raw v Jpeg

who shoots in what

  • raw

    Votes: 125 56.1%

  • Jpeg

    Votes: 33 14.8%

  • both at times

    Votes: 59 26.5%

  • I don't care I'd rather be watching the tele

    Votes: 6 2.7%
  • Total voters
    223
68lbs said:
Does 'both at times' mean you use the raw + jpeg option, or that sometimes you shoot raw, and sometimes jpeg?
Click to expand...

I took it to mean you decide which to use for any given shoot - and I NEVER use both at once

DD
 
I shoot mainly jpeg purely because I take a lot of photos. I'll switch to raw if the lighting is tricky or for something important like a wedding ceremony just to be on the safe side.

The other day while shooting in raw + jpeg I forgot to switch the ISO after going outside. I tested the difference in detail I could bring back and there was no contest. The jpeg was unusable while the raw turned out fine.
 
I always shoot in RAW and but I do occasionally shoot in JPEG
 
I only shoot raw, makes it easier for me to get a tiff of the right file size for uploading to the agency. I don't think I have shot jpeg for about 3 years. Don't think I will go back to jpeg either.
 
Raw all the time personally, but jpeg for stuff at work for speed.
 
Making an analogy here...

I akin raw to being the point just before you develop a roll of film, or even choose a roll of film.

Jpeg on the other hand is the point after the negatives have been dried and loaded into an enlarger.

I've only ever had a black and white dark room, with all my colour shots and eventually all the B&W film getting farmed out to labs (cos I wasn't that consistent in the darkroom)
....So for me raw offers something I never achieved with film, I can now fine control all steps in my processing, from the first take to the final print.
 
Cobra said:
Yes but if you open Jpeg in "camera raw"
you have the same control as you would in raw
I shoot predominately Jpeg, have shot very occasionally in raw
and can't see a difference when comparing the "finished" images
So a far as I am concerned the exta storage raw takes up over Jpeg
isn't worth the pixels its written on

(That should be good for a few arguments :D )
Click to expand...

Whilst you still have the same controls to adjust JPEG as RAW in ACR the amount of data is smaller. Once you've converted to JPEG you are down to an 8 bit data set. With RAW you have 12 or 14 bit data( dependent on camera).

This extra data is usefull when you are dealing with subjects that may have a wide dynamic range., especially in the highlight area Plus it keeps your options open.

JPEG or RAW as long as you get the result you want then that's fine
 
I've had a few goes with raw files but find it too time consuming fiddling about with them.

I'm happy with JPEG so what's the point in creating more work for myself!
 
I shoot RAW and JPEG... even in the studio.

RAW because I DO sometimes get it wrong.

JPEG because I shoot wirelessly tethered and JPEG's zip along to the laptop in lightning fast time to give a much faster preview than RAW's.
 
i look on a RAW file as i used to the negative and as such treat it with kid gloves

i will always have it to go back to at any time
should a client or publication want that pic i can produce the image to their specs and requirements without risking the image in any way

a RAW image produces a far better end result, its no hassle and doesn't load my work up in any way
 
Jpeg 'cos I have a Fuji S5 so I don't have to worry about blown highlights. :p That, and the 25mb RAW files it produces means that I'll only use RAW for paid jobs and landscape stuff.
 
Cool its still going and so far no blood letting :D

Furtim said:
jpeg is technically described as a 'lossy' compression technique - that is to say, information is discarded as part of the compression process. By definition, a raw file will retain more information than a jpeg.

. You can of course turn these settings off in the whole, but some, white balance for example, can not. So again, a raw file will have more 'virgin' information in the file, where as the jpeg will have processes information.

Finally, repeatedly editing a jpeg file and saving it will compound the information loss and can degrade the image. The same is not true of raw.

On the other hand, raw files are much larger, and do require a degree of PP just to get a decent result. Sometimes, it's just not worth the additional space or effort as jpegs are pretty good now-a-days...
Click to expand...

I understand about the lossy aspect but TBH I have never noticed much of a difference and don't
( try not too) process an image more than once

I have the " camera setting" set to Off"
And also agree with your last comment


fabs said:
I'm going to disagree with you on this one Chris. Yes, you can recover highlights with jpeg as well as raw if you use ACR, but with raw you can recover much more as a certain amount is already lost when the jpeg is created.
Click to expand...
How bloody dare you disagree with me Marc its my poll :razz: :D
As previously stated I really can't see the difference with processed images
68lbs said:
Does 'both at times' mean you use the raw + jpeg option, or that sometimes you shoot raw, and sometimes jpeg?
Click to expand...

fabs said:
I took it to mean raw+jpeg.
Click to expand...

DiddyDave said:
I took it to mean you decide which to use for any given shoot - and I NEVER use both at once

DD
Click to expand...

That was rather open to interpretation wasn't it? sorry guys
What I actually meant (as DD said) was, do you swap between one or other
for what ever reason
not shoot both at the same time ( I never gave that option a thought TBH)
 
99% of the time I shoot raw. If I was in a position where I was shooting a lot to a tight deadline I'd shoot probably shoot JPG (possibly alongside RAW) to speed up processing.
 
I predominantly shoot in RAW so I can adjust levels afterwards, especially if I'm shooting indoors with dodgy lighting, but like others have said, it depends what the situation is, and what the lighting is like to get levels spot-on, etc... Also, if i'm out for the whole day and the pictures are just for me, then i'll always shoot in JPEG to save time and digital memory afterwards.
A couple of mins spent setting up the camera properly at the beginning of the day can save you hours of PPing after you get home.
plus, with a 6mp sensor, I need all the resolution and detail I can get! :lol:
 
This thread comes at the right time for me. Here's why...

Since the start of 2008 I've shot only raw. I've shot JPEG for many years but for my own work, where I do a lot of exposure blending and post-processing, raw allows me to quickly create different exposure layers to work with, much faster than doing it from an original JPEG. I just like raw, simple as.

However, despite me shooting raw for all of my work shoots (which have been lauded as being the best quality pics our repro guys have seen in the company) they have basically put a blanket ban on the use of raw.

Their reasons are that raw files (along with sidecar .xmp files) take up three time as much space as a JPEG, which I can kind of agree with when we are dealing with upwards of 15,000 shots per month across the company; the process of converting the CYMK for print negates the need for high-quality image capture; and that the printing process for magazines is so poor that it basically ruins the benefits of raw.

I say raw works, full stop, because it allows for much easier post-production, whether doing it in batches o treating each shot individually. However, they've put their foot down, the MD agrees with them and now I have to shoot in JPEG.

I've done a shoot this morning, half in JPEG, half in raw. The JPEGs are good from m D200 but max out at about 320mm wide at 300dpi. Blow these shots up to 450mm for putting across a DPS with bleed) and you're pushing the quality and drop even tighter and you're faced with cruddy quality. Raw on the other hand comes out of my D200 at 550mm wide so no blowing up for DPS use, and the sharpening use in Adobe Raw is miles better than the standard unsharp mask.

The guys at my wrk aren't idiots but it amazes me as to how narow-minded some people can be when it comes to change, espcially in the digital age where change is an accepted part of life. JPEGs are fine for screen use and smaller prints but for me, raw just tops it every time.

Rant over.... :)
 
Cobra said:
Yes but if you open Jpeg in "camera raw"
you have the same control as you would in raw
Click to expand...

I would disagree - the control you'd have in this case is fairly limited. For example you cannot reliably and non-destructively change WB, recover from blown highlights and have limited control sharpness and noise reduction. This is all because the JPEG already will have all those applied by the in-camera processing engine and if something goes wrong here there is little margin to fix it. This is especially true regarding WB - I would not trust any camera's autoWB sensor 100% meaning that it is generally a good idea to get it right in PP.

Then there is an issue of compression. No matter what quality you choose in JPEG settings there still be some losless compression there loosing you precious tonal details...
 
Cobra said:
Not convinced sorry

Highlights are recoverable with Jpeg
as well as raw
as long as there is still some "hidden detail"
If its "blown" its "blown"
whether raw or Jpeg you're still screwed :D
Click to expand...

If I can chime in despite this is being your poll ;)

The highlight recovery in RAW is better for one single reason - all RAWs have a certain amount (in numeric range of the pixel lighness) reserved to handle the highlight clipping in their design. This is done for a reason because all 3 prime colour components (R,G and B) are clipping at a different points so you can have a situation when your R component is clipped but not G and B. So in RAW there is a space left in the topmost range of the pixel bits to compensate for those differences. Now, when RAW converter does the conversion it uses a white point to cutoff all the data above the level of thet white point (numerically for each of the R, G and B component) - so that RAW pixel at that level and above (in their pixel values) is represented as pure white and gets translated into JPEG as pure white (255,255,255). This means that RAW has more data that may potentially bring back lost details in those clipped highlights (in RAW you simply move the white point all the way up in value to get the details back - in LR that is what recovery slider does), but the JPEG conversion done in camera nearly completely wipes this info out (it practically fixes the white point at (255,255,255) RGB and loses all the RAW data above it). Highlight recovery of highlights in JPEG only shifts the whole range of values down without extra bits of information and will only create an illusion of recovery but won't actually recover anything.
 
I never personally shoot jpeg, don't see the point really. Not being argumentative, just my personal choice to always shoot raw ;)
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Making an analogy here...

I akin raw to being the point just before you develop a roll of film, or even choose a roll of film.

Jpeg on the other hand is the point after the negatives have been dried and loaded into an enlarger.

I've only ever had a black and white dark room, with all my colour shots and eventually all the B&W film getting farmed out to labs (cos I wasn't that consistent in the darkroom)
....So for me raw offers something I never achieved with film, I can now fine control all steps in my processing, from the first take to the final print.
Click to expand...

Although sometimes called the digital negative, I think of RAW straight out of the camera as being the film you develop yourself, and Jpeg as the film you've sent to get processed. B&W negatives you print yourself will normally be better that negatives you sent to get processed. Processed film images may have a generic look to them as the machines used fixed slight exposure problems automatically, only very badly exposed images not being able to be saved by the machine processing them. With colour processing, the only option you would have would be to choose the company you got to process the film. The results could vary with the film you may have used, what machine they used to process and how it was maintained, and what type paper they printed on.

Thank god we've moved on from film to digital, and we have more control over how prints turn out.
 
When I first got my camera, following some advice from the good folks here I changed to shooting in RAW. It was a godsend for me, being such a carp snap taker. Many of my attempts which would've gone in the recycle bin straight away were savable to an extent, which meant I had much more to show for my toils.
Now I have some additional knowledge and a small amount of extra equipment I have converted back to jpeg most of the time. If I am going somewhere for the day and have a limited time to snap at things I switch back to RAW again, just in case I intercourse things up.
Unfortunately RAW doesn't seem to help with my shaky hands though :(
 
dalex_257 said:
If I can chime in despite this is being your poll ;)
Click to expand...
:p :D Chime away that's why I opened the poll and discussion,
Its only Marc that's not allowed to contradict me :bat:


dalex_257 said:
I would disagree - the control you'd have in this case is fairly limited. For example you cannot reliably and non-destructively change WB, recover from blown highlights and have limited control sharpness and noise reduction. This is all because the JPEG already will have all those applied by the in-camera processing engine and if something goes wrong here there is little margin to fix it. This is especially true regarding WB - I would not trust any camera's autoWB sensor 100% meaning that it is generally a good idea to get it right in PP.

Then there is an issue of compression. No matter what quality you choose in JPEG settings there still be some losless compression there loosing you precious tonal details...
Click to expand...

Agreed you cannot do non destructive editing on Jpeg but then that's what layers are for.
As previously said my camera setting are "neutral" if thats the right expression, and I always "try" to use the correct white balance setting.

As I said previously when the highlights are blown they are blown
whatever file format it is and are not recoverable there has to be some detail there to start with
and I find that ACR will pull them back just as well in either
raw or Jpeg
 
I use raw most of the time. I don't see what people mean when they say it's more time consuming to process though, as it seems to take hardly more time than JPG. I process all my shots in Photoshop so it's the same for both file types.
 
fabs said:
:razz:
Click to expand...

Right back atcha mate :thumbs: :D
Its interesting the way its panned out so far
I would have expected a roughly even split possibly in favour of raw..........
...........you live and learn :thumbs:

I just wonder why the 5 that have voted for the TV option even looked
in here though :D
 
Cobra said:
Right back atcha mate :thumbs: :D
Its interesting the way its panned out so far
I would have expected a roughly even split possibly in favour of raw..........
...........you live and learn :thumbs:

I just wonder why the 5 that have voted for the TV option even looked
in here though :D
Click to expand...

It's quite a big majority, even I'm surprised. As for the TV option, well they're obviously not that good at the apathy thing! :D
 
dalex_257 said:
If I can chime in despite this is being your poll ;)

The highlight recoivery in RAW is better for one single reason - all RAWs have a certain amount (in numeric range of the pixel lighness) reserved to handle the highlight clipping in their design. This is done for a reason because all 3 prime colour components (R,G and B) are clipping at a different points so you can have a sitiation when your R component is clipped but not G and B. So in RAW there is a space left in the topmost range to compensate for those differences. Now, when RAW converter does the conversion it uses a white point to cutoff all the data above it (numerically) - so that RAW pixel at that level gets translated into JPEG as pure white (255,255,255). This means that even if RAW had more headroom data that may have potentially bring back lost details in those clipped highlights (in RAW you simply move the white point all the way up - in LR that is what recovery slider does), the JPEG conversion done in camera neraly completely wipes this infor out. Highlight recovery of highlights in JPEG only shifts the whole range of values down without extra bits of information and will only create an illusion of recovery but won't actually recover anything.
Click to expand...

It's posts like this that make me thankful I don't give a stuff about the technical side :D :p

Edit: to be clear it's a good post, it just hurts my brain ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top