file format as a tool that is used to suit the situation, not as a weapon in a willie waving competition!

The thing that I was suggesting above is this:

By all means use RAW whenever possible, but make sure that you are good enough to use Jpeg when you have to.
 
DemiLion said:
Of course you get more detail from a RAW file, that's blindingly obvious, but there are times when shooting in RAW just doesn't work and that's what you don't seem able to grasp.

I'd say that 75% of what I shoot is in RAW but when I need to use Jpeg, I do.

That's the huge difference between professional and amateur photography. People that make money from this game tend to view file format as a tool that is used to suit the situation, not as a weapon in a willie waving competition!

The thing that I was suggesting above is this:

By all means use RAW whenever possible, but make sure that you are good enough to use Jpeg when you have to.
Click to expand...

Do you choose not to actually read what I type? I grasp when to use jpeg! I just dont NEED to use it.

Can you grasp that? if I need to shoot jpeg I would... BUT I DONT NEED TO WITH WHAT I SHOOT.

Christ this is hard work im bailing out
 
barratt1988 said:
Do you choose not to actually read what I type? I grasp when to use jpeg! I just dont NEED to use it.

Can you grasp that? if I need to shoot jpeg I would... BUT I DONT NEED TO WITH WHAT I SHOOT.

Christ this is hard work im bailing out
Click to expand...

I think you're missing the point. The thread was not about what *you* shoot, rather it stemmed from a question from the OP asking what the options where.

Some people gave a balanced view of what format could work and when, and suggested either could be suitable depending on a number of factors.

Some people on the other hand roared raw, Raw, RAW and questioned the sanity of anyone who might shoot jpeg. It really isn't a thread about you.
 
Jpeg or raw i think is just a personal choice of how anyone wants to shoot.(y)
 
You know what, jpgs or raw, all are tools for certain jobs, neither is THE right one ALL the time, it really is THAT simple and this thread seems to have pretty much covered that as well as those that insist only one of them right.

So, with that in mind, please do mind the doors
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top