RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting

[Tartness909414 3]

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.

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.

But that's basically what I am saying. It does not matter whether you shoot jpeg or RAW, b/w or colour, aps-c or ff or any other format, zoom lens or prime. NONE of that matters, just enjoy photography and take photos, all this constant analysing is very tiresome.

 

[smoke665]

NONE of that matters, just enjoy photography and take photos, all this constant analysing is very tiresome.

Because photography like other hobbies invariably involves a level of skill, and learning new skills or improving your tools, equipment, accessories comes with it.

The sad reality of most random shots taken for enjoyment (except possibly family) is they will be sent to the trash when we pass.

 

[SquarePeg50]

all this constant analysing is very tiresome.

This IS a photography discussion site… some people enjoy the debating as much as they enjoy the hobby.

 

[greybeard50 22]

But that's basically what I am saying. It does not matter whether you shoot jpeg or RAW, b/w or colour, aps-c or ff or any other format, zoom lens or prime. NONE of that matters, just enjoy photography and take photos, all this constant analysing is very tiresome.

Any " this vs that " thread is gonna involve the technical aspects of photography. I personally enjoy reading them and will continue to do so. But, if I found them tiresome, I wouldn't bother to read them in the first place

 

[Rickbb81 20]

It's a relatively simple thing. Use the tools that will do the job you want done. For some, (many), JPEG is perfect for their needs. For others, RAW is the way to go. I shoot both, use the JPEG for what I need, RAW when I want to dig deep into editing.

Same with the other stuff, film vs. digital, prime vs. zoom, manual vs. auto, etc., etc.

I do agree that learning what tools you do need requires using them all at one time or another.

 

[greybeard50 22]

When I first started shooting Raw and Jpeg, I usually found the Jpegs looking better. But, like anything else in photography with practice and understanding my computer software, I learned how to recover more shadow detail and finetune the white balance etc. I get better results now with RAW but, it took me a lot of practice.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

When I first started shooting Raw and Jpeg, I usually found the Jpegs looking better. But, like anything else in photography with practice and understanding my computer software, I learned how to recover more shadow detail and finetune the white balance etc. I get better results now with RAW but, it took me a lot of practice.

It depends whether the time is worth the results. For example, I do slide shows where each photo displays 3-5 seconds. Using jpegs is faster. I might use 200 pictures from an 800 shot photo shoot. No one sees shadow details or cares. If it's a little light or dark overall, the jpeg can be adjusted as well.

 

[greybeard50 22]

It depends whether the time is worth the results. For example, I do slide shows where each photo displays 3-5 seconds. Using jpegs is faster. I might use 200 pictures from an 800 shot photo shoot. No one sees shadow details or cares. If it's a little light or dark overall, the jpeg can be adjusted as well.

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[RacePhoto]

It's a relatively simple thing. Use the tools that will do the job you want done. For some, (many), JPEG is perfect for their needs. For others, RAW is the way to go. I shoot both, use the JPEG for what I need, RAW when I want to dig deep into editing.

I do agree that learning what tools you do need requires using them all at one time or another.

Yes, and that means the choice, based on the situation and needs, to shoot RAW or JPG, or for those who want to cover all bases, RAW+JPG. I still say, there is something to time and space (and I don't mean the Einstein theories ) How long does an image take to process? How long does it take to edit. How much space do all those files take? How easily are they accessed? How much space on the card when shooting. These are all decisions, not an automatic, always do this, always do that, kind of thing.

What is the subject? Am I taking one photo of something, and I'm going to make a single image. Or that limited intent. Or am I taking hundreds or thousands of images, which I need to select and edit. RAW vs JPG is one vs the other, in those two situations. Am I operating in a controlled studio situation, with lighting and everything fixed, or am I shooting sports or nature, where I need the shot, now, or the moment could be lost, forever? Extreme, but that is a valid reason to choose JPG over RAW.

People who shoot RAW all the time, for every image, are maximizing their choices. Someone who shoots JPG is more interested in getting the image they want, without worrying about every tiny detail and control over every aspect of the image. Control vs Function, is one possible way to view this.

I don't see the decision based on the situation, or personal choice, as Freedom vs Limiting. I see things as more work, more time, more space, more control vs using tools to make my work easier and faster.

 

[smoke665]

I don't see the decision based on the situation, or personal choice, as Freedom vs Limiting. I see things as more work, more time, more space, more control vs using tools to make my work easier and faster.

True, this seems to be the general consensus on choice for saving RAW vs JPEG. However not really addressed over the last 3 pages, is how choice affects the individual creativity. @AlanKlein pointed out that because of the end use of the images, the finer details of an image post processed from a RAW file wouldn't really be seen. In his case any limitations to creativity are offset by time savings, giving him more time to be creative in production of the slide show itself. Someone else may be working on a fine art print that would benefit from the increased flexibility of a RAW file. IMO the author of the article failed to consider that creativity is not a one sided argument.

Neither had anyone really commented on the prime vs zoom. Personally I differ from the articles simplistic reasoning as being more a choice of right tool for the job, and unlike the article would find a prime only approach more limiting for creativity.

 

[PhotoHobbyist132 158]

I am a hobbyist. For years I took only JPG and regret it now. I look back and see many pics that could be better. Recently I took up RAW+JPG. I put the RAW pics in a folder and go through the JPG deleting over 90% of them. Of the JPGs I save I look to see if they could be improved by using the RAW instead (better dynamic range, blowouts, etc). If so, I edit the RAW to create a better JPG. After I am done, I delete all RAW pics. If the set were important, I would keep the RAW pics. I still have a lot to learn about editing RAW pics and may regret what I am doing in the future.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Yes, and that means the choice, based on the situation and needs, to shoot RAW or JPG, or for those who want to cover all bases, RAW+JPG.

No. Shooting RAW+JPG is not covering all bases. When you do that you have to use the same exposure for both, If I set a best possible exposure for my raw file then my camera makes a trashed & irredeemable JPEG no matter what picture control settings are on the camera. Why bother saving something worthless? If on the other hand I set an exposure to get a good JPEG from the camera then I'm typically compromising the raw file by not exposing the sensor for best possible results. Why bother saving raw files if you're not going to do a good job? Bases not covered.

I still say, there is something to time and space (and I don't mean the Einstein theories ) How long does an image take to process? How long does it take to edit. How much space do all those files take? How easily are they accessed? How much space on the card when shooting. These are all decisions, not an automatic, always do this, always do that, kind of thing.

What is the subject? Am I taking one photo of something, and I'm going to make a single image. Or that limited intent. Or am I taking hundreds or thousands of images, which I need to select and edit. RAW vs JPG is one vs the other, in those two situations. Am I operating in a controlled studio situation, with lighting and everything fixed, or am I shooting sports or nature, where I need the shot, now, or the moment could be lost, forever? Extreme, but that is a valid reason to choose JPG over RAW.

People who shoot RAW all the time, for every image, are maximizing their choices. Someone who shoots JPG is more interested in getting the image they want,

Or not. What if the desired image isn't possible using the camera image processor and your choices are 1) save and process a raw file or 2) walk away because the camera software just can't handle it. I often enough take photos that the camera JPEG processor simply can't handle at all. On top of that I take lots of photos in lighting conditions which challenge the camera processor such that the JPEGs require repair to be usable. That takes longer than processing a raw file, is more difficult, and yet is guaranteed to end up with inferior IQ.

without worrying about every tiny detail and control over every aspect of the image. Control vs Function, is one possible way to view this.

I don't see the decision based on the situation, or personal choice, as Freedom vs Limiting. I see things as more work, more time, more space, more control vs using tools to make my work easier and faster.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

True, this seems to be the general consensus on choice for saving RAW vs JPEG. However not really addressed over the last 3 pages, is how choice affects the individual creativity. [B] @ [B]AlanKlein pointed out that because of the end use of the images, the finer details of an image post processed from a RAW file wouldn't really be seen. In his case any limitations to creativity are offset by time savings, giving him more time to be creative in production of the slide show itself. Someone else may be working on a fine art print that would benefit from the increased flexibility of a RAW file. [/B][/B]IMO the author of the article failed to consider that creativity is not a one sided argument.

Neither had anyone really commented on the prime vs zoom. Personally I differ from the articles simplistic reasoning as being more a choice of right tool for the job, and unlike the article would find a prime only approach more limiting for creativity.

You spelled out in brief terms pretty much the long-winded point I was trying to make. Thanks.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

I am a hobbyist. For years I took only JPG and regret it now. I look back and see many pics that could be better. Recently I took up RAW+JPG. I put the RAW pics in a folder and go through the JPG deleting over 90% of them. Of the JPGs I save I look to see if they could be improved by using the RAW instead (better dynamic range, blowouts, etc). If so, I edit the RAW to create a better JPG. After I am done, I delete all RAW pics. If the set were important, I would keep the RAW pics. I still have a lot to learn about editing RAW pics and may regret what I am doing in the future.

DOn;t delete any files. Leave them for future consideration. Storage is cheap.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

No. Shooting RAW+JPG is not covering all bases. When you do that you have to use the same exposure for both, If I set a best possible exposure for my raw file then my camera makes a trashed & irredeemable JPEG no matter what picture control settings are on the camera. Why bother saving something worthless? If on the other hand I set an exposure to get a good JPEG from the camera then I'm typically compromising the raw file by not exposing the sensor for best possible results. Why bother saving raw files if you're not going to do a good job? Bases not covered.

Or not. What if the desired image isn't possible using the camera image processor and your choices are 1) save and process a raw file or 2) walk away because the camera software just can't handle it. I often enough take photos that the camera JPEG processor simply can't handle at all. On top of that I take lots of photos in lighting conditions which challenge the camera processor such that the JPEGs require repair to be usable. That takes longer than processing a raw file, is more difficult, and yet is guaranteed to end up with inferior IQ.

You may not get the best possible results from the RAw if exposing for jpeg. But with RAW also, you will get more to edit with. So it's still worth shooting Raw + jpeg.