RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting

[snowbear132 63]

Agreed but then Nikon vs Canon is the same. It'll be fine if folks think before they type.

 

[snowbear132 63]

I generally shoot raw with the Nikon, but more recently I shoot raw + jpg. I don't think the minor edits I do degrade jpgs noticeably, or at least as far as I can tell.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

When I go on vacation, I shoot Raw + JPEG. However, when I make up the digital slide shows to display on YouTube or my monitor or 75" 4K TV, I use about 95% of the JPEGs and 5% of the RAW in the selected photos making up the show. I'm not printing, so JPEGs are good enough and still have enough flexibility to get the editing job done.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

I'll say I've saved mostly RAW for years, but the older I've become, the more I think the simplicity of going to JPEG offers advantages. Here's another view for switching to JPEG, any comments to agree or dispute? "Limitations" boost photographic creativity – here's why I ditched RAWs and zooms, and embraced JPEGs and prime lenses

That article is ridiculous:
"I promise you, if you go out and shoot JPEGs you’ll work extra hard at the camera settings and the composition to make those images work."
And often not be able to make them work at all because of limitations in the camera software. I prefer to do less work behind the camera and always get the photo I want.
"Worried about losing the extended dynamic range of RAW files?"
No, I save raw files and get the dynamic range I want.
So I'm going to work harder behind the camera and often completely fail to get the photo I want because of the limited camera software since having choices is bad for me? Nonsense.

I care to make photos with the best possible image quality given the camera I'm using. I can never fail to beat the camera processing software and produce a final image with IQ superior to what the camera software will produce regardless of the camera settings. Why would I want to degrade the quality of my photos by using the JPEGs my cameras create?

"Heck, if it worries you that much (shooting JPEG-only makes me nervous, too), shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time – but swap it around so that the JPEGs are your planned end point and the RAW files are just there for backup." This would suggest that the author doesn't have much of a clue about how cameras work. I would never apply the same exposure to my raw files that would be necessary for the camera to create a usable JPEG.

 

[cgw133 158]

That article is ridiculous:
"I promise you, if you go out and shoot JPEGs you’ll work extra hard at the camera settings and the composition to make those images work."
And often not be able to make them work at all because of limitations in the camera software. I prefer to do less work behind the camera and always get the photo I want.
"Worried about losing the extended dynamic range of RAW files?"
No, I save raw files and get the dynamic range I want.
So I'm going to work harder behind the camera and often completely fail to get the photo I want because of the limited camera software since having choices is bad for me? Nonsense.

I care to make photos with the best possible image quality given the camera I'm using. I can never fail to beat the camera processing software and produce a final image with IQ superior to what the camera software will produce regardless of the camera settings. Why would I want to degrade the quality of my photos by using the JPEGs my cameras create?

"Heck, if it worries you that much (shooting JPEG-only makes me nervous, too), shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time – but swap it around so that the JPEGs are your planned end point and the RAW files are just there for backup." This would suggest that the author doesn't have much of a clue about how cameras work. I would never apply the same exposure to my raw files that would be necessary for the camera to create a usable JPEG.

Wonder how many pay much--if any--attention to in-camera histogram displays? Got into analog late but got smart quick about contrast range and a given film's ability to handle it for the shot.
Personal tastes aren't absolutes...I adore Jochum's old, near edit-free mono DG Berlin Phil Brahms symphonies. Are there better? Probably.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

That article is ridiculous:
"I promise you, if you go out and shoot JPEGs you’ll work extra hard at the camera settings and the composition to make those images work."
And often not be able to make them work at all because of limitations in the camera software. I prefer to do less work behind the camera and always get the photo I want.
"Worried about losing the extended dynamic range of RAW files?"
No, I save raw files and get the dynamic range I want.
So I'm going to work harder behind the camera and often completely fail to get the photo I want because of the limited camera software since having choices is bad for me? Nonsense.

I care to make photos with the best possible image quality given the camera I'm using. I can never fail to beat the camera processing software and produce a final image with IQ superior to what the camera software will produce regardless of the camera settings. Why would I want to degrade the quality of my photos by using the JPEGs my cameras create?

"Heck, if it worries you that much (shooting JPEG-only makes me nervous, too), shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time – but swap it around so that the JPEGs are your planned end point and the RAW files are just there for backup." This would suggest that the author doesn't have much of a clue about how cameras work. I would never apply the same exposure to my raw files that would be necessary for the camera to create a usable JPEG.

How do you decide the settings for raw and jpeg that are different?

 

[Ysarex102 96]

That article is ridiculous:
"I promise you, if you go out and shoot JPEGs you’ll work extra hard at the camera settings and the composition to make those images work."
And often not be able to make them work at all because of limitations in the camera software. I prefer to do less work behind the camera and always get the photo I want.
"Worried about losing the extended dynamic range of RAW files?"
No, I save raw files and get the dynamic range I want.
So I'm going to work harder behind the camera and often completely fail to get the photo I want because of the limited camera software since having choices is bad for me? Nonsense.

I care to make photos with the best possible image quality given the camera I'm using. I can never fail to beat the camera processing software and produce a final image with IQ superior to what the camera software will produce regardless of the camera settings. Why would I want to degrade the quality of my photos by using the JPEGs my cameras create?

"Heck, if it worries you that much (shooting JPEG-only makes me nervous, too), shoot JPEG and RAW at the same time – but swap it around so that the JPEGs are your planned end point and the RAW files are just there for backup." This would suggest that the author doesn't have much of a clue about how cameras work. I would never apply the same exposure to my raw files that would be necessary for the camera to create a usable JPEG.

The sentence I bolded above: there are multiple reasons why but for just this one simple reason; I expose raw files more than the camera can expose to create a JPEG. This morning walking in the park, it was a good day for reflections in the river. I took the photo below. The water was still and the willow trees have already begun to yellow-up for Spring. I didn't have to do any work behind the camera screwing around with settings except to set the exposure which for me is a trivial thing. I set the exposure with an EC of +1.7 above the camera's metered exposure. I did that because I wanted to expose the sensor perfectly -- which I did -- I exposed the sensor to full capacity. Any exposure less than what I set would degrade the image by dropping SNR and any exposure above what I set would ruin the image by clipping critical highlights.

This then is the JPEG my camera created using the exposure that I set (SOOC but resized for the forum).

To get a usable JPEG from the camera would require a reduced exposure = poorer SNR = degraded IQ. Why would I want to do that and at the same time force myself to screw around with all those bleep camera JPEG settings -- more work to get a poorer quality image. Nope, not doin' that.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

How do you decide the settings for raw and jpeg that are different?

I only save raw files and I set an expose that is optimal for the sensor -- in other words use the sensor's total recording capacity. That exposure as you can see in the example I just posted above is not the exposure to get a good JPEG from the camera.

 

[JBPhotog1]

Prime vs zoom, raw vs jog … not much different from auto vs manual transmissions IMO.

Oh contraire, anyone can steal an automatic, manuals are millennial proof. LOL!

 

[snowbear132 63]

Even some boomers and gen-x can't drive a stick. I wasn't taught in school, so I had to learn on my own.

 

[RacePhoto]

Hopefully that won't be the case as there's no right or wrong answer......and every opinion is valid.

The right answer (ha ha ha) is it's all about choice and control. There is no "right" answer. It's a personal decision. I could toss in it's about speed and space and processing and all that, but it's still a choice. How much control does someone think is necessary for their needs or what they want from their images?

I haven't shot a RAW image in about 20 years, and I'm quite happy and pleased with my images. They meet my needs and quality demands. I have enough room for editing adjustments. So I'll go back to the first line C O N T R O L. How much control does someone want and believe they need over their image?

There's no wrong answer, no right answer, It's choice. ps I shoot with crop cameras and L prime lenses. (most of the time) The lens is more important than the camera. But that is also a choice and opinion, based on need and personal demands. My camera has an M on it, I use that.

ps I've had manual transmission cars all my life, until the recent years. I can't find a nice modern stick car, that meets the needs what I want to drive. They don't really make station wagons anymore. Oh they do, but they call them SUVs. Whoo Hoo fancy name, for the same thing, only bigger and less like a car? More like a cross bred small truck/car.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Wonder how many pay much--if any--attention to in-camera histogram displays?

With a modern mirrorless camera the key is the camera's live-view highlight alert. It immediately finds the brightest highlight in the scene. Place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor's saturation threshold and click -- best possible exposure = best SNR = best possible IQ.

Got into analog late but got smart quick about contrast range and a given film's ability to handle it for the shot.
Personal tastes aren't absolutes...I adore Jochum's old, near edit-free mono DG Berlin Phil Brahms symphonies. Are there better? Probably.

 

[DanOstergren38 3]

Oh contraire, anyone can steal an automatic, manuals are millennial proof. LOL!

Millennials grew up in the age of import tuners and The Fast & The Furious. I can assure you, a very large percentage of us can and even prefer to drive manual.

 

[Tartness909414 3]

This is an age old debate that will keep on cropping up every now and then and it's all pretty pointless because none of it matters. I prefer to shoot RAW because I enjoy the editing process as part of my hobby of photography. I use zoom lenses and now and again I will use just a prime, depending on the place or situation. Just take photos now matter what format, what sensor size, what lens, just enjoy taking photos.....end of!

 

[smoke665]

This is an age old debate that will keep on cropping up every now

True, but consider we aren't living in a stagnant technological world. Consider, improvements in camera bodies, lens combinations/communication, processing engines, sensor technology (dynamic range and challenging light), customizable in-camera settings, and the expansion of AI, are are increasingly producing better SOOC JPEGs.

. I prefer to shoot RAW because I enjoy the editing process as part of my hobby of photography.

Valid point, but admittedly photography means a lot of different things to different people. I also enjoy the level of control in post editing, but realize that others might simply enjoy making memories (capturing a slice of time), and not enjoy the post editing, for them the enjoyment is simply capturing the memory, or posting to social media.

Also believe it's a personal choice, though I've learned over the years to not become so entrenched in my ways that I miss a better way.