RAW v Jpeg

StephenM said:
Surely digital photography is all about instant gratification? If you shoot raw, you have to process it yourself, and this not only takes time, but is really hard work; you not only have to know what you're doing but have some inkling of what you want to achieve. This is completely at odds with the modern ethos of cameras that autofocus and autoexpose so that "you press the button, the camera does the rest". Using jpg means that you can just download and show instantly.... :D
Click to expand...
Why is digital photography about "instant gratification"? Its just a format, a medium. Its not about instant gratification at all. Film cameras could AF and autoexpose. Its about having full control. Your argument makes no sense at all, apart from maybe the cameraphone / must put on twitter, facebook, snap chat straight away brigade. For sure, most of that lot wont shoot raw...

Edit - I've just seen you're pretty much shoot film and don't use digital, perhaps therein lies the misunderstanding.
 
Last edited:
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...
No, I'm not sure if this is a serious post?!

Edit - now I know it isn't :)
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed at the "get it right in camera" brigade continuously going on about shooting JPEG as they are shooting their subject so perfectly they don't need raw files. With digital, it nearly impossible to tell if you've got it as right "in camera" as you think by your own fair hand. In actual fact, shooting raw files are the only way to tell if you've 'got it right in camera' as the file is unprocessed. How many Fuji and Sony photographers are on this thread professing they prefer to shoot jpeg and 'get it right in camera' rather than shooting raw, when they are benefiting from one of the best in camera processing systems on the market, which is instantly improving their shots and correcting WB / exposure / contrast / dynamic range etc milli-seconds after pressing the shutter??? ;)

Raw v JPEG isn't, and has never been about "getting it right in camera". It's simply different processing methods, one is automatic and the other is manual.

The other arguments around speed and access are still valid though :)
 
Last edited:
As a Fuji user, I always spend some time setting the in camera engine to produce JPEGs as I want them SOOC. No different to some raw shooters who use preset actions to batch process their shots.

I'm an amateur photographer - I love taking photos. I loathe spending time doing PP. If I produce a turd, I flush it rather than spending hours polishing it (and, like most of us, I produce plenty of turds!)

If you want to shoot raw and spend hours processing, that's fine by me. Indeed for some, actually shooting isn't always possible (for health reasons for example) so they spend hours playing on the computer. I'd rather be out there shooting.

I've tried shooting raw and fiddling to get what I want - never ended up with anything as pleasing as the SOOC JPEGs.
 
Nod said:
As a Fuji user, I always spend some time setting the in camera engine to produce JPEGs as I want them SOOC. No different to some raw shooters who use preset actions to batch process their shots.

I'm an amateur photographer - I love taking photos. I loathe spending time doing PP. If I produce a turd, I flush it rather than spending hours polishing it (and, like most of us, I produce plenty of turds!)

If you want to shoot raw and spend hours processing, that's fine by me. Indeed for some, actually shooting isn't always possible (for health reasons for example) so they spend hours playing on the computer. I'd rather be out there shooting.

I've tried shooting raw and fiddling to get what I want - never ended up with anything as pleasing as the SOOC JPEGs.
Click to expand...

Getting the most out of raw files takes practice and familiarity, if you're not doing it regularly you won't get the most out of it, as with anything.

As for time spent in front of the PC, my workflow is so quick now I process a single raw file even quicker than I used to with JPEGs, and getting the results I want and using the detail I want. But I enjoy that side of the process too, as have and do a lot of traditional photographers as well as LR experts (not computers per se, but the act of developing / processing).

I also don't agree with the 'I'm an amateur so don't need to use raw' argument I've seen. Why should enthusiasts not be able to utilise the full data and detail available with raw files? They are the very ones with the time to carefully play with it and enjoy it.
 
Last edited:
Sorry i replied and disappeared from the thread, had a busy end of week. Hope I didn't offend anybody. When all is said and done, people will and should do what suits them. When I was new to photography, I only shot JPG. Nowadays I shoot RAW only. But I really enjoy the post processing time, and maybe that's part of it. I just don't like how photos look when the camera has processed them (always shooting Canon). That's just me.

The only situation i can think of where I might benefit from JPG over RAW, is motorsports. So next time I'm out at a race or event, I'll shoot RAW and JPG and see how I get on. Hope that appeases some of you! :D
 
Last edited:
Simple, jpeg you get processed images, raw you can process them.
 
And, because we've done this to depth in the past, the camera is just a tool to deliver images. Both jpeg and raw have their places
Jpeg is handy when you need to deliver images quick, sport, edtorial etc. Raw is handy to help recover dynamic range etc.

Of course, having a camera with two memory cards that can save both formats is also handy ;)
 
Oh and the original magazine article is just click bait to get the magazine read/bought
 
Byker28i said:
Oh and the original magazine article is just click bait to get the magazine read/bought
Click to expand...

Worked for me, I bought a copy to have my own tendencies justified. Actually I don't have much inclination to get clever with RAW as my pictures are sh!t anyway, cropping to get rid of intrusive dustbins in river scenes that weren't there when I took the picture, honest Guv! and tilting the image 3 degrees to get it straight or whatever is as good as it gets. Maybe when I can take a picture that's a keeper for other than sentimental reasons I'll have a go.

Anyway I have little time for RAW processing, since as a keen and committed driver I like to get the best from my car. Having the laptop permanently connected to the ECU, and adjusting all parameters for best performance in real time ('cos doing it after I've reached my destination is too late in a car) keeps me at traffic lights for several hours sometimes. It's a little tricky doing the adjustments with the laptop on the dashboard whilst doing 110 on the M25 but, y'know, I'd be a crap driver if I didn't care about keeping the engine efficiency at 100%, as the ECU in the car can't be trusted to do that by itself. "Good enough" is never good enough.
 
I honestly think that it depends on what type of images you are taking and why .......... and maybe, I say maybe, what type of photographer you are

in a similar argument - why buy and 35 mp DSLR and not a 15 mp DSLR ......... or indeed a 50 mp DSLR, which is about to hit the market?
 
BillN_33 said:
I honestly think that it depends on what type of images you are taking and why ...
Click to expand...

This^

There's no right or wrong, it's simply about what you want to achieve.

Clearly if you're shooting 1000 images a day at an event and you need to sell on the day, then JPEG is a no-brainer. But if you're shooting an ad campaign for Loreal then shooting raw is a no-brainer too.

Most of us aren't at those extremes but we live somewhere in between and our needs and attitudes vary.

The fact is the premise of either/or as a line in the sand is ridiculous, and I can't honestly believe that seemingly intelligent people can get drawn into a response.
 
Phil V said:
This^

There's no right or wrong, it's simply about what you want to achieve.

Clearly if you're shooting 1000 images a day at an event and you need to sell on the day, then JPEG is a no-brainer. But if you're shooting an ad campaign for Loreal then shooting raw is a no-brainer too.

Most of us aren't at those extremes but we live somewhere in between and our needs and attitudes vary.

The fact is the premise of either/or as a line in the sand is ridiculous, and I can't honestly believe that seemingly intelligent people can get drawn into a response.
Click to expand...

Thank f*** someone took the time to write what I have been thinking. Painfully obvious isn't it.
 
I don't think that RAW is necessary for most of the photo genres, you do know that JPEG also can be tweaked a little bit without a hit in the quality, right?

For me specially, I shoot RAW only on very large dynamic range scenes, where push/pull on shadows and highlights is needed.
 
Jules B said:
Worked for me, I bought a copy to have my own tendencies justified. Actually I don't have much inclination to get clever with RAW as my pictures are sh!t anyway, cropping to get rid of intrusive dustbins in river scenes that weren't there when I took the picture, honest Guv! and tilting the image 3 degrees to get it straight or whatever is as good as it gets. Maybe when I can take a picture that's a keeper for other than sentimental reasons I'll have a go.

Anyway I have little time for RAW processing, since as a keen and committed driver I like to get the best from my car. Having the laptop permanently connected to the ECU, and adjusting all parameters for best performance in real time ('cos doing it after I've reached my destination is too late in a car) keeps me at traffic lights for several hours sometimes. It's a little tricky doing the adjustments with the laptop on the dashboard whilst doing 110 on the M25 but, y'know, I'd be a crap driver if I didn't care about keeping the engine efficiency at 100%, as the ECU in the car can't be trusted to do that by itself. "Good enough" is never good enough.
Click to expand...

Actually I sometimes have the laptop or phone connected to the car fr diagnostic reasons or to reset the adaptives.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.rs_ajp&hl=en_GB
 
Why does anyone need to answer this question?

I use OOC jpegs with less than 30 secs of tweaking in an editor for most of my shots. I shoot both RAW and JPEG so I can choose later which to process. Storage is so cheap these days the extra file storage cost is negligible. I often correct the camera's auto exposure with exposure compensation or manual spot metering before shooting. Auto WB is so good I rarely fiddle with it. I sometimes select JPEG only for a very high dynamic range shot when I don't want to bother staging and processing a manual HDR. The OOC camera handheld HDR is very good. The same goes for panned panoramic shots. If there's time and it might be worth it I'll also shoot the sequence of RAWs needed for a careful manual version. I usually leave auto DRO on. It does a good in-camera job of doing shadow lifting in high dynamic range images beyond the usual scope of OOC jpegs.

Sometimes, maybe 5% of the time, I'll know immediately from the look of the image that I'll need RAW processing, or if I find myself spending more than a minute processing the JPEG, then I'll use the RAW. I always keep all the RAWs just in case it later becomes worthwhile to do my best with the image, such as someone wants a good big quality print or I want it for an exhibition or competition etc..

There's no need to choose RAW or JPEG before you press the button. It's so easy and cheap to keep both options open.
 
Last edited:
This is all very tame and nice ,where's the name calling and normal arguments ,3 pages and people are still talking nicely ?? Personally I think j.peg is just there for peeps that aren't clever enough to process raw files :rolleyes: :exit:
 
Graham W said:
And you smell of Duffle coats so there! :p
Click to expand...
no never took to them i much preferred a naval reefer jacket far warmer :wave: :wave: :wave: and i don't smell i have a bath every couple of months whether i need it or not na na na :runaway:
 
the black fox said:
This is all very tame and nice ,where's the name calling and normal arguments ,3 pages and people are still talking nicely ?? Personally I think j.peg is just there for peeps that aren't clever enough to process raw files :rolleyes: :exit:
Click to expand...

Yep, that's me that is! Actually I did use it once, for a pic. I entered in a just-for-fun photo competition in a non-photography forum. My monochrome picture of a row of bicycle back wheels in a bike rack receding into the distance looked the same after a half-hour's work on the raw as it did on the j.peg I took at the same time.

I suppose thinking about it, the images that appeal to me are more about composition and perhaps a quirky or outside-the-box interpretation of a subject than about perfection of tone. I'm amazed by the critiques of some images that appear on this forum, stuff I'd never think of. A "blown-out sky", for instance, is something I'd take for granted if I'm aiming for a landscape picture, because if I'm standing looking at a landscape on a day when the sky is bright but the hillside I'm looking at isn't, I'd be shading my eyes anyway so as not to look at the sky, and setting aperture for the geography. I suppose back in the day I did the odd bit of dodging in the darkroom but the technology of the day demanded it to get a picture to look half decent sometimes. Once I could afford colour film I hardly looked back and of course then you got whatever Boots gave you in the envelope. The cost of film and processing made you think hard about getting it right in camera.

I guess having said that, I've argued myself into seeing why raw manipulation and adjusting images on the pc is a great gift if you have the talent and the time- and primary images that can benefit from it.
 
Jules B said:
Yep, that's me that is! Actually I did use it once, for a pic. I entered in a just-for-fun photo competition in a non-photography forum. My monochrome picture of a row of bicycle back wheels in a bike rack receding into the distance looked the same after a half-hour's work on the raw as it did on the j.peg I took at the same time.

I suppose thinking about it, the images that appeal to me are more about composition and perhaps a quirky or outside-the-box interpretation of a subject than about perfection of tone. I'm amazed by the critiques of some images that appear on this forum, stuff I'd never think of. A "blown-out sky", for instance, is something I'd take for granted if I'm aiming for a landscape picture, because if I'm standing looking at a landscape on a day when the sky is bright but the hillside I'm looking at isn't, I'd be shading my eyes anyway so as not to look at the sky, and setting aperture for the geography. I suppose back in the day I did the odd bit of dodging in the darkroom but the technology of the day demanded it to get a picture to look half decent sometimes. Once I could afford colour film I hardly looked back and of course then you got whatever Boots gave you in the envelope. The cost of film and processing made you think hard about getting it right in camera.

I guess having said that, I've argued myself into seeing why raw manipulation and adjusting images on the pc is a great gift if you have the talent and the time- and primary images that can benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Processing raws isn't 'manipulation', it's only using information that's already there, that's an important difference.

Blown out skies aren't a good example either - they are one, if not the most constant issue with landscape photography during the day time. Most cameras will blow the sky out if you expose for the 'geography', your eyes however will see it normally and in proportion. It's about bringing the sky back to how you see it, not making it artificial.
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
This is all very tame and nice ,where's the name calling and normal arguments ,3 pages and people are still talking nicely ?? Personally I think j.peg is just there for peeps that aren't clever enough to process raw files :rolleyes: :exit:
Click to expand...

And LR is there for peeps that aren't clever enough to write their own raw processing filters.
 
st599 said:
And LR is there for peeps that aren't clever enough to write their own raw processing filters.
Click to expand...

Eh?

I know it's tongue and cheek, but LR isn't about filters.
 
RAW is for people that like to play with it themselves.
 
odd jim said:
Eh?

I know it's tongue and cheek, but LR isn't about filters.
Click to expand...

Isn't it?

So it doesn't use a de-Bayering filter to convert raw to RGB within a known colour space? It doesn't apply some form of finite impulse response filter to scale images for output, or use a colour space compression filter to output sRGB?
 
st599 said:
Isn't it?

So it doesn't use a de-Bayering filter to convert raw to RGB within a known colour space? It doesn't apply some form of finite impulse response filter to scale images for output, or use a colour space compression filter to output sRGB?
Click to expand...

How are those filters? They're just conversion algorithms, not a selective pass through.

(Everything has to be 'de-bayered'. A camera does that itself if set to JPEG, and any raw processing software).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top