RAW v Jpeg

Shooting RAW is just for people who can't be bothered to expose the scene correctly or even set the white balance, It's akin to pointing the gun in the general direction of the target and not evening putting the sights on the bullseye and putting all the rounds in the sandbank. You can always take them out later !
 
I can't understand anybody who shoots in JPG. Processing my RAW files is 50% of the fun for me. Not to mention the number of times I simple NEED RAW to pull out details that you simply wouldn't get from a JPG without ruining it in any other areas.

To me, if you shoot in JPG, you simply don't really care about what and how you're shooting, let alone the results. Which leaves us with the question, why are you bothering?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Shooting RAW is just for people who can't be bothered to expose the scene correctly or even set the white balance, It's akin to pointing the gun in the general direction of the target and not evening putting the sights on the bullseye and putting all the rounds in the sandbank. You can always take them out later !
Click to expand...

Your tongue is surely firmly in cheek?
 
I rather get as much right in the camera as I possibly can, nothing better than to look at a photography and say that's it...

Bur I shoot in RAW and Jpeg, purely because if Jpeg comes up trumps I've nothing more to do, but if I haven't quite nailed it then I have a chance in RAW ...
 
You still need to take the best photo you can with RAW. It's not an excuse to fire off shots with any settings and worry about it later. RAW doesn't stop motion blur. RAW doesn't stop blown out skies/water etc. You still need to expose correctly in RAW. The file retains ALL of the data/detail, and it's up to you to capitalise on that.

A JPG, on the other hand, does not retain all of the data/detail. It holds very little compared to a RAW. Even if you expose 'correctly', that doesn't mean you won't lost detail in highlights and shadows. You are immediately on the back foot. I can't get my head around why you would think that's a good thing. It's just lazy.
 
danjama said:
You still need to take the best photo you can with RAW. It's not an excuse to fire off shots with any settings and worry about it later. RAW doesn't stop motion blur. RAW doesn't stop blown out skies/water etc. You still need to expose correctly in RAW. The file retains ALL of the data/detail, and it's up to you to capitalise on that.

A JPG, on the other hand, does not retain all of the data/detail. It holds very little compared to a RAW. Even if you expose 'correctly', that doesn't mean you won't lost detail in highlights and shadows. You are immediately on the back foot. I can't get my head around why you would think that's a good thing. It's just lazy.
Click to expand...

Brilliant I gather you are trolling?

What monitor do you have, how do you print?
 
danjama said:
I can't understand anybody who shoots in JPG. Processing my RAW files is 50% of the fun for me. Not to mention the number of times I simple NEED RAW to pull out details that you simply wouldn't get from a JPG without ruining it in any other areas.

To me, if you shoot in JPG, you simply don't really care about what and how you're shooting, let alone the results. Which leaves us with the question, why are you bothering?
Click to expand...

Difference between an Amateur and a Professional is that an Amateur is happy if they get it right 1 in a hundred times whereas a professional is distraught if they get it wrong 1 in 100 times - many of us do not have the time to play with RAW and have to get a finished product straight out of camera - which means understanding the camera and not some piece of software, so for people like me we could say do not call yourself a photographer if you cant capture it with JPEG, - personally I see the case for both though and use both apropiately and do not make disparaging remarks about others that work differently from me, just saying ;)

Mike
 
mike weeks said:
Difference between an Amateur and a Professional is that an Amateur is happy if they get it right 1 in a hundred times whereas a professional is distraught if they get it wrong 1 in 100 times - many of us do not have the time to play with RAW and have to get a finished product straight out of camera - which means understanding the camera and not some piece of software, so for people like me we could say do not call yourself a photographer if you cant capture it with JPEG, - personally I see the case for both though and use both apropiately and do not make disparaging remarks about others that work differently from me, just saying ;)

Mike
Click to expand...
Sounds good, though if you had used the word 'work' rather than 'play' it may has come across a bit better. ;) :LOL:
 
Use whatever suits your requirements. Personally I like the flexibility of RAW but if you don't want to do any editing then jpeg is fine,
 
danjama said:
Your tongue is surely firmly in cheek?
Click to expand...

It certainly was, but I wanted to make people think. Personally, I prefer to get everything right in camera from the original crop and level composition to the exposure and also use filters if required. I shoot both JPEG and RAW for two reasons, my JPEG's are useable straight away and require no PP as all the work has already been done and checked after exposure in camera / iPad which is a massive time saving. However, I also shoot in RAW at the same time as I like to experiment with the 'original negative' which gives greater latitude for control and enhancement. Personally I believe shooting in both JPEG / RAW is the best creative option. Additionally, having your image recored in two separate mediums also offers a degree of protection should one card or slot fail at the time if the shoot. Although I use a second body it's sod's law that if something is going to go wrong then it will have happen before you've had time to bring the second back up into play !
 
Get it right in camera is all very well, as is raw+JPG. As long as the optimum raw exposure is the same at the perfect JPG exposure . But it's not unusual for them to be two stops apart.
 
Alastair said:
Get it right in camera is all very well, as is raw+JPG. As long as the optimum raw exposure is the same at the perfect JPG exposure . But it's not unusual for them to be two stops apart.
Click to expand...

I would suggest that most people bracket the exposure ?
 
Blank_Canvas said:
It certainly was, but I wanted to make people think. Personally, I prefer to get everything right in camera from the original crop and level composition to the exposure and also use filters if required. I shoot both JPEG and RAW for two reasons, my JPEG's are useable straight away and require no PP as all the work has already been done and checked after exposure in camera / iPad which is a massive time saving. However, I also shoot in RAW at the same time as I like to experiment with the 'original negative' which gives greater latitude for control and enhancement. Personally I believe shooting in both JPEG / RAW is the best creative option. Additionally, having your image recored in two separate mediums also offers a degree of protection should one card or slot fail at the time if the shoot. Although I use a second body it's sod's law that if something is going to go wrong then it will have happen before you've had time to bring the second back up into play !
Click to expand...

Getting it right in camera only works if you've got the time. Sometimes you don't get the chance to have another go and that's were raw comes into its own, plus experience and familiarity with your camera and how it performs etc etc.
 
redhed17 said:
What in your opinion was the 'misinformation'?

Not seen the mag myself.
Click to expand...
One bit advising to always use the wide dynamic range setting. That's automatic underexposure with shadow recovery (ok when you need it).

Another bit saying multiple saves of a jpeg while working in an editing program will cause massive degradation/artifacts. *Many* multiple open/save cycles causes notable jpeg degradation... many saves while open equals 1 open/save cycle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
sk66 said:
One bit advising to always use the wide dynamic range setting. That's automatic underexposure with shadow recovery (ok when you need it).

Another bit saying multiple saves of a jpeg while working in an editing program will cause massive degradation/artifacts. *Many* multiple open/save cycles causes notable jpeg degradation... many saves while open equals 1 open/save cycle.
Click to expand...

Ah, I see. Some of the higher wide dynamic range settings on some cameras can be very nasty. As you say use it when/if you need it.

The second point seems to be someone who hasn't explained themselves correctly, or doesn't know what they are talking about. :rolleyes: :LOL:

Thanks for replying. :)
 
danjama said:
A JPG, on the other hand, does not retain all of the data/detail. It holds very little compared to a RAW.
Click to expand...
This really isn't true... at least not in many situations.

Just because your camera is using a 12 or 14 bit file system (raw) doesn't mean it is recording 12 or 14 bits of data in that file.
For example, the measures that my D5 records:
Tonal range is 8bit by ISO 1600, PDR is 8bit (8 EV) by ISO 1600, and Color is 8bit by ISO 400. Might as well just use an 8bit file (jpeg) to hold the data (≥ISO 1600)... the only issue there being that the built in processing settings might do things you'd rather it didn't (which can't be undone).

And that's Nikon's top of the line pro camera... there are many cameras that struggle to ever get above 8bit, especially in recording color information (but that's "ok" because 8 bit/color is more than humans can even see).
 
Last edited:
mike weeks said:
Difference between an Amateur and a Professional is that an Amateur is happy if they get it right 1 in a hundred times whereas a professional is distraught if they get it wrong 1 in 100 times - many of us do not have the time to play with RAW and have to get a finished product straight out of camera - which means understanding the camera and not some piece of software, so for people like me we could say do not call yourself a photographer if you cant capture it with JPEG, - personally I see the case for both though and use both apropiately and do not make disparaging remarks about others that work differently from me, just saying ;)

Mike
Click to expand...

The difference between an amateur and a professional is one is getting paid. Anything else is consequential. And sorry, but there's no such thing as 'getting it right' in the camera. A dedicated professional will dedicate the time and care on each photo that they feel is necessary. You do understand that the camera itself is using its own software to process the jpg file yes? So your argument about understanding the camera and not software is moot.

Where did i say I CAN'T get it right with jpg? I did not say that. I can absolutely get it 'right' with jpg, technically. But it doesn't suit my needs or workflow.

Like I said, shooting jpg and just going 'yep, that'll do' is lazy and the mark of an amateur.
 
sk66 said:
This really isn't true... at least not in many situations.

Just because your camera is using a 12 or 14 bit file system (raw) doesn't mean it is recording 12 or 14 bits of data in that file.
For example, the measures that my D5 records:
Tonal range is 8bit by ISO 1600, PDR is 8bit (8 EV) by ISO 1600, and Color is 8bit by ISO 400. Might as well just use an 8bit file (jpeg) to hold the data (≥ISO 1600)... the only issue there being that the built in processing settings might do things you'd rather it didn't (which can't be undone).

And that's Nikon's top of the line pro camera... there are many cameras that struggle to ever get above 8bit, especially in recording color information (but that's "ok" because 8 bit/color is more than humans can even see).
Click to expand...

The 12 or 14 bits you quote are actually the output from the A/D converter which converts the output from the sensor (analogue) to the digital inputs of the memory cards.

And using RAW doesn't just give you the ability to recover the most detail in PP but also allows you far greater latitude in editing and helps to avoid the "banding" you can get when over processing JPEGs.

This is because of the hugely greater number of discrete steps available in 12 or 14 bits as opposed to the 8 bits of JPEG.

And even if you convert JPEGs to TIFF files before processing (as I sometimes do) you still cannot get over the problem of "banding".
.
 
I used to make a s*** load with shooting jpeg at weddings, now because of other issues I earn a good bit of pocket money doing it.

Would I have processed 500 of S5 Pro RAWs?? Not on your nelly.

Fuji Jpegs are sweet
 
danjama said:
Like I said, shooting jpg and just going 'yep, that'll do' is lazy and the mark of an amateur.
Click to expand...

Getty didn't think that when shooting the millions of photos of the Olympics - they shot entirely In JPEG simply because of the time factor - and I didn't hear many people complaining about the fact that they didn't shoot in RAW:

http://www.popphoto.com/how-olympic-images-reach-your-eyes-in-two-minutes-flat

Naturally they used CANON cameras :LOL::canon::

http://petapixel.com/2016/07/26/getty-images-canon-arsenal-rio-olympics/
.
 
danjama said:
You do understand that the camera itself is using its own software to process the jpg file yes? So your argument about understanding the camera and not software is moot.
Click to expand...

So what you are actually saying is that you don't know how to set up the Jpeg engine in your camera to shoot what you want, rather than relying on the manufacturer's presets?

That's the equivalent of using the Auto adjustment in Lightroom for processing.
 
danjama said:
The difference between an amateur and a professional is one is getting paid. Anything else is consequential. And sorry, but there's no such thing as 'getting it right' in the camera. A dedicated professional will dedicate the time and care on each photo that they feel is necessary. You do understand that the camera itself is using its own software to process the jpg file yes? So your argument about understanding the camera and not software is moot.

Where did i say I CAN'T get it right with jpg? I did not say that. I can absolutely get it 'right' with jpg, technically. But it doesn't suit my needs or workflow.

Like I said, shooting jpg and just going 'yep, that'll do' is lazy and the mark of an amateur.
Click to expand...

The mark of a true bluffer, of course there is getting it right in camera, if it suits the end needs then it is right - actually technically it is using firmware to manipulate - yes I understand the difference and it is not a case of going yep that will do, it is a case of going yep, got it set right again

Mike
 
How do these threads still keep repeating themselves?

People saying stuff like,

danjama said:
To me, if you shoot in JPG, you simply don't really care about what and how you're shooting, let alone the results. Which leaves us with the question, why are you bothering?
Click to expand...

Have to be taking the pee don't they?

We shot a job last week with four photographers shooting MEDIUM :eek: JPEG non-stop for three days. Surprised nobody had a seizure.

DemiLion said:
This week's AP should cause some people to froth at the mouth!! :D
Click to expand...

Called it pretty early.
 
petersmart said:
This is because of the hugely greater number of discrete steps available in 12 or 14 bits as opposed to the 8 bits of JPEG.
Click to expand...
8bit color can generate over 16M colors while the human eye is only good for ~ 10M.

Banding issues are primarily due to the compression (rounding errors) and the processing (tone curve, etc) that was applied when the camera converted the data to 8bit jpeg. How you set up the camera's jpeg settings will/can make a big difference. Nikon has introduced an "optimal" compression algorithm which varies by image, and a "flat" jpeg profile. The purpose of them is to enable greater editing in post w/ fewer issues... but that kind of defeats the purpose of capturing jpegs to start with.

petersmart said:
And even if you convert JPEGs to TIFF files before processing (as I sometimes do) you still cannot get over the problem of "banding".
.
Click to expand...
Of course, it's still 8bit data (accuracy) in a 16 bit file format, it doesn't add anything. Just like recording 8bit color accuracy to a raw file doesn't make it 14bit color.
 
petersmart said:
Getty didn't think that when shooting the millions of photos of the Olympics - they shot entirely In JPEG simply because of the time factor - and I didn't hear many people complaining about the fact that they didn't shoot in RAW:

http://www.popphoto.com/how-olympic-images-reach-your-eyes-in-two-minutes-flat
Click to expand...
There were some Photographers at the Olympics shooting in RAW as well as JPEG. ;) And I would guess that some of the Getty Photographers were too, as now the cameras are just as fast shooting both formats, why limit oneself just in case. It will be JPEGS for speed like in the link above, but some of the Pros didn't need the speed.
 
Last edited:
redhed17 said:
There were some Photographers at the Olympics shooting in RAW as well as JPEG. ;) And I would guess that some of the Getty Photographers were too, as now the cameras are just as fast shooting both formats, why limit oneself just in case. It will be JPEGS for speed like in the link above, but some of the Pros didn't need the speed.
Click to expand...

No Getty said that they shot in JPEGs but obviously if time wasn't of the essence, as it was with Getty then many probably did shoot in RAW, and looking at many of the photos there really was no need to shoot RAW as the JPEGs of the top cameras used were perfectly adequate.

.
 
Gremlin said:
Does it really matter, as long as the person taking the picture is happy ?
Click to expand...

For some that's a pretty mutually exclusive statement!
 
Jpeg - with (slight) adjustments in LR

processing a jpeg is a lot quicker

jpeg.jpg



RAW - with adjustment in LR and PS - at least two or three times more work

RAW.jpg


One of the exercises I do every so often it to take two shots a RAW and a jpeg and process both

The main thing with the RAW is DR in poor light, and the extremes of B & W
 
Last edited:
I open my egg from the little end. Is that a bad thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top