JPEG vs. RAW - Discuss

[Nettles]

We all have our own way of working. As an enthusiastic amateur, (that context can be important), I typically prefer to work with JPEGs. Before editing I usually convert them to a layered format, or TIFFs, to avoid degrading the image by repeatedly saving the original JPEG. I then apply the non-destructive enhancements that are needed for prints.

My cameras are usually set to record RAW and JPEG. For the last 12 years my tweaked JPEGs have been more than good enough for quality prints, and I'm not easy pleased. But having RAW versions available means I can make use of the extra data on those occasions when I actually need it. (Sometimes I experiment with in-camera RAW conversions.)

A lot depends on the image itself, exposure choices, shooting conditions and what manipulation is envisioned. It helps me a lot to be very familiar with powerful image-editing software, in particular its fundamental set of tools.

 

[unpopular]

Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.

There is positively no debate here. I don't know what the deal is with people like Ken Rockwell and others who promote JPEG.

 

[pixmedic]

Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.

or, you simply just want to. Because you can.

 

[unpopular]

or, you simply just want to. Because you can.

There's no excuse for bad photography.

 

[pixmedic]

or, you simply just want to. Because you can.

There's no excuse for bad photography.

your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?
'cause if you can, then its still good photography even if they shot jpeg only.
so....no excuses needed.

 

[Derrel]

Can we perhaps get this thread back on track to more productive and meaningful discussion? You know, stuff that is at least at the level of classical discussion, like say, oh, I dunno... "Ford vs Chevy?", or "Coke vs. Pepsi?"

"Yeah, that would be greaaaaat. Thanks."

 

[Derrel]

Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography. There is positively no advantage to shooting JPEG unless you need a high burst rate, have lots of exposures, or there is some other specific reason to do so.

There is positively no debate here. I don't know what the deal is with people like Ken Rockwell and others who promote JPEG.

Sorry...please don't blame meme! I could not resist.

 

[480sparky]

....., like say, oh, I dunno... "Ford vs Chevy?", or "Coke vs. Pepsi?".........

C'mon...... you can do better than that.


Like Nikon v. Canon, fer instance!

 

[unpopular]

your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?

No. I am saying it is sloppy.

 

[vintagesnaps]

Depends on what Polaroid camera you're talking about. You can use old flash bars with SX-70s, they still work (and the packaging has people with some funky clothes and fun hair dos). I've been using mine this week and a Colorpack. There's film made for some Polaroids but not all.

My digital camera is DNG so it automatically produces a Raw image and a JPEG from that. So that pretty much takes care of that! lol although I can shoot in the Raw setting, or the JPEG setting and just get a JPEG. I just use a super duper Extreme card and shoot in the Raw setting most of the time and that works for me.

Bri maybe it would help to work on your exposures or framing or whatever so you don't have to do so much post processing. Of course if you're playing w/adjustment and learning in the process that's one thing but that sounds like an awful lot of time post processing.

 

[Derrel]

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!

 

[Mr. Innuendo]

your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?

No. I am saying it is sloppy.

I sold a framed print once, which was originally shot in jpeg, for $1,500.00. The framed print cost me $37.00.

I'll take slop like that all day long.

 

[Nettles]

Shooting in JPEG when there is no specific need to is just sloppy photography... There is positively no debate here.

There are plenty of amateurs and professionals who don't use RAW unless there is a specific reason to do so.

They will be gutted to learn they are "sloppy".

“Both formats are capable of the highest quality images… Unfortunately tech folks push Raw without consideration as to how photographers like to work…” (Rob Sheppard).

 

[pixmedic]

your saying you cant produce good photos from shooting a jpeg?

No. I am saying it is sloppy.

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

 

[Fred Berg]

Shooting raw is the photographic equivalent of wearing a rubber johnny: it's safe and there's no spillage, but where's the fun?