Raw and jpeg

BintyMcFrazzles said:
I agree. I've been photographing for three years now, and always used jpeg, as I wanted to get to grips with the camera, settings and basic editing. When I first started, if i'd used RAW, I would have over-complicated things for myself. I got plenty of really good shots, some bad, some okay, some great! (IMO). I've recently started using RAW and jpeg now, just to get used to using RAW. Yes, it uses a LOT of space up, but I've been saving the raw files externally, then deleting them off the card and my PC.
Is RAW better than jpeg? Well, I've not used it for long enough to make a informed opinion, but some of my best RAW photos so far, have had a extra something about them.
As Darren says, RAW does not a good photographer make! I've had s̶o̶m̶e̶ loads of terrible photos, and you can't polish a turd!

Just my opinion. :)
Click to expand...

Wouldnt you be gutted if you miss an amazing once in a life time shot because of jpeg. Something you couldnt prepare for
 
barratt1988 said:
Wouldnt you be gutted if you miss an amazing once in a life time shot because of jpeg. Something you couldnt prepare for
Click to expand...

If something's that screwed up then RAW wouldn't have helped. 14 or 16 bits rather than 8 can't fix everything.

I'd love to see how some people who place such emphasis on RAW being the difference between them getting a shot or losing it would get on shooting film.
 
PMN said:
If something's that screwed up then RAW wouldn't have helped. 14 or 16 bits rather than 8 can't fix everything.

I'd love to see how some people who place such emphasis on RAW being the difference between them getting a shot or losing it would get on shooting film.
Click to expand...

It doesnt have to be really screwed up. It just needs highlights and shadow that cant be recovered from a jpeg. personally I dont see the need for jpeg. id rather use my camera to its full capacity than limit it. Amd if this is goin to turn into a film conversation ill grab my coat
 
barratt1988 said:
Wouldnt you be gutted if you miss an amazing once in a life time shot because of jpeg. Something you couldnt prepare for
Click to expand...
But you either "get" the shot or you don't. I don't see RAW being relevant here. Yes, a great jpeg photo might become fantastic in RAW, but not always. A crap photo in jpeg will be a crap photo in RAW.

I do use RAW and jpeg now, but the point I was making was when I first started in photography, I am glad I concentrated on basic technique, such as SS and aperture, as well as basic editing. RAW would have tipped me over the edge! :D

PMN said:
If something's that screwed up then RAW wouldn't have helped. 14 or 16 bits rather than 8 can't fix everything.
Click to expand...


:agree:

 
barratt1988 said:
It doesnt have to be really screwed up. It just needs highlights and shadow that cant be recovered from a jpeg. personally I dont see the need for jpeg. id rather use my camera to its full capacity than limit it. Amd if this is goin to turn into a film conversation ill grab my coat
Click to expand...

I always shoot RAW, I agree it makes sense to shoot RAW but if your exposure is that far out that you *need* RAW to recover it then you need to work on your exposure.

Film is still a perfectly valid format and what I said was also perfectly valid. Maybe you should indeed grab your coat.
 
PMN said:
if your exposure is that far out that you *need* RAW to recover it then you need to work on your exposure... Maybe you should indeed grab your coat.
Click to expand...

Are you trying to help or patronise him?
 
I dont think there is any need to get dickish. And like I said if its a once in a lifetime grab shot. And good luck gettin a perfect exposure for a high contrast landscape shot. How do you meter for a shot with various areas of very bright highlights and dark shadows. Anyways im done this has been done to death and I cant abide rude know it alls
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
That might be true of rank amateurs, but certainly not for budding professionals.
Click to expand...
Well he did say "noobs" which is what I was responding to.
Anyway experienced people usually forget the amount of knowledge they actually have. Beginners have a daunting amount of things to grasp all at one time.

I'm happy with jpegs for my family shots. I want to post them online with the minimum of steps. Even though I shoot both jpeg and raw. Which I'd only turn to if the exposure was tricky.
 
ianp5a said:
Well he did say "noobs" which is what I was responding to.
Anyway experienced people usually forget the amount of knowledge they actually have. Beginners have a daunting amount of things to grasp all at one time.

I'm happy with jpegs for my family shots. I want to post them online with the minimum of steps. Even though I shoot both jpeg and raw. Which I'd only turn to if the exposure was tricky.
Click to expand...

Thinking over it, you're probably right. I'm always shocked how many people - even these days, struggle with the most basic PC problem, but I use to tinker with computers a lot. I think I felt the need to play down RAW because I read someone else suggest that it was above the abilities of a beginner, and it just shocked me a bit. I still consider myself a beginner, and probably will continue to do so. I also get fired up a bit by the magazines on the newsstands with their sensationalist claims on their glossy front pages like BE A PRO AND MASTER RAW! In my case, I was using RAW as I said, yonks ago on a cheap bridge camera - so I guess that's just the way that I have learned. I shot with an old mf prime on a Pentax K110D for a few years, in manual - but using the Pentax "green button" to set the shutter speed from the light meter. I'd make lots of poor exposures (but I loved that lens), so for me, shooting in RAW was my get out clause to allow me to bodge up my dodgy exposures.

I don't shoot much digital nowadays, but when I do, I'll more often just punch away in .jpeg.

Anyway, good news for even noobier beginners than myself - it is very simple, once you have time get around to it, but neither is it essential.
 
Last edited:
barratt1988 said:
Wouldnt you be gutted if you miss an amazing once in a life time shot because of jpeg. Something you couldnt prepare for
Click to expand...

You could just as easily miss it because your buffer was full of RAW shots... its a daft argument, you either get the shot or you don't file format doesnt come into it.

On the OP Raw vs jpeg is one of those hotly debated question in the photography world - but its also one of the silliest they are just tools, use the one that is right for the situation at hand. Arguiing the one is better than the other is like arguing that a ferrari is better than a landrover... on the M1 certainly , but you try towing a trailer full of logs across a feild with a ferrari ;)
 
One of the many reasons I shoot raw files is that I enjoy processing almost as much as shooting!
 
PMN said:
If something's that screwed up then RAW wouldn't have helped. 14 or 16 bits rather than 8 can't fix everything.

I'd love to see how some people who place such emphasis on RAW being the difference between them getting a shot or losing it would get on shooting film.
Click to expand...
This is correct - exposure discipline comes first. But thereafter, unless you're just taking casual snaps, it makes sense to maximise the control that you can exert over the final image.
 
droj said:
This is correct - exposure discipline comes first. But thereafter, unless you're just taking casual snaps, it makes sense to maximise the control that you can exert over the final image.
Click to expand...

Yep absolutely. As I say I always shoot RAW, I just think placing such reliance on that being a factor in you getting the shot or not is kind of promoting bad technique by saying 'it's fine, it can be fixed afterwards'. There have certainly been times where RAW has allowed me to pull more out of an image than I would otherwise have been able to do but I can't think of a single instance where it would have made the absolute difference between being able to use an image and it being useless.
 
I love how everyone has taken the attitude that is was stated the exposure doesnt matter. I cant see where this was written to never be the number one priority. But im pretty certain each and every peeson here has taken a shot forgetting they have exposure comp on from there last shot. If that shot where taken at -0.7 ev for example and that subject is now gone what would you rather have shot in? Jpeg or raw? They are both tools I agree and I would never rely on raw to save a s***ty picture but the fact is it allows me creative freedom and thus for more mistake leeway
 
barratt1988 said:
I love how everyone has taken the attitude that is was stated the exposure doesnt matter. I cant see where this was written to never be the number one priority. But im pretty certain each and every peeson here has taken a shot forgetting they have exposure comp on from there last shot. If that shot where taken at -0.7 ev for example and that subject is now gone what would you rather have shot in? Jpeg or raw? They are both tools I agree and I would never rely on raw to save a s***ty picture but the fact is it allows me creative freedom and thus for more mistake leeway
Click to expand...

No-one's asking you to justify your use of RAW. You might have missed it but most other people (including me) are also saying we shoot RAW.
 
PMN said:
No-one's asking you to justify your use of RAW. You might have missed it but most other people (including me) are also saying we shoot RAW.
Click to expand...

I dont have to justify anything and im not. I just dont like things I have stated bein taken out of context and thus people forming opinions on things that havent been said. And I do hope a new super format comes out soon. I cant wait for the discussion of RAW vs RAW 2.0 lol
 
There are also certain scenarios where shooting raw makes more sense. Landscape photography being one, especially with modern FF cameras where the amount of raw detail and dynamic range captured is phenomenal.
 
barratt1988 said:
I just dont like things I have stated bein taken out of context and thus people forming opinions on things that havent been said.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything was taken out of context. You said:

barratt1988 said:
Wouldnt you be gutted if you miss an amazing once in a life time shot because of jpeg. Something you couldnt prepare for
Click to expand...

What you seem to be saying there is you can rescue an image that's been shot RAW that would be utterly unusable had it been shot JPEG. I can't read it any other possible way. It's this idea I just don't understand, sure you can pull more detail out of a RAW file and correct white balance properly but missing the shot of a lifetime then blaming the camera being set to JPEG? The only things I can think that would make you genuinely missing a shot are things like not focussing correctly, having too slow a shutter speed so it's blurred, etc, none of which RAW will help one iota.

barratt1988 said:
I do hope a new super format comes out soon. I cant wait for the discussion of RAW vs RAW 2.0 lol
Click to expand...

What? You're shooting poxy RAW 1.0? Do you know how little information that captures?! :p
 
Last edited:
What about the cameras that allow different size RAWs?

Aren't they also throwing information away in terms of resolution?

And there also seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding here about 8 bit JPEGs and the 14 or 16 bits thrown around.

The "bits" the cameras refer to in their specification sheets are in fact the output from the A-D converters while the 8 bits referred to in JPEGs is the actual bit depth of a JPEG image.

Whether you are shooting RAW or JPEGs the output will always be 12 or 14 or 16 bits etc.

But his means that a RAW file is able to have much finer gradations of colour than JPEGs - 68.7 billion possible colours versus 16.7 million.

But in fact we can never see that many colours, being limited to approx 10 million so that really is a distinction without a difference as far as viewable colours are concerned.

The difference comes when you process the files.

RAW, having a possible 68 billion tonal gradations is far less susceptible to "Banding" a phenomena which can occur in smooth tones with a slight variation in the tones, for example clear skies.

In that case editing 8 bit JPEGs (especially extensive editing) can occasionally result in this "Banding" while 14 or 16 bit RAW files will not have it - at least not usually in the editing stages.

So if you shoot a lot of landscapes then shooting RAW may be better for you if you are planning on large prints, otherwise if you are happy with JPEGs then simply use them as thousands of professionals do every day.:D
.
 
In days gone by a very high percentage of photographs were taken by people with little if any photographic knowledge.
This was so what ever price camera they bought.That camera be it a Leica or box brownie varied with the depth of their pocket or their aspirations.

Almost all the photos were processed for them at the local chemist or shop.
To a large extent those people were the equivalent to the jpeg takers today.

However todays cameras at any price range give results far exceeding the expectations of those past snapshotters.
for these people the JPEG justifiably rules.

few if any of them will ever become or want to become photo geeks.
 
petersmart said:
The "bits" the cameras refer to in their specification sheets are in fact the output from the A-D converters while the 8 bits referred to in JPEGs is the actual bit depth of a JPEG image.

Whether you are shooting RAW or JPEGs the output will always be 12 or 14 or 16 bits etc.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. The JPEG format only supports 8bit per pixel (24bit) colour depth.. it's nothing to do with the camera, it's a limitation of the format. 256 levels per channel... that's it. Fact.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In days gone by a very high percentage of photographs were taken by people with little if any photographic knowledge.
Click to expand...
??
I suspect the percentage is similar right now. Do you think it is different now? Or which days gone by? (I think you're supposed to say "back in the day" these days.)
 
Last edited:
Of course it is not different...that is exactly what my post was saying.

days gone by can be from yesterday and back, depending on your perspective, and the length of your teeth.

That is why George Eastman aimed his market at those who clicked and they, Kodak, would do the rest.
That is exactly where the jpeg hits the spot.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Incorrect. The JPEG format only supports 8bit per pixel (24bit) colour depth.. it's nothing to do with the camera, it's a limitation of the format. 256 levels per channel... that's it. Fact.
Click to expand...

True.
Jpegs are always the result of a conversion, and compression, as I doubt that there is a camera today that shoots at 8 bits per pixel.
 
I think we could do with a stock answer for this question, as I feel we maybe overshot the scope of the initial question a smidgen.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Incorrect. The JPEG format only supports 8bit per pixel (24bit) colour depth.. it's nothing to do with the camera, it's a limitation of the format. 256 levels per channel... that's it. Fact.
Click to expand...
And it's also a fact that we are only capable of discerning about 10 million colours which even JPEGs beat by a wide margin.

And it's also a fact that, unless we intend to make large prints, almost every image on the Internet these days is a JPEG with its possible 16.7 million colours.

And, even there, as the video of the prints obtainable from the new 7D MkII showed, it's possible to produce brilliant prints from JPEGs.

Plus the added advantage of never having to wait for the makers of editing programs to update their product to include the latest RAW codecs.

JennyGW said:
You should learn to shoot RAW and how to get the best from a RAW file.
Click to expand...

Or, looking at it another way, learn how to get the best from JPEGs.:D
 
I shoot raw. I started with jpegs until I figured out what I was doing. Now I rarely go back. I enjoy the 'mixing' in post, it's where I can really get creative. And I have more to work with if I've got the raw file. I only shoot in JPEG now if... Erm, ... Nope. Don't do it anymore, not even holiday snaps. Had to think about that...
 
petersmart said:
And it's also a fact that we are only capable of discerning about 10 million colours which even JPEGs beat by a wide margin.

And it's also a fact that, unless we intend to make large prints, almost every image on the Internet these days is a JPEG with its possible 16.7 million colours.

And, even there, as the video of the prints obtainable from the new 7D MkII showed, it's possible to produce brilliant prints from JPEGs.

Plus the added advantage of never having to wait for the makers of editing programs to update their product to include the latest RAW codecs.



Or, looking at it another way, learn how to get the best from JPEGs.:D
Click to expand...

I don't really see what your point is here. I'm an advocate of getting things as right in camera as possible (I shoot a lot with a fully manual medium format film camera so getting it right at the start is kind of the aim). I still don't see the point in shooting JPEG and relying on the basic tone curve and compression in the camera when you can have more control over those things on a computer. I do very, very little post-processing on my images these days but I still wouldn't see the point in shooting JPEG.

Just to be clear, that's not to say I couldn't use the JPEG. For most things I could probably use the small JPEG from my 7D and 5D2 quite happily, but in principle with storage being so cheap I simply don't see the point in not making the most of what your camera can produce. You're talking about learning to get the best from JPEG, the best way to do that is make your own JPEG rather than let the camera make the decisions for you.
 
Last edited:
petersmart said:
And it's also a fact that we are only capable of discerning about 10 million colours which even JPEGs beat by a wide margin.

And it's also a fact that, unless we intend to make large prints, almost every image on the Internet these days is a JPEG with its possible 16.7 million colours.

>>>>>And, even there, as the video of the prints obtainable from the new 7D MkII showed, it's possible to produce brilliant prints from JPEGs.<<<<<

Plus the added advantage of never having to wait for the makers of editing programs to update their product to include the latest RAW codecs.



Or, looking at it another way, learn how to get the best from JPEGs.:D
Click to expand...
Of course you can get good prints from JPEGs, most prints are printed from JPEGs as you can't print the raw ;)
 
Emma - here's the most useful information in this thread.

If you click on somebody's user name, under their picture next to a post, then a box with loads of info and options will appear. One of those options is 'Ignore'. Click on that and you'll never have to read the moronic ramblings of your chosen idiot again.
 
I think Emma had departed long before the moronic ramblings started!
 
EMMA
you said in a previous post quote-I'm just starting newborn and childrens photography x. If you are just starting out as you say presumably for financial gain, don,t forget the legal side of it like third party insurance as just one example apart from contracts and the like.

Lets put you in a situation

You have been asked to photograph a child as it may well be a special time in the childs life. You turn up camera in hand take the photos and for some reason or other the memory card fails or the pictures arn,t up to what the client expects. No good panicking then it is too late the special time has past. Ask yourself what next, I get sued for preach of contract, verbal or written, and not insured. You will be in a little more than deep do dos.

So what I am trying to say is think about the whole aspect involved in photography and not just going with a camera and think everything is going to be ok.When I ran a business, now retired, the watchword was- cover your back against everything possible.
 
I shoot RAW the vast majority of the time, but I often read about professionals who shoot jpg, and a colleague who I sometimes shoot weddings for ALWAYS uses jpg.

I'd be really interested if the debate could be 'settled' by an image that wasn't grossly under or overexposed in the first place but was rendered significantly poorer due to being shot in jpg. I guess the ideal would be an image that was shot in jpg + RAW and the two shots optimally processed and the outputs showing a significant advantage in favour of RAW.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top