JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

[480sparky]

If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting raw, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting raw+JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG in certain instances, and one gets the desired results shooting raw in other instances, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one understands the differences between shooting JPEG and shooting raw, and knows how to choose whether to shoot JPEG, raw + JPEG, or just raw based on their needs and the merits of both formats, one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

When one does not judge others adversely for their choices, one should be praised.




Now quit squabbling about the non-issue and go shoot something instead.

 

[bribrius]

If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting raw, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting raw+JPEG, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one gets the desired results shooting JPEG in certain instances, and one gets the desired results shooting raw in other instances, then that's perfectly fine and acceptable and one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

If one understands the differences between shooting JPEG and shooting raw, and knows how to choose whether to shoot JPEG, raw + JPEG, or just raw based on their needs and the merits of both formats, one should not be judged adversely for making this decision.

When one does not judge others adversely for their choices, one should be praised.




Now quit squabbling about the non-issue and go shoot something instead.

but... but......

but....


i just hate to see people get stuck on the RAW thing. There is a time and a place for everything.

Be able to walk out of your house and take a photo with any camera you have, your cellphone, whatever is there. When you start relying on the tech too much it becomes the tech over the photographer. I would like to think (and personally want the ability myself) of picking up any camera and being able to accomplish a decent photo. That seems to be what i would consider a good photographer. Ability to adapt to equipment and conditions.
Some things a jpeg can not do as well. A given. But reliance, seems limiting the photographers potential. Why for me personally, in continue to shoot with low quality cameras still sometimes. It adds a challenge. Knowing the capabilities of the camera and working around them. So if i take out one of my junk cameras shooting jpeg only and my shots come out well. I am tickled pink. Sure, it would be easier and might come out better on a dslr shooting RAW. But if i take it with for instance my free camera i got from a yard sale give away or one of my kids toys cameras, and it still came out well. I love that novelty.

 

[bribrius]

Well, there are some cameras that can produce pretty good SOOC JPEG images, or JPEG images that can be edited in post to make pretty good images. The keys are several, I think, but first is familiarity with the camera and the setting options, and how well the settings match up to the shooting conditions. A LOT of users of the newer Fuji mirrorless cameras, including some pretty well-known and respected professionals, have mentioned how they are happy with the Fuji JPEG files. Me? I used to shoot the Fuji S2 Pro d-slr in JPEG capture mode a lot, as in most of the time; raw conversion s/w back then was not fully supported, and converting was painfully slow, and the **camera itself** had a very easy-to-use, 4-button setup on the back that made it easy to adjust color saturation, sharpening, and tone curve. Those three controls are pretty important if you're gonna shoot JPEG. Also, white balance is important.

SOOC JPEG used to mean crappy in-camera sharpening, substandard noise reduction, and for Nikon users, a very flat tone curve and an overall kinda' muddy, dim image; those days are gone. Now there are user-selectable color "looks", and much better sharpening, and Nikon deliberately eliminated that awful "Nikon look" that used to make their images look...dingy. Sharpening has also gotten better, less halo-prone. All these things allow users to shoot more toward a final look, rather than the old way of shooting for the least-modified, lowest tone-curve images that would absolutely necessitate being post-processed to be even remotely looking like a finished, usable image.

If a person wants to shoot SOOC JPEG, white balance bracketing, and also pre-set, custom WB are both good settings/controls to become familiar with. When shooting JPEG, the white balance becomes a very critical aspect of how the image turns out!

I am overdue for another self demotion back to cheap point and shoot, crap cellphone, something. since for the last year i have been getting more and more involved in equipment, lenses, now lighting, i am getting to far from the simplicity of it. Film will help me demote myself a little i think, not sure enough. Just getting too far "away" and stuck on other things beyond just taking the shot and paying attention to what i see. Catch 22 though. I self demote back to other "less superior" choices i might gain some character as a photographer (maybe?) but it pauses what i am learning in tech and skill in other areas. what to do, what to do. Maybe i should keep learning lighting but make myself take portraits with the 4mp cellphone or something. I have that new point and shoot panasonic i mentioned in the off topic thread. i Had that out yesterday with a film camera. It almost works too good for this cause. I had to work to get the snow to blow out in the sun still. The newer cameras are quite astounding in some ways, even the point and shoots.

I think i am overdue for a demotion though. I should kick myself back to a 5mp point and shoot for a month. Starting to pay more attention to equipment than what i am looking at. Can't be good...

 

[Dave442]

I started with JPG when I received my D200. After a while I found the settings in the camera were very limited as to the output image. The SOOC JPG are generally good with the limited Optimize Image settings available and I had some different settings in each of the memory banks (although I never tried to make and load a custom Tone Curve using the Nikon software). This was about the same a shooting with my old Sony DSC-V1 P&S, perfectly good results but not always what I wanted (often too much saturation). Now with RAW I think I have left most of the Optimize Image settings in Auto.

I did learn Custom White Balance and from that I still find I often set a custom white balance while shooting RAW.

What I had liked about B&W film was making the final prints. I had wanted to do that with color but never added that equipment to my darkroom. So now with RAW and software I have the ability to play in the darkroom in color. Of course, when I shot film the B&W was to make images I liked, I grabbed a roll of Kodacolor if it was for some family and friends and took Kodachrome for trips to give a slide show and make a print or two.

So in the end I think if you use JPG or RAW or film sort of depends on what you want to do.

 

[minicoop1985]

I'm all raw all the time because I'm too terrible not to. Vacation pics are JPEG if I'm just taking snapshots.

 

[pixmedic]

My first DSLR was a D100. Long time ago. There is a huge, and I mean HUGE difference between the quality of jpeg the D100 produces compared to new cameras. Even non dslr.
For general purposes for most people, I just don't see anything inherently wrong with shooting jpeg.

 

[Derrel]

I started with JPG when I received my D200.>SNIP> (although I never tried to make and load a custom Tone Curve using the Nikon software).

Dave, I have a pretty useful custom tone curve for the D2x and D200, which can be loaded into the camera using older version of Nikon Capture software. If you would like to have it, I could e-mail or DropBox the file for you. It's very small, and it basically allows the camera to create a very snappy SOOC JPEG which has good DR and a nice hold over the highlights and shadows. Exposure is set to Minus 1.7 EV, and then the SOOC JPEGS look pretty much ready to go, and the same tone curve will be the As-Shot applied in software on the .NEF files.

As pixmedic mentioned, the D100's JPEGS were...well...AWFUL. Soft, kind of flat, dingy...ugly. What we get out of newer Nikons are pretty good, especially at high ISO values if in-camera High ISO noise reduction is set, and a person shoots RAW + JPEG and lets the camera do its thing. I shot a party a couple years ago, and the SOOC JPEGS at high ISO levels indoors were really,really nice. I thought the Nikon NR was about as good as I could do: I am not much on applying NR, preferring increased detail over smoothing, but the camera's NR routines seem pretty darned good, and I had my 375 frames done...as soon as I shot them. I'll admit it: I processed the NEF files by hand, then looked at the SOOC JPEG files and went...huh...these both look soooo close...the camera did a hell of a lot better than I thought. NEWER Nikons are making better and better SOOC JPEG files, especially if things like the in-camera vignette control is turned on, and the camera is set up to be at least close to the conditions. The tone curve (contrast) needs to be allowed to be set by the camera, I think, at least in run-n-gun, indoor flash situations and strong backlighting. Active D-Lighting can work pretty well.

I think honestly there's better automation and scene analysis in the newer Nikons, with the better sensors and wider DR, to the point that what we learned 7,8,9,10 years ago does not apply to the same degree it once did. I think some people try to out-think, out-analyze some settings, and end up doing worse than what Nikons SRS scene recognition system can do IF it is turned on, and not deliberately crippled. Again...why not at least try RAW + JPEG, and see for yourself what can be done by at least giving the system a chance. Worse case? Just ditch what you do not like of the SOOC jpeg files.

I personally LIKE the JPEG files as editing tools: slide show them, and see the files, big, and sharpened, and processed, and kill-file the crap. It's faster and easier than viewing RAW files by the hundreds.

 

[jaomul]

There will be many opinions on this. For myself I find I cannot really do better than my Olympus camera if I get it completely right in camera, for my Nikon I think I can slightly improve the look.

I do find though that I don't always get it right and raw helps me then. I also am not great at editing but if I have to use the crazy iso ranges, scenes where a nikon df or d4s would be ok, but my d7100 or EM5 struggle, I can usually make it look better than the sooc jpegs. My vote is raw and jpeg just in case

 

[Ysarex]

I always have a camera with me where ever I go and I take photos almost daily. My compact is about the size of a phone. Yesterday I walked to the grocery store and took this photo because I wanted to, and I could.

Joe

 

[bribrius]

I always have a camera with me where ever I go and I take photos almost daily. My compact is about the size of a phone. Yesterday I walked to the grocery store and took this photo because I wanted to, and I could.

Joe

you have a compact point and shoot that shoot raw?

 

[Ysarex]

you have a compact point and shoot that shoot raw?

Yes.

Check this one out -- saves raw files: http://www.amazon.com/Canon-PowerSh...TF8&qid=1425775254&sr=8-1&keywords=Canon+s110

I went through this years ago. First we go back 30 years. I always wanted a camera with me at all times. I used to try and carry mini 35mm film cameras -- like I had an Olympus XA. It never really worked out because the photos still weren't immediate enough. It would take days to finish a roll of film and then you had to develop it etc. etc. and I'd start leaving without the camera because I didn't have a roll of film and etc. etc.

When digital came along I revived my desire to always carry a camera and I started buying small shirt pocket cameras like the Sony WS or Panasonic FH series. I finally really got to carrying a camera at all times with those, and I went through a handful of them over the course of a couple years. But it was always the same story -- I'd get frustrated. I'd try to take some photos that the camera software just couldn't handle -- like backlit. I also got frustrated because shooting JPEGs in those cameras was too much work and took too much time. So I'd give the camera to a niece or nephew and soon enough I'd miss it and get another one.

Finally I decided I would have to compromise size and get the smallest compact I could find that still gave me control of the camera and saved a raw file. I got a Samsung EX-1 in 2011. Smaller width and height than a smart phone but considerably thicker. Fits easily in a jacket pocket and otherwise I've adjusted to it hanging from my wrist. I replaced it with the Samsung EX-2 when that was released. I have full manual exposure control, manual focus if needed and it saves 12 bit raw files so processing is faster and easier than saving JPEGs (for me). I consider the Samsung EX-2 my main camera. I have other cameras but the camera I use the most is the camera I have with me everywhere. I'm a lot like you in that regard in that I always have a camera with me and I take photos almost daily.

I had to hang 4 prints in a gallery last semester (faculty art show). One was a photo from my 5DmkII and three were from my EX-2 -- kinda says it. I took photos with my EX-2 yesterday, I took photos with it the day before, I took photos with it this morning, I'll probably use it tomorrow. I got rid of the 5DmkII last year and replaced it with a Fuji. The Fuji is a great camera and I use it more than I did the Canon, but it can still sit for weeks at a time in between uses.

For curiosity here's the camera JPEG of that above photo:

Joe

 

[malibushooter]

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


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[/quote
Quote
My bad I was refering to there ones with GOOD lenses, those actually are around 500-2know & the 4x5 converted ones such as a LITTMAN can cost more than 6k

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[malibushooter]

Littman 4x5


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[unpopular]

Maybe its sloppy if you need to shoot raw because you can't get it right in camera. [emoji8]

Nope, I shoot raw because I understand that photography doesn't stop at the camera. I am very intentional about exposure, and plan according to post exposure. Did the same sort of thing in the darkroom, too - as many photographers did and do.

Go read The Negative and use your imagination for yourself. I'm getting pretty sick of explaining how this all works.

 

[Vtec44]

All I'm saying is that I like it RAW.