JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

[luckychucky]

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

Is that STL?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[malibushooter]

You would be surprised how much a good polaroid camera cost now. The LAND cameras not the instant ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ysarex]

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.

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

Is that STL?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep, Trophy Room, Brannon and Arsenal.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

Why should I waste my time with the RAW file?

Well if it's not an important photo you shouldn't. But if it were important you'd maybe process a raw file so the color was more accurate. That color in the sky for example has a magenta stain that isn't natural here on earth -- maybe in China if the right factory is spewing something.

Joe

View attachment 96524

 

[sashbar]

Why should I waste my time with the RAW file?

Well if it's not an important photo you shouldn't. But if it were important you'd maybe process a raw file so the color was more accurate. That color in the sky for example has a magenta stain that isn't natural here on earth -- maybe in China if the right factory is spewing something.

Joe

View attachment 96524

I am not always looking for an "accurate" color, and no one should. Here the colors are uniformly warm, I like the dominating color here (warm yellow) and trying to correct the sky warm color tint locally just makes no sense to me. I like it as it is. I have seen so many images with local color correction that do not look right even though local colors are "correct". We do not perceive colors in isolation, we embrace the color scheme as a whole, and if it is coherent then it looks right, even though some secondary colors are actually not correct. There is a concept of a "slave tint" which basically says "do not mess with local tints". Therefore trying to "improve" this particular image fiddling with the RAW file makes no sense to me. As said, it is "good enough". This image is not about the color of the car, or the gates or something else, this image is about the warm sunny day that is reflected in the car, the gates, the grass etc.

 

[luckychucky]

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.

Yep, easier and faster overall. When I tell

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

Is that STL?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yep, Trophy Room, Brannon and Arsenal.

Joe

I haven't lived there since the early 90s. I guess it's just ingrained in memory.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've shot in raw. I just don't see the need for me to do it.

I understand why people use it, though, and I understand what it allows. I just rarely find that I need that level of flexibility. In fact, two clients I shoot for specifically require me to not shoot in raw.

I might mess around with it from time to time, but it's not a thing for me.

 

[sashbar]

in the meantime, some eye opening (pun not intended) reading about the blue sky, how to tell green from green and about other colors.

What is blue and how do we see color - Business Insider

 

[Ysarex]

Why should I waste my time with the RAW file?

Well if it's not an important photo you shouldn't. But if it were important you'd maybe process a raw file so the color was more accurate. That color in the sky for example has a magenta stain that isn't natural here on earth -- maybe in China if the right factory is spewing something.

Joe

View attachment 96524

I am not always looking for an "accurate" color, and no one should.

You can chose to not look for or be concerned with accurate color. But you don't get to chose for me and others and tell us we shouldn't. Tell that to X-Rite.

Inaccurate color is not a big deal breaker for this photo. It's not off by much but it's obvious and I couldn't look at the photo without noticing it. Did you either consciously chose to create it as such or did you notice it and chose to leave it alone? I doubt both. I suspect you unthinkingly accepted the color that you got from your camera's GR processor and auto WB setting. You can do that, but you can't tell me that I should.

Here the colors are uniformly warm, I like the dominating color here (warm yellow) and trying to correct the sky warm color tint locally just makes no sense to me. I like it as it is. I have seen so many images with local color correction that do not look right even though local colors are "correct". We do not perceive colors in isolation, we embrace the color scheme as a whole, and if it is coherent then it looks right, even though some secondary colors are actually not correct. There is a concept of a "slave tint" which basically says "do not mess with local tints". Therefore trying to "improve" this particular image fiddling with the RAW file makes no sense to me. As said, it is "good enough". This image is not about the color of the car, or the gates or something else, this image is about the warm sunny day that is reflected in the car, the gates, the grass etc.

There is no such concept as a "slave tint" -- that's a bunch of BS there. There are color phenomena such as simultaneous and successive contrast which I understand -- "slave tint" isn't one of them. There is a concept of "good enough" and I do understand that.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

in the meantime, some eye opening (pun not intended) reading about the blue sky, how to tell green from green and about other colors.

What is blue and how do we see color - Business Insider

Color, color theory, and color perception has long been a hotly debated topic; you can start back with Newton and Goethe. Business Insider as a source however is not where I'd start looking. The topic is overrun with pseudoscience and pop culture rubbish.

Joe

 

[bribrius]

shoot everything bw problem solved

 

[Buckster]

shoot everything bw problem solved

With which color filter, since you want it to pop out of the camera ready to go?

 

[bribrius]

shoot everything bw problem solved

With which color filter, since you want it to pop out of the camera ready to go?

good point.... you had a good reason for disagreeing this time....

 

[pixmedic]

You would be surprised how much a good polaroid camera cost now. The LAND cameras not the instant ones.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I have two!
Land HO Photography Forum
i dont really think they are overly expensive though. I see them for sale all the time <$50

 

[unpopular]

Six pages for a non-issue.

TPF at it's finest.