JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

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

You wouldn't believe it but in my original post on this I was going to add except for those horribly dark green things you sometimes see uploaded purely for instructional/technical purposes.

Always cover the pedantic angle....always!

Standing in the corner, corrected :icon_study: and having learned something.

However, Peter Parker ain't :icon_spiderman: till he changes into his JWEB cossie...
 
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

You wouldn't believe it but in my original post on this I was going to add except for those horribly dark green things you sometimes see uploaded purely for instructional/technical purposes.

Always cover the pedantic angle....always!

Standing in the corner, corrected :icon_study: and having learned something.

However, Peter Parker ain't :icon_spiderman: till he changes into his JWEB cossie...

I use them in the classroom. There's no better way to get across the concept of demosaicing a color filter array than just showing them one. They also help convey just how much has to be done in processing to create the final photo. If I don't show them a raw file they really believe the JPEGs they get from the camera come directly off the sensor just like they are.

Joe
 
All very interesting. I went to RAW as it just makes my workflow easier. All files go into an Archive directory where the date was added to the file name, add tags, and then after processing any images in the usual output formats they go to a Developed directory.

I found that shooting JPG did not reduce my turnaround by an amount that made any difference to me. The JPG files from the camera are certainly nice enough, but I found it is just one less thing to adjust on the camera for a shoot by leaving it in RAW.
 
I shoot raw because I run every picture I take through LR. Yup. Every. Single. Picture.
Even pics for stuff I'm throwing on ebay.
Don't know why, I just have to. It's some weird OCD thing or something.
So I figured, if in going to process every file in LR or PS anyway, might as well just shoot raw.
 
Do we have to discuss this again?
 
I shoot raw because I run every picture I take through LR. Yup. Every. Single. Picture.
Even pics for stuff I'm throwing on ebay.
Don't know why, I just have to. It's some weird OCD thing or something.
So I figured, if in going to process every file in LR or PS anyway, might as well just shoot raw.
interesting. Never occurred to me someone would automatically just do that. Use nikon transfer but sometimes will just open file/select all/ copy/paste.
 
As I repeat I'm not against raw. I'm against the concept that raw must be always used.
Suppose I go on vacation one month in thailand (one of my dreams). And...suppose I'm shooting 30 good shots a day. In the end I have 900 shots. Since the 30 shots a day were already a selection of the bests, all the 900 shots are to process. It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. That means 900x10 minutes=9000 minutes. That means 150 hours. Suppose I dedicate 1 hour everyday to process the raw, you'll take 150 days. That means...5 monthes....to have your vacation JPG ready. It sounds just crazy to me.

You are just being silly now. Most of the settings in Lightroom can be synced where you do everything in seconds. I totally get your point about when you want to shoot jpeg, but you are spinning a sophistry with the 5 months thing.
 
.......It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. .........

You spend way too much time working on an image.

I rarely take more than 2 minutes per image. 1 minute or less is normal.
 
.......It will take AT LEAST 10 minutes to develop each of those raws. .........

You spend way too much time working on an image.

I rarely take more than 2 minutes per image.
i spent forty minutes on one last night and i still don't like it. Too many options for edits. If i just shot it jpeg i would have saved forty minutes of my life.
 
i spent forty minutes on one last night and i still don't like it. Too many options for edits. If i just shot it jpeg i would have saved forty minutes of my life.

Um, it's not a requirement to apply every option.

But I gotta ask.... what options are you trying to do that the camera somehow magically does better?

Also, are you using custom presets?
 

Most reactions

Back
Top