RAW vs JPEG Debate

Taking Ben's original analogy in the studio while working on the sound and adding various effects, mixing, turning knobs, you are often working with PCM audio encoded many times higher than CD and sometimes even DVD-A quality. But in the end when the final gets put on iTunes or something else that uses some compressed form it is often perfectly acceptable for "archival" purposes.

Even though I shoot in RAW the last step of my work flow is to batch convert all my images to Quality 11 JPEGs. The reason being the same as I don't mind using 256+kbps MP3s even though most people who know me consider me an audiophile. The fact is I simply can not tell the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and a CD, just the same as I can not tell the difference between a high quality JPEG and a RAW file.
 
Taking Ben's original analogy in the studio while working on the sound and adding various effects, mixing, turning knobs, you are often working with PCM audio encoded many times higher than CD and sometimes even DVD-A quality. But in the end when the final gets put on iTunes or something else that uses some compressed form it is often perfectly acceptable for "archival" purposes.

Even though I shoot in RAW the last step of my work flow is to batch convert all my images to Quality 11 JPEGs. The reason being the same as I don't mind using 256+kbps MP3s even though most people who know me consider me an audiophile. The fact is I simply can not tell the difference between a high bitrate mp3 and a CD, just the same as I can not tell the difference between a high quality JPEG and a RAW file.

The difference between RAW and JPEG in the K10D is more flagrant. I was amazed by how much more latitude I had in RAW. It was like shooting with two entirely different cameras. The richness of colour the capacity to control fringing CA, especially in the 16-45 and the profound gradation was evident. No, JPEG is more than 128 kbps in Music.:wink:
 
I understand this could be more due to the way my cameras algorithm encodes JPEG than JPEG as a format in itself... but... it saved the day for me didn't it?

temp1.jpg
 
Yep that looks like the camera's own noise reduction algorithm is pretty poor.

Ben the analogy is still the same. The point of dropping the extra information that is not visible occurs a the last step, and a high quality one ensuring that we are not left with the provided algorithms of normal/basic/fine the camera manufacturer gives us, but instead a 12 point scale in photoshop with additional encoding options. It would be quite different letting the camera convert to JPEG. In fact I must say the D200 is similar. The resulting colours (they are just off in a way I don't know why) and lack of sharpness I get when I shoot straight to JPEG is reasonably poor, even when no post processing is done. I guess I just find Lightroom's algorithms for processing RAW data much more natural. This is apparently something that gives the Fuji cameras an edge over the Nikons even though they seem to be identical in many ways. They produce nicer JPEGs out of the box.
 
Hello all...
The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now.
gallery_456.jpg


Raw vs Jpeg is really one of those horses that everyone seems to groan, but enjoy beating... :)

As others have pointed out, the "debate" is really about personal choice and workflow, not about the technical merits of the formats.

But since we are beating the dead beast...

Raw: unadulterated data=more wiggle room/adjustments. 12-14bit/channel data vs 8bit/channel. bigger file size. needs post-conversion.

JPEG: pre-processed data. magnified noise artifacts. jpeg blocking artifacts. 8bit/channel. smaller file size. can print to printers as-is. easier to use.

Personally, I shoot RAW. Others may opt for JPEG. Seems like the folks who opt for JPEG do so for the following reasons:

- can take more photos per card! (1-6MB vs 9+MB?)
- can take more photos at a time! (20-30 image buffer/infinite buffer instead of say... 6-9 image buffer?)
- dont' want to "post-process" (ah.. raw converters...)
- "just for web" (72dpi... the great equalizer!)
- "just for 4x5, 5x7, 8x10" (With a 7MP jpeg...)
- direct to printer (Huh... doesn't take raw...)

It really comes down to ease of use and one less process/set of tools to learn. Most people who are interested in tweaking their photographs more, are definitely interested in RAW to get the best image they can from their camera, or to avoid known artifacts, or because they want to archive their "Digital negatives".

Okay, gonna wash my hands now. :(
 
There is no Right or Wrong format. Use whichever you are comfortable with.

I switched over to Raw for a couple of reasons.

1. Greater control over the final results. What this means is that I use software,rather than letting the camera convert it to Jpeg at the time it was shot, based on pre set or user set parameters.

2. Greater control when I need to convert an image to B&W
 
...will this debate ever stop? It just keeps going and going and going...

An upcoming debate, just as religious, will be/is the sRGB vs. RGB colorspace issue. Choose one corner, let the fights begin...

I shoot practially 99% JPEG. I've never had a JPEG that would've been improved with RAW, given the overhead, but maybe I'm different. Since I shoot high-volume weddings and have a critical shots-per-card factor (not too high, not too low) JPEG is the best way to manage that, given my exposure techniques.

If you're not shooting high-volume situation, RAW is a good choice. The fact that you can go back to the unprocessed data (that's why it's RAW!) and re-convert to JPEG is a great selling point. As long as you know how proprietary RAW is, have a good archival strategy for a short-lived format like RAW and can handle the overhead, it's a great way to go. Most people should shoot RAW, I suppose.

Having said that, the two highest paid photographers I know, David Ziser and Gary Fong, both shoot JPEG only. Ziser, who gets $25,000 per wedding or bar mitzvah, calls RAW "Really Awful Workflow". Fong, who when he quit doing weddings got over $100,000 per event, will gladly discuss RAW's disadvantages at one of his seminars. Food for thought, folks.

What's important in all respects is the results, RAW, JPEG, DNG or TIFF. If I can achieve a sharp, artifact-free, properly balanced 30x40 by shooting a lowly JPEG then let's leave the name calling out of it, OK?
 
...will this debate ever stop? It just keeps going and going and going...

An upcoming debate, just as religious, will be/is the sRGB vs. RGB colorspace issue. Choose one corner, let the fights begin.

It'll only stop when we stop feeding into the origianl posters of such questions. :lol:
 
Ziser, who gets $25,000 per wedding or bar mitzvah, calls RAW "Really Awful Workflow".

See this is what I don't get. That quote clearly shows that either a) he is not divulging his reasons, b) has a workflow so centred around applications which do not support RAW, or c) has no idea what he's talking about.

In respect I'll probably say it's option b. If you open your memory card and look them in windows explorer to pick the nice images, then open them in photoshop and have to mess with CameraRAW, then yes RAW is a hell of a problem for you.

But every other way I have seen it done, using actual post processing oriented software like Lightroom (which I use but there are MANY others), the workflow for JPEG and RAW is identical in every way, with the exception that when I twiddle the knobs and move the sliders I get better results from RAW, oh and I get colour temperture values in the colour temp slider, not +1 +2 etc. I honestly believe that people who complain solely about the workflow simply do not know how it is done properly, and I don't care how much they get paid.
 
I work with a lot of event photographers, and not one of them is going to bother to work in RAW. Why? It's just shots of a bunch of suits introducing a new hot strategy or product, some people having a party, or an opening of a store. All their customers are perfectly happy, and they don't have to spend the additional hour or two processing. If you're working an event for 4-5 hours, you're going to come away with around 600 shots. Why process those? Yes, we all know how to batch process, but it still takes time.

I know several creative photographers, and not one of them would ever shoot in JPG. Why? There is no reason to forego the available data or the ability to change creative direction in the future. If you're shooting creatively you're going to come away with around 600 images, and you're going to want to process those with the most potential. They still wouldn't batch process everything into PSD or JPG, why use up the hard drive space.

Arguing about RAW vs. JPG is like arguing about camera straps or lens caps. Yes, we all have an opinion, and we can't wait to contribute our very important opinions to these very important threads. But seriously, who really cares? The only ones who do are the people who recently became aware of RAW, but after a short while they decide what works best for them.
 
In my reality and I preface in my reality, as all of us work under very different circumstances, if I were to present a JPEG to an AD of an AD Agency or Magazine, they would look at me and say, "Ok Kanarek, that's funny, but where is "THE" Image? If I said "What are you talking about?" They would get extremely nervous and pray that I am pulling their leg...:)

It is TIFF or PSD from RAW and that "IS" what is expected in my metier.
 
I work with a lot of event photographers, and not one of them is going to bother to work in RAW. Why? It's just shots of a bunch of suits introducing a new hot strategy or product, some people having a party, or an opening of a store. All their customers are perfectly happy, and they don't have to spend the additional hour or two processing. If you're working an event for 4-5 hours, you're going to come away with around 600 shots. Why process those? Yes, we all know how to batch process, but it still takes time.

Yup !
 
I shoot RAW because I will have a lossless Tiff at the end of the day.
 
There really is no debate if your not shooting RAW, then your shooting subquality photos. When you shoot JPEG so much useful information gets thrown away, that it seems barbaric. I use both Photoshop and ACDSee to edit my photos, and I can't count the number of times it has really brought the photo out colour, or helped me clean up an otherwise ruined photo (especially when coupled with HDR). With over 30 options you can alter your photos with even before their open in Photoshop the power is truly in your hands. And with the price of memory cards (Approx $100 for an 8Gb) it really is a no brainer. Cheers.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top