JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

[bribrius]

"The move to digital formats was helped by the formation of the first JPEG and MPEG standards in 1988, which allowed image and video files to be compressed for storage."
History of the camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

bingo. because that is how digital imaging was developed and digital cameras.
Pretty much what I figured but I had to look it up. When you shoot raw you are actually circumventing the development of digital by pulling the primitive file. But they weren't developed that way. The digital camera development was centered around in camera processing to a file image format.



makes sense.

 

[Derrel]

Shooting RAW + JPEG, with the camera set to Monochrome capture mode can create some nice in-camera B&W images. I shot this way on my Canon 20D and 5D, using the Color Toning>Sepia option, with the Filter Effect>Yellow, and the contrast set appropriately for the subject matter and lighting, and the in-camera processing engine produced beautiful in-camera B&W JPEGs. The advantage? Being able to literally SEE, and evaluate the images as B&W images, but with the RAW images possessing full RGB color data.

When you want to make good B&W images, you almost always want to LIGHT things very differently than you would for color images. B&W images are often more focused on line, shape, mass,texture, and tonal value; lacking color information means higher lighting ratios, and greater specularity in the light sources (smaller umbrellas, parabolic reflectors,etc) are better choices most of the time. It's a matter of deciding you want to end up with B&W images, so you set the camera to SHOW you B&W, right there, in the field or studio; it's a matter of having the courage of your convictions, rather than shooting and lighting for RGB color, and then,later at the computer, hoping to salvage shots by converting failed color images into B&W shots.

 

[Fred Berg]

I like to use JPEG, and, depending on camera options, prefer to shoot B&W as in-camera B&W.

 

[Heather Koch]

I always use RAW, I was just surprised something shared that on Facebook and wrote something along the lines of, "JPEG already edits the images for you, why use RAW?" SO I was baffled and had to share...

I also believe the JPEG image used as an example in the article isn't a good file... It looks highly processed...IMO

 

[Ysarex]

I always use RAW, I was just surprised something shared that on Facebook and wrote something along the lines of, "JPEG already edits the images for you, why use RAW?" SO I was baffled and had to share...

I also believe the JPEG image used as an example in the article isn't a good file... It looks highly processed...IMO

All JPEG images are highly processed. All digital photos are highly processed.

Joe

 

[runnah]

I shoot raw and JPEG depending on the situation and intended purpose.

Landscapes - raw
Sports - JPEG
Snapshots - JPEG
Press events - JPEG
Birds - both
Portraits - raw

If you learn enough about each format and the pros/cons it becomes easy to decide which to use when.

 

[jake337]

I shoot raw and JPEG depending on the situation and intended purpose.

Landscapes - raw
Sports - JPEG
Snapshots - JPEG
Press events - JPEG
Birds - both
Portraits - raw

If you learn enough about each format and the pros/cons it becomes easy to decide which to use when.

^^^this but I also shoot raw+jpeg for candids as you never know when you might get something real nice you want to work on later.

 

[Benjo255]

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).

 

[Fred Berg]

Of the two, I prefer JPEG. For me, the disadvantages of raw files outweigh their advantages. Not that I never make use of my cameras' raw settings, but generally speaking I tend to select the largest and finest JPEG option when using digital. It may be that when using film, getting as much right in-camera is the essence of a good end result, and I keep to this principal with digital. Perhaps changing white balance in PP is very convenient with raw, for instance, but setting the appropriate Kelvin value at the time of exposure makes more sense in my book.

 

[Tinderbox (UK)]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Benjo255]

I don't want to start a flame, but really...if you take a photograph...Any photograph...it's just impossibile to understand if it come from a human raw processing or if it is a jpg straight out the camera.
Of course if we make the opposite and start from the same raw... Jpg camera could be worse than a good human raw processing...but could be better than a bad human raw processing.

I personally like life and I dont like the idea of spending tons of hours on lightroom processing raw files.

Not that i mever shoot raw. I do it everyday for my project. But when the number of shots i'm planning to take and processo is above 10...i set the camera on Fine (NOT raw + fine, just fine), trust myself...and go.

 

[Fred Berg]

I don't want to start a flame, but really...if you take a photograph...Any photograph...it's just impossibile to understand if it come from a human raw processing or if it is a jpg straight out the camera.
Of course if we make the opposite and start from the same raw... Jpg camera could be worse than a good human raw processing...but could be better than a bad human raw processing.

I personally like life and I dont like the idea of spending tons of hours on lightroom processing raw files.

Not that i mever shoot raw. I do it everyday for my project. But when the number of shots i'm planning to take and processo is above 10...i set the camera on Fine (NOT raw + fine, just fine), trust myself...and go.

You trust your camera when you use JPEG, just like you trust the lab if you send your film off to be developed. If it's a good lab and you don't want or like to do it yourself, why not?

 

[Benjo255]

Yep. Also. I give precise instructions to my camera/lab (i like the comparison). And these instruction may change. So if i usually keep nr at -2 at daylight, i.e., i can raise it to 0 or +1 when comes the evening and high ISO.

Out of this...i must confess that fuji xe2's jpg are just...awesome. Simply great.

 

[Benjo255]

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.