JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

[pixmedic]

I used to prefer raw, when I was younger. Now I usually go with a medium rare.

 

[DarkShadow]

Raw has advantage over Jpeg if you want the most out of your sensor.Raw has an advantage of recovering images that you may not be able to do from Jpegs.You can reprocess the Raw file down the road and unlike Jpeg losing data each time you save the jpeg file you compress the image degrading the IQ a little each time,even if no editing is performed.

I shoot Both but prefer raw for complete control of my contrast,Color,sharpening etc and can go back to it at any time and re-process it. Learning How to process well is also very important to me and go hand and hand with good photography. I also like to squeeze the most detail out of my sensor I can and Raw does just that.

That being said,they are both great and generally jpegs look great.Now a days the Cameras do a fantastic job in camera processing. I think I see more Photos borked from people processing the images more so then in camera.

 

[sashbar]

I shoot JPEG Fine + RAW. Most of the time my JPEGs are good enough. If I under/overexpose or if the light is difficult, I process RAW. But most of the time I just delete it. I only keep RAW files of my best shots. But then, I am just a street shooter.

 

[DarkShadow]

I shoot JPEG Fine + RAW. Most of the time my JPEGs are good enough. If I under/overexpose or if the light is difficult, I process RAW. But most of the time I just delete it. I only keep RAW files of my best shots. But then, I am just a street shooter.

No your a dam fine street shooter and not just a street shooter.

 

[Ysarex]

Basically it`s whether you want to have negatives=raw or are just happy with an Instamatic=jpeg

It`s raw all the way for me, or raw and jpeg if i know i need people to see photo`s straight away, I use the free "instant jpeg from raw" app that extracts the embedded jpeg from a raw file and can do hundreds in seconds it`s that fast and if you have a Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution, other brands can have smaller embedded jpegs.

John.

For me, the common idea that raw files are like negatives is misleading. Raw files are more like an undeveloped film, in my view, which have a latent image. Decisions about processing need to be taken in order to produce a format which can be printed, if that is the ultimate goal, or which can be displayed electronically: there are no raw files on display in this forum, for instance. This process is comparable to the decisions made on how best to develop film to produce negatives for printing/scanning.

So a better way of looking at this might be JPEG = photo lab / raw = home development.

I post raw files on the internet and this forum all the time so people can see what they look like. Normally because of size I post a JPEG of the unprocessed raw file like this:

But it's possible to make the full-res uncompressed image available like this: unprocessed_raw.png
You can download that file and zoom in to verify that the Bayer array is still in place and the file has not been demosaiced.

Raw converters will not typically show you a raw file in this form but there are a couple of ways to extract only the image data without processing it and then save it in a raster as a TIFF file for viewing -- basically just extracing it from it's proprietary format. DCraw for example has an option that will do this.

With the Bayer array in place the image is very dark and because there are two green filters for each red/blue pair the image is very green, but you can see the image content.

Joe

 

[bribrius]

i think what shocks me about all these repetitive threads is they assume that there is even a choice. I could not rely on raw totally. As not all the cameras i shoot with even shoot RAW. So it really isn't always even a option. How can you rely on RAW if a lot of what you shoot with only shoots jpegs? And now shooting film, there is no RAW. So in my case, the preferable mindset is just to NOT count on raw, as that isn't a viable option much of the time anyway. If i am doing a certain shot, with a dslr well then now RAW is a viable option. But the idea of everything shooting RAW isn't that realistic. I can assure my 5mp point and shoot, cellphones, 18mp point and shoot, 20mp bridge camera, film cameras has no RAW setting. If you find yourself reliant on RAW, you find yourself only able to take shots with a digital camera capable of RAW files.

In practice, lets say you are out and about and see a shot you want to take. What do you do, just say "hey wait a minute, i need to go get a camera that shoots RAW. "

 

[480sparky]

...... And now shooting film, there is no RAW..........

You're shooting transparency film?

 

[Life]

I used to be a Jpeg only person. Jpegs are faster, easier, but the end results are a lot less pleasing. IMO, jpegs are good for people who generally just want to take a picture and say " good enough ". But matter of fact is Raw can deliver much more than Jpeg. The end result can be 100x more pleasing with a raw edit than a jpeg, but that also depends on what you are doing. I enjoy sitting on the computer trying out different settings and tweaking until I like it most. I just started shooting raw late 2014, all the time before that I was shooting Jpegs, and seeing the 1000's of Jpegs I have, I fully regret not shooting raw much much sooner. And you can forget Astrophotography on jpeg xD.

 

[Ysarex]

i think what shocks me about all these repetitive threads is they assume that there is even a choice. I could not rely on raw totally. As not all the cameras i shoot with even shoot RAW. So it really isn't always even a option. How can you rely on RAW if a lot of what you shoot with only shoots jpegs? And now shooting film, there is no RAW. So in my case, the preferable mindset is just to NOT count on raw, as that isn't a viable option much of the time anyway. If i am doing a certain shot, with a dslr well then now RAW is a viable option. But the idea of everything shooting RAW isn't that realistic. I can assure my 5mp point and shoot, cellphones, 18mp point and shoot, 20mp bridge camera, film cameras has no RAW setting. If you find yourself reliant on RAW, you find yourself only able to take shots with a digital camera capable of RAW files.

In practice, lets say you are out and about and see a shot you want to take. What do you do, just say "hey wait a minute, i need to go get a camera that shoots RAW. "

I never leave the house without my pocket camera that's about the size of an iphone (little smaller width and height but thicker). So if I see a shot and want to take it I take it. Most people always have a phone with them; I always have a camera with me.

I was recently walking in the park with my wife and took this photo:

I posted it here already, but in this context it's worth posting again because a phone camera or any camera shooting only JPEG would have crashed and burned on the lighting in this scene.

Joe

 

[Life]

I put my coin in this discussion.
Next week I'm shooting some photographs for a cat breeder. She needs them for her website. It's a promotion service and she's a friend, but if she were an ordinary custom let's say she would pay me around 300$.
I'm going there around 7.00 p.m.
She has 8 cats and probably will want 10 photos for each cat.
I have to go there, set the lights and the background, make some tries to find the correct light placement and settings and...there we go (but it's already 7.45 p.m.).
8 cats. won't you shoot at least, let's say, 50 shots for each cat? May be even more. What if you miss the focus on the eyes in some of them or may be the cat turns the head away from the camera just a fraction of second before you shoot? And what if the breeder don't like the angle 'cause it doesn't show the correct profile or doesn't enphatize the standard perfectio of the subject?
Ok. 8x50=400 photographs. Suppose now that you are really fast and shot a photograph every 10 seconds (!). It would take 400x10= 4000 seconds=66 min. (And it's 8.51 p.m.).
Oh, of course between a cat and the other you have to change the background according to cat colors. Let's say 5 minutes for each one. 7x5=35 more minutes. (and it's 9.26 p.m.).
At 9.50 p.m. I have all my stuff put away.

Now...we are at an hypothetical crossroads.

Case A.
Let's say I shoot jpg. I load them in my Mac in 5 minutes (time: 9.55 p.m.).
I show them to the breeder and invite her to choose 10 photos from each cat take.
She's fast and she employs 5 seconds to evaluate a photo. 400x3=1200 seconds=20 minutes. (It's 10.15 p.m.).
I fast check if the chosen photos are all right, may be adjust a little bit of contrast here and there, let's say 10 seconds for each photo. 10x80=800 seconds=13minutes (10.28 p.m.). Two minutes to copy the photos in her pc and I finished. She's happy, and at 10.30 p.m. I'm out her house.

Case B.
Let's say I shoot raw. I load them in my mac in (I hope) 1 hour (time: 10.50 p.m.).
I show them to the breeder and invite her to choose 10 photos from each cat take.
She's fast and she employs 5 seconds to evaluate a photo. 400x3=1200 seconds=20 minutes. (It's 11.10 p.m.). Problem is...the raw file won't visualize on the screen as fast as the jpg. It will take, let's say, 5 seconds more for each photo to visualize. Other 20 minutes. (it's 11.30 p.m.).
I have to process every single photo. Since I shoot them from different angles to different cats with different backgrounds...I have to process them one by one. Here I cannot just "adjust a little bit of contrast here and there". I have to make a flat and dark raw look a brilliant and stunning image. Sometimes I spend even 1 hour on a single raw...trying different solution...but isn't possible. So...I can stay max 10 minutes for each photo. 10x80=800 minutes=13 hours and more. (so...guessing the breeder hasn't killed me in the meanwhile)...the day after at lunch time I finished. 2 minutes to export the raw in jpg and I'm out.

What's happened?
Case A: I worked 3 hours 30 minutes and earned 300$. Average 85$ x hour.
Case B: I worked 17 hours and earned 300$. Average 17,64$ x hour.


So? Does that mean I only and always shot JPG? NO. But in a case like this, having studio lights (so less and less chances to get wrong light) and a lot of work to do...JPG is the only realistic way. I'm not in a time hurry, I'm not shooting extra fast multiple shots like in sports...but I thought as a pro.
JPG works, they're beautiful, they reach the goal...and...overall...final destination will be always a JPG.

Of course...If I'm working on a single shot (i.e.: my 365 project, in which I process only a photograph each day) like in a portrait or in a landscape...I love to process the raw.
But who says "always raw" has never tried to process a set of 300 or more photos without the chance to throw away any of them (weddings, commercial still life, etc etc).

I actually stopped reading after you say you worked 17 hours. If it takes to 1 hour to load 400 photos, you seriously need a new computer. I load on a typical 600 shot day in under 5 minutes. That's gigabytes of pictures. That's also USB 3 which helps a bit . If it takes 2 minutes to save a Raw file to Jpeg after processing, I suggest dumping the mac in the trash and getting a real machine, on windows. 10 seconds to save tops, and that's Max res, no matter how I processed it. And for photoshop you can have presets all set up and ready for certain types of work. Yes, Jpegs are faster still, There is hardly any processing time needed, however for clients you often don't get the wow factor raw brings.

 

[bribrius]

i think what shocks me about all these repetitive threads is they assume that there is even a choice. I could not rely on raw totally. As not all the cameras i shoot with even shoot RAW. So it really isn't always even a option. How can you rely on RAW if a lot of what you shoot with only shoots jpegs? And now shooting film, there is no RAW. So in my case, the preferable mindset is just to NOT count on raw, as that isn't a viable option much of the time anyway. If i am doing a certain shot, with a dslr well then now RAW is a viable option. But the idea of everything shooting RAW isn't that realistic. I can assure my 5mp point and shoot, cellphones, 18mp point and shoot, 20mp bridge camera, film cameras has no RAW setting. If you find yourself reliant on RAW, you find yourself only able to take shots with a digital camera capable of RAW files.

In practice, lets say you are out and about and see a shot you want to take. What do you do, just say "hey wait a minute, i need to go get a camera that shoots RAW. "

I never leave the house without my pocket camera that's about the size of an iphone (little smaller width and height but thicker). So if I see a shot and want to take it I take it. Most people always have a phone with them; I always have a camera with me.

I was recently walking in the park with my wife and took this photo:

View attachment 96502

I posted it here already, but in this context it's worth posting again because a phone camera or any camera shooting only JPEG would have crashed and burned on the lighting in this scene.

Joe

i wouldn't have processed that in raw anyway. Portraits now to a extent, certain landscapes. Depends on the image. That i would have stopped, snapped, and kept walking without thinking about it. Nice photo just not something i personally would put a lot of time, thought or work into. I do like it though.

 

[astroNikon]

I kinda didn't read that completely either.
When I shoot sports it's in RAW. uploading to my computer doens't take too long - I insert the memory card into the computer and away it goes. Then I zoom through the pics doing adjustments. Lightroom's workflow is so fast for adjustments for me now that I use it for JPEG adjustments too (iPhone or my POS/P&S).

I used to shoot in JPEG, then RAW+JPEG now just RAW.
I do use JPEG from time to time when I'm testing a ton of shoots that are going to be throwaways anyways, or just to document stuff for insurance (quick and easy).

but to each their own on how they shoot and process. For quick stuff one may save time with JPEGs. For me, I'd still use LR.

 

[Benjo255]

And for photoshop you can have presets all set up and ready for certain types of work.

Why using a preset for a group of photo if the camera does the same thing?
Ok, put away one hour my old mac requires for downloading images. Put away to minutes to save them. Ok. The time needed for the "wow factor" is still there.
And, btw, I don't think the wow factor comes straight from a human raw processing. Sometimes would be better if the human didn't even open lightroom. Some pictures (mine included) are just...overprocessed.
Anyway, I'm not in a fight for this. I use raw too.
Only I don't think raw is "better always anytime anywhere". It's just an instrument. A tool. Sometimes helpful, other times just an obstacle.

 

[Fred Berg]

Basically it`s whether you want to have negatives=raw or are just happy with an Instamatic=jpeg

It`s raw all the way for me, or raw and jpeg if i know i need people to see photo`s straight away, I use the free "instant jpeg from raw" app that extracts the embedded jpeg from a raw file and can do hundreds in seconds it`s that fast and if you have a Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution, other brands can have smaller embedded jpegs.

John.

For me, the common idea that raw files are like negatives is misleading. Raw files are more like an undeveloped film, in my view, which have a latent image. Decisions about processing need to be taken in order to produce a format which can be printed, if that is the ultimate goal, or which can be displayed electronically: there are no raw files on display in this forum, for instance. This process is comparable to the decisions made on how best to develop film to produce negatives for printing/scanning.

So a better way of looking at this might be JPEG = photo lab / raw = home development.

I post raw files on the internet and this forum all the time so people can see what they look like. Normally because of size I post a JPEG of the unprocessed raw file like this:

View attachment 96500

But it's possible to make the full-res uncompressed image available like this: unprocessed_raw.png
You can download that file and zoom in to verify that the Bayer array is still in place and the file has not been demosaiced.

Raw converters will not typically show you a raw file in this form but there are a couple of ways to extract only the image data without processing it and then save it in a raster as a TIFF file for viewing -- basically just extracing it from it's proprietary format. DCraw for example has an option that will do this.

With the Bayer array in place the image is very dark and because there are two green filters for each red/blue pair the image is very green, but you can see the image content.

Joe

Yes, but a PNG or GIF is a compressed format, albeit without loss of info, it isn't the raw data as captured. I may be wrong and stand corrected if so, but this is splitting hairs, surely. The image you have here is latent and processing would be required before you could print or display it in an electronic frame, etc.

 

[Ysarex]

Basically it`s whether you want to have negatives=raw or are just happy with an Instamatic=jpeg

It`s raw all the way for me, or raw and jpeg if i know i need people to see photo`s straight away, I use the free "instant jpeg from raw" app that extracts the embedded jpeg from a raw file and can do hundreds in seconds it`s that fast and if you have a Nikon the embedded jpeg is full resolution, other brands can have smaller embedded jpegs.

John.

For me, the common idea that raw files are like negatives is misleading. Raw files are more like an undeveloped film, in my view, which have a latent image. Decisions about processing need to be taken in order to produce a format which can be printed, if that is the ultimate goal, or which can be displayed electronically: there are no raw files on display in this forum, for instance. This process is comparable to the decisions made on how best to develop film to produce negatives for printing/scanning.

So a better way of looking at this might be JPEG = photo lab / raw = home development.

I post raw files on the internet and this forum all the time so people can see what they look like. Normally because of size I post a JPEG of the unprocessed raw file like this:

View attachment 96500

But it's possible to make the full-res uncompressed image available like this: unprocessed_raw.png
You can download that file and zoom in to verify that the Bayer array is still in place and the file has not been demosaiced.

Raw converters will not typically show you a raw file in this form but there are a couple of ways to extract only the image data without processing it and then save it in a raster as a TIFF file for viewing -- basically just extracing it from it's proprietary format. DCraw for example has an option that will do this.

With the Bayer array in place the image is very dark and because there are two green filters for each red/blue pair the image is very green, but you can see the image content.

Joe

Yes, but a PNG or GIF is a compressed format, albeit without loss of info, it isn't the raw data as captured. I may be wrong and stand corrected if so, but this is splitting hairs, surely. The image you have here is latent and processing would be required before you could print or display it in an electronic frame, etc.

PNG compression is lossless but the format is 8 bit. I can upload a 16 bit TIFF for you if you like which really would be the raw data without any processing. It would appear the same as the PNG -- point is we can look at it so I wouldn't call it latent. I don't see demosaicing the CFA as quite analogous to film development. You can't see a latent image but you can see a raw image albeit it is pretty useless (but instructive).

I could print it as is though and probably make some kind of post-Dada art project out of it!

Joe