RAW still worth it?

JohnN

JohnN

Messages
6,293
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I've just been reading a magazine and they look at the old RAW vs JPEG question and while they skilfully avoid coming down on either side of the fence the images they show are quite interesting in that the sharpened jpegs look better to my eye than the sharpened raw.

So given the advances of recent technology is it still worth doing RAW?
 
Good question, I shoot RAW as it gives me an un-edited version of the original "as shot" Image - JPG is as Im sure you know edited to some degree in Camera and I dont want that- so yes its RAW for me, always


Les (y)
 
If you manipulate your images in post processing Raw is superior, that is the main subject between Jpeg and Raw. You can get really good quality images in both formats, but only Raw will allow to process the image several times while holding more information about the original image, without any loss of quality.
 
Thank you, reading further through the article it still has the edge, especially when recovering from the extremes of the range.
 
JohnN said:
Thank you, reading further through the article it still has the edge, especially when recovering from the extremes of the range.
Click to expand...

I trust you are talking about RAW when you say that :shrug:

Les (y)
 
No, it was jpeg.... erm no ;)
 
If the sharpened JPEGs look better than the sharpened Raw it would suggest that either they don't know what they are doing with Raw files or it was more than just sharpening applied. Probably the latter.

In theory you should be able to get the Raw file to look exactly like the JPEG (or actually better in case where you have had to adjust things more dramatically or recover areas)
 
In most case Raw gives you far more head room and options.
However Cameras like my X10 produce better Jpegs than you can achieve from raw.
This is not so much because of the one being better than the other , but because the Fuji X series sensors have such poor support from the makers of Raw conversion software like photoshop and silki.

Raw conversion can be done, as it is done very well in camera; and Fuji have given the necessary codex to the software producers. However the standard raw converters can not cope with the EXR sensor arrangement. and it seems they are unwilling to invest in fully incorporating the Fuji codex, in software designed for standard bayer arranged sensors.

For Pedants.... Pleas read all versions of Raw raw as RAW
 
Last edited:
sharpen the jpeg, save it and realise you don't like it, now try to recover it.
Convert to BW and override the original, now try to recover.
Think of the raw as a digital negative, which you then process to get something you like.
also the raw has more data per channel to play with when adjusting things, jpeg is an 8 bit lossy format.
 
For "Pedants"

While acronyms have historically been written in all-caps, British usage is moving towards only capitalizing the first letter in cases when these are pronounced as words (e.g., Unesco and Nato), reserving all-caps for initialisms (e.g., UK and USA).
Click to expand...


For normal American usage of RAW Raw raw... see all in use together here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format
 
vizzair said:
sharpen the jpeg, save it and realise you don't like it, now try to recover it.
Convert to BW and override the original, now try to recover.
Think of the raw as a digital negative, which you then process to get something you like.
also the raw has more data per channel to play with when adjusting things, jpeg is an 8 bit lossy format.
Click to expand...

Surely that's a totally different issue though? Over-writing the source file?
I manipulate images, raw & jpeg, but never over-write the original. To do do is just silly, stupid and asking for trouble.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
In most case Raw gives you far more head room and options.
However Cameras like my X10 produce better Jpegs than you can achieve from raw.
This is not so much because of the one being better than the other , but because the Fuji X series sensors have such poor support from the makers of Raw conversion software like photoshop and silki.
Click to expand...

I always shoot RAW with my Canon S95 and 5d Mk II but I'd pretty much given up doing so with the LX5. Maybe its due to the fact that I've spent so long working on Canon RAW files but I just couldn't get the pansonic files to look anywhere near as good as the in-camera jpeg (or how I wanted them).
 
JohnN said:
So given the advances of recent technology is it still worth doing RAW?
Click to expand...

RAW has its' place, JPEG has its' place, both are worth using when appropriate. Use whatever you feel happiest with and ignore the naysayers on both sides.
 
ernesto said:
If the sharpened JPEGs look better than the sharpened Raw it would suggest that either they don't know what they are doing with Raw files or it was more than just sharpening applied.
Click to expand...

Yup. It is always possible to take a raw file and produce from it a jpeg that is identical to the image that the camera would have produced. It is nearly always possible to take a raw file and produce from it a jpeg that is superior to the image that the camera would have produced.
 
hollis_f said:
Yup. It is always possible to take a raw file and produce from it a jpeg that is identical to the image that the camera would have produced. It is nearly always possible to take a raw file and produce from it a jpeg that is superior to the image that the camera would have produced.
Click to expand...

Not true.. see post #9

Where it is possible it is the thing to do.
 
Thing is, people always think jpeg is just a sharpened raw file with a bit of contrast, it isnt.

Jpeg in camera sorts out a lot of other issues for you at the same time, such as highlight recovery, lifting shadows, noise reduction, sharpening and contrast as mentioned, colour tone, black levels.
It can be quite time consuming to get the same look as you would have to play with most parts of a raw editor in order to acheive the same look. I used it on a modeling shoot RAW and Jpeg at the same time and the Jpegs had brought out very nice slight shadow recovery in the background and a really nice tone and look overall. In the end I went with the Jpegs and hardly had to do anything to them.
However,I would always say its a good idea to shoot RAW + jpeg rather than just Jpeg. Just for safety.
 
PDub said:
This shouldnt even be a question in my opinion. The benefits of RAW far out way the downsides in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I wonder why I bother to shoot 50% of my work in Jpegs then?

As Dod says, they both have a time and place/use.
 
mart77 said:
However,I would always say its a good idea to shoot RAW + jpeg rather than just Jpeg. Just for safety.
Click to expand...

If you've got a decent, recent, dSLR then there's very little point in doing so. Most raw files contain an embedded jpeg that can be easily extracted to give you an image identical to that which would have been produced by the camera.
 
hollis_f said:
If you've got a decent, recent, dSLR then there's very little point in doing so. Most raw files contain an embedded jpeg that can be easily extracted to give you an image identical to that which would have been produced by the camera.
Click to expand...

yeah but its lower res, the software that extracts it is not as good. ive checked and compared.
 
mart77 said:
yeah but its lower res, the software that extracts it is not as good. ive checked and compared.
Click to expand...

The resolution depends on the camera. For the 7D and the 50D the embedded jpeg is full resolution. That's why I said decent and recent.
 
hollis_f said:
The resolution depends on the camera. For the 7D and the 50D the embedded jpeg is full resolution. That's why I said decent and recent.
Click to expand...

ah i have 5d mark2 on that its large but low res.
 
mart77 said:
Thing is, people always think jpeg is just a sharpened raw file with a bit of contrast, it isnt.

Jpeg in camera sorts out a lot of other issues for you at the same time, such as highlight recovery, lifting shadows, noise reduction, sharpening and contrast as mentioned, colour tone, black levels.
It can be quite time consuming to get the same look as you would have to play with most parts of a raw editor in order to acheive the same look. I used it on a modeling shoot RAW and Jpeg at the same time and the Jpegs had brought out very nice slight shadow recovery in the background and a really nice tone and look overall. In the end I went with the Jpegs and hardly had to do anything to them.
However,I would always say its a good idea to shoot RAW + jpeg rather than just Jpeg. Just for safety.
Click to expand...

The Nikon and Canon software can do all this just by reading the raw and the embedded settings. Yes it's not ACR but it's also free with your camera.
 
maninsuitcase said:
The Nikon and Canon software can do all this just by reading the raw and the embedded settings. Yes it's not ACR but it's also free with your camera.
Click to expand...

No it can't, unfortunately. You would think it does, try takin teen pics in J peg and raw and converting the raw Files to j.pegs using that software. It does not look the same, in same cases nothing like it. No idea why but it doesn't work, it's not just me you can google it and find page after page.
 
dod said:
RAW has its' place, JPEG has its' place, both are worth using when appropriate. Use whatever you feel happiest with and ignore the naysayers on both sides.
Click to expand...

:agree:

I shoot both.

Check the JPEG and dig up the RAW if needed.

Whilst I fully appreciate the flexibility of RAW I honestly can't remember the last time I felt bothered enough to revert to it..
 
Last edited:
I think many people misunderstand what actually happens when you shoot jpeg.

I shoot RAW sometimes, but due to the volume of work I sometimes get, I shoot jpeg and have done and concentrate on gettin git right in camera.

With the camera set up properly to produce the kind of finished result you prefer (you might need to do this for different genres of subject, eg,one setting set up for portraits or people type pictures, another for "goods".) the jpegs will be perfectly usable and of value. If the odd one needs a bit of work done on it afterwards, DO NOT SAVE THE EDITED PICTURE, use SAVE AS and add .2 to the file number so you still have the original unadulterated jpeg - which answers the question above about converting to B&W and then trying to recover. I can, easily because the original preconversion jpeg is still there, untouched.
The camera always shoots RAW, even when you are shooting jpegs! The difference is, it shoots the RAW, then converts it according to the parameters you set it to a jpeg and throws the RAW away. That is why you need to take time to set up your picture management menu how you need it.

RAW is great if you have time to sit and plough through 300 pictures, after having driven 350 miles and spent the day shooting two features for two different magazines. i can't,I am too tired an dI need to prepare for the following day when I am going 200 miles in the opposite direction and doing another 2 magazine feature shoots. So I shoot jpeg and they make do. IF I have the chance and time and I think it will be beneficial in the long run, I will shoot RAW and do all the mucking about myself - I would rather go fishing though.
 
I'm a RAW convert :) so to speak, never used it untill recently.

I find the ability to tweek the WB and exposure a real asset.

Tweeking the WB can make a real difference to a shot, it's amazing.
 
I'm currently shooting both as I'm tasked with shooting in difficult lighting conditions and showing I can get it right in camera, but I like to have the raw for comparison.

Usually I shoot raw, unless I'm shooting sport, when I sometimes drop to jpeg. It depends.
 
You can set ACR to open jpgs in photoshop.( Or Lightroom) And have a small amount of adjustment using the same controls as for RAW. It does not have anywhere near the amount of captured data to work with as a RAW file. but it is a help.
 
mart77 said:
No it can't, unfortunately. You would think it does, try takin teen pics in J peg and raw and converting the raw Files to j.pegs using that software. It does not look the same, in same cases nothing like it. No idea why but it doesn't work, it's not just me you can google it and find page after page.
Click to expand...

In that case you're doing something wrong, most probably you have, at some point, changes the defaults for DPP. I, on the other hand, hardly ever use it and have never changed any of the defaults.

So I shot a horse using raw+jpeg. Then I converted the raw to a jpeg using DPP without changing anything at all. I then did a 100% crop from the centre of each image using FastStone. Here are the results...

raw%20vs%20jpeg%20-%20raw.jpg


raw%20vs%20jpeg%20jpeg.jpg
 
Now do an indoors shot at a higher iso
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top