RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting

[William Baroo]

If there would come up a reason that one had to shoot in jpeg and could see that the image would need a lot of processing, they could shoot in jpeg FLAT or NEUTRAL. These color settings add minimal "in camera" processing and will take post processing much better than other color settings.

I learn something new every day, unless I am determined not to.

I used to shoot pretty much only raw but one shoot I put it on raw and jpg but now with the X2Dii there is an hdr setting but it needs to in heir so I will shoot the next time in both formats. It will be interesting to see the differences.

That is interesting. I just learned that my Powershot V1 has something similar, and the way to get the most editing leeway is to use raw + HEIF.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

I learn something new every day, unless I am determined not to.


That is interesting. I just learned that my Powershot V1 has something similar, and the way to get the most editing leeway is to use raw + HEIF.

The way to get the most editing leeway is to use raw only and set an optimum exposure for the raw file. If you use raw + HEIF you'll expose to get a good looking camera output image (HEIF) and typically that exposure will compromise the raw file. If you use raw + HEIF but optimally expose the raw file that will typically ruin the HEIF so why bother. They're two different exposures; a best exposure for the camera output image (HEIF) is not usually the best exposure for the raw file and vise versa.

The camera output image has a disproportional tone curve applied and it's necessary to take that into consideration when setting an exposure. Raw files record data linearly and do not have a disproportional tone curve applied and so can be simply exposed to maximum capacity (which gives you maximum editing leeway).

 

[William Baroo]

Thanks for the tips. My understanding is that if I use the feature (HDR PQ), it would only be for certain situations, like very bright days with harsh shadows. It would be a separate shooting mode on my dial.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Thanks for the tips. My understanding is that if I use the feature (HDR PQ), it would only be for certain situations, like very bright days with harsh shadows. It would be a separate shooting mode on my dial.

HDR PQ optimizes the camera output image (HEIF required) for high dynamic range displays taking advantage of HEIF's 10 bit storage capacity and applying a different tone curve in processing. If you want that image that's fine. You're still getting a final output image that uses lossy compression which will cause image degradation if you edit it.

I'm not 100% on this and would have to investigate further but the question is begged; how if at all does HDR PQ affect a saved raw file? What I've read suggests that it does affect the raw file and that affect is paradoxical in that HDR PQ may reduce exposure to allow more highlight headroom assuming very high contrast lighting. If that's correct then HDR PQ may result in a better output image at the expense of the raw file. A camera sensor has a fixed dynamic range capability that can't be expanded. You can use all of that capability if you save a raw file from a full capacity sensor exposure. Any reduction in exposure from a full capacity sensor exposure records less data and ultimately delivers less dynamic range. So if HDR PQ is reducing exposure you may be trading a better camera output image for a poorer quality raw file. This question needs answered; how if at all does HDR PQ affect a saved raw file?

 

[William Baroo]

HDR PQ optimizes the camera output image (HEIF required) for high dynamic range displays taking advantage of HEIF's 10 bit storage capacity and applying a different tone curve in processing. If you want that image that's fine. You're still getting a final output image that uses lossy compression which will cause image degradation if you edit it.

I'm not 100% on this and would have to investigate further but the question is begged; how if at all does HDR PQ affect a saved raw file? What I've read suggests that it does affect the raw file and that affect is paradoxical in that HDR PQ may reduce exposure to allow more highlight headroom assuming very high contrast lighting. If that's correct then HDR PQ may result in a better output image at the expense of the raw file. A camera sensor has a fixed dynamic range capability that can't be expanded. You can use all of that capability if you save a raw file from a full capacity sensor exposure. Any reduction in exposure from a full capacity sensor exposure records less data and ultimately delivers less dynamic range. So if HDR PQ is reducing exposure you may be trading a better camera output image for a poorer quality raw file. This question needs answered; how if at all does HDR PQ affect a saved raw file?

I know nearly nothing about it. If it can save shots on sunny days which would otherwise be very hard to get, I would accept it even if the raw file was somewhat limited. If it's a gimmick that produces low-grade images, it's not for me.

This is really smart camera for $900. A lot going on in there.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Thanks for the tips. My understanding is that if I use the feature (HDR PQ), it would only be for certain situations, like very bright days with harsh shadows. It would be a separate shooting mode on my dial.

I did some more reading and searching and I'm pretty confident about this now.
Engaging HDR PQ does not force any change in how the camera saves raw files. So if you had the camera exposure (shutter speed & f/stop) set to record a full capacity sensor exposure (base ISO required) in a raw file with HDR PQ turned off and then only turned HDR PQ on and retook the same exposure you'd get the same raw file. HDR PQ doesn't have any direct affect on a raw file.
Now there's some howevers.....
However when you engage HDR PQ Canon recommends you also turn on HTP(Highlight Tone Priority) -- recommendation shows up in the camera menu. Engaging HTP does typically cause reduced exposure in the raw file -- it does this by forcing a 1 stop increase of the ISO above base which would cause the metering system to meter a reduced exposure.
However with HDR PQ engaged the camera displays a different preview image than the non-HDR PQ preview image and folks who set exposure WYSIWYG may apply an exposure adjustment based on that HDR PQ preview.
However with HDR PQ engaged the choice to expose for either an optimal raw file or the camera output image remains unchanged: RAW vs JPEG - Freedom Or Limiting If you determine exposure based on the output image and that includes an HDR PQ HEIF you will likely be underexposing the raw file. If you want maximum DR and editing leeway you get that by exposing the sensor in your camera to capacity. I went to DPReview and looked at the sample images for your camera the Canon V1. This image is a normal looking JPEG and the HDR PQ version should be pretty similar: https://www.dpreview.com/sample-galleries/3994260317/canon-powershot-v1-sample-gallery/6586876082 The raw file for that photo is there to download and I examined it. The sensor was underexposed by at least 1.5 stops. Substantially less than 1/2 of the sensor was exposed to create that photo.

 

[smoke665]

Yes, to further clarify we have two topics here concerning Option A and Option B

The options you mention herein are mostly discussions on the advantages/disadvantage of RAW vs JPEG. In everyone's haste to argue which is best, not much has been discussed on the actual point of the article,- does the choice of file format and/or prime vs zoom lenses, "Limitations boost creativity"? In your case you feel it does, but in some others it doesn't seem to. In your above post you say "are there objective differences between the two beyond just the different levels of involvement of the various users? And yes there are." Again, the article isn't about which file format is best, it's about how "Choice is fine, but you also need decisions. And sometimes the less choice you have, the more creative the outcome". It's about forcing yourself to be more decisive up front, to limit your choices in camera and lens choice (prime vs Zoom), so you can be more deliberate in shooting. Is it harder, as you mentioned earlier?? Of course it is, the author also acknowledged, "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." While it's true that it is important for the person to be knowledgeable of the consequences, but ultimately no matter what file format they save, which lens they choose, or edit/SOOC it's a highly subjective choice, based on personal feelings and opinions, on all parts of the image that is elevates a good "exposed" image to a good "creative image".

What's the JPEG shooter going to do in this situation to get a decent image? They're going to give up the sky and increase exposure for the lantern -- so blown highlights.

This isn't a new problem, photographers have been dealing with DR limitations since the very beginning.The advent of digital with all it's technology made us forget, that we can manage DR by adding light where needed and take it away where we don't. Very seldom is a sky not going to have greater luminosity than the foreground, that's why in my bag are ND and GND filters, speed lights, and collapsible reflectors. Do I ever spin the EC dial, of course I do, but not to the point of obsessing, it's just another tool, with a time and place to use. I've found the older I get the more I've come to resent the technology, and revert back to experience and manual adjustments.

 

[AlanKlein98 14]

The JPEG is very overexposed but the raw file (same exposure) is not overexposed. Image quality improves with increasing exposure and image quality degrades with decreasing exposure. It's a direct relationship. By exposing the sensor to capacity you get the best possible image quality for that camera system -- and that's what I did with the Art Museum raw file. What I've shown is that in order to get a good JPEG with that Art Museum photo I would be forced to expose less than the full capacity sensor exposure I used for the raw file. An exposed-less JPEG (and companion raw file) then would have reduced image quality relative to what I got in my exposed-more raw file. The choice to expose for a good JPEG in that example then would force acceptance of image quality that is slightly less than the maximum the camera system is capable of delivering.

Your method ruined getting a good picture from jpeg and a very good picture from RAW. My question is shoot for the best jpeg and then let';s see how much capability you have additional from editing the raw. YOu may find that there's still enough range inn the raw to get what you want. All you;ve done is ruined the possibility for getting a good jpeg. There's no reason to shoot JPEG + RAW because the jpeg will fail every time.

 

[William Baroo]

I did some more reading and searching and I'm pretty confident about this now....etc.

I really appreciate you going to all that effort. You have to be a Ph.D. engineer to understand even one camera and one piece of software these days.

If a small underexposure is the biggest issue, it sounds like a useful tool. Photolab is great at fixing things like that.

The monitor preview is a topic in and of itself. I adjusted the monitor to give me settings that are supposed to be close to the final raw file, but if I understand how things work, this was a waste of time, because the raw files always look like garbage on the monitor and when first opened for editing, so I might as well set the monitor to give me some rough approximation of the JPG or TIFF I am likely to end up with after editing. As it is, I am using the monitor for composition and not much else.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

The options you mention herein are mostly discussions on the advantages/disadvantage of RAW vs JPEG. In everyone's haste to argue which is best, not much has been discussed on the actual point of the article,- does the choice of file format and/or prime vs zoom lenses, "Limitations boost creativity"? In your case you feel it does, but in some others it doesn't seem to.

I did comment on the article at the beginning of the thread. I don't think limitations, especially self-imposed limitations, boost creativity. If I'm going to go out not knowing what I might photograph I'm taking a zoom lens. I think it's very important to exercise creative control to determine perspective in a photograph. Forcing myself to artificially choose between perspective and framing in a photo or to give up the perspective I'd prefer because I brought the wrong lens focal length isn't smart and it isn't going to make me more creative it's going to make me miss the photo.

In your above post you say "are there objective differences between the two beyond just the different levels of involvement of the various users? And yes there are." Again, the article isn't about which file format is best,

To a degree it is. The author suggests I use inferior tools and accept what must be inferior quality photographs as a way to encourage my creativity. I don't want to accept degraded quality in my photographs in exchange for having my creativity encouraged -- I would certainly never artificially self impose that and think it's a benefit. He needs to think of some other way to encourage my creativity that doesn't include degrading my photographs and taking away my ability to photograph whatever I want.

it's about how "Choice is fine, but you also need decisions. And sometimes the less choice you have, the more creative the outcome". It's about forcing yourself to be more decisive up front, to limit your choices in camera and lens choice (prime vs Zoom), so you can be more deliberate in shooting. Is it harder, as you mentioned earlier?? Of course it is, the author also acknowledged, "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."

Sometimes you'll be forced to give up the more creative image because the camera software just can't do it at all.
And always you'll end up settling for degraded image quality even when you do make the image work. And you'll have worked extra hard for that.
No thanks.

While it's true that it is important for the person to be knowledgeable of the consequences, but ultimately no matter what file format they save, which lens they choose, or edit/SOOC it's a highly subjective choice, based on personal feelings and opinions, on all parts of the image that is elevates a good "exposed" image to a good "creative image".

This isn't a new problem, photographers have been dealing with DR limitations since the very beginning.The advent of digital with all it's technology made us forget, that we can manage DR by adding light where needed and take it away where we don't. Very seldom is a sky not going to have greater luminosity than the foreground, that's why in my bag are ND and GND filters, speed lights, and collapsible reflectors. Do I ever spin the EC dial, of course I do, but not to the point of obsessing, it's just another tool, with a time and place to use. I've found the older I get the more I've come to resent the technology, and revert back to experience and manual adjustments.

Photography is an entirely technology dependent activity and although in the end it's the image that matters the image has to be supported by the technology -- you can do that well or poorly.

 

[DanOstergren38 3]

For some people I can see how intentionally limiting oneself COULD boost their creativity or force someone to slow down and take the time to take a more purposeful approach to how they create a photograph, especially if they don't intend on editing. I myself have many times used just a single prime lens for many of my photo sessions, but that's based on personal preference, not an intentional exercise in slowing myself down or boosting creativity through intentional limitation. I think what the author might not be understanding is that their approach won't work for many photographers. For many photographers having those extra lens options and a file format like RAW that allows for a lot more editing capabilities will be the boost in creativity they seek. Even the act of editing is a creative endeavor. The author seems to be overwhelmed by options, but for the vast majority of us, that's just not the case.

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Your method ruined getting a good picture from jpeg and a very good picture from RAW. My question is shoot for the best jpeg and then let';s see how much capability you have additional from editing the raw. YOu may find that there's still enough range inn the raw to get what you want. All you;ve done is ruined the possibility for getting a good jpeg.

In exchange for getting better results from the raw file. Works for me.
Yes of course you can shoot raw + JPEG and expose for a good JPEG -- the raw will still contain a lot of usable data which can be valuable for a lot of people.

There's no reason to shoot JPEG + RAW because the jpeg will fail every time.

 

[smoke665]

Photography is an entirely technology dependent activity a

Really? Guess we should tell all the film aficionados on TPF they don't exist, because they dont have technology. LOL

Breaking down your ETTR method, the fact that JPEGS are 8 bit vs the 12 -14 bits in a RAW file means you automatically have more headroom before the highlights blow. Whether that carries through when you convert it back to a JPEG is debatable, as pure white in RGB is 255.255.255, anything above that is lost.

Pentax highlight correction in the K1MII expands the dynamic range by underexposing 1 stop to prevent clipping and boosts shadows/midtones for a balanced file. If you save as JPEG they are applied to the file. If you save RAW they're saved as a tag but tge RAW file is not changed. In the latest. I typically ETTR the RAW to the point where clipping just starts. Guess I need to try the highlight correction on a JPEG to compare. On the new K3iii highlight weight average to anaylize the scene.

author seems to be overwhelmed by options, but for the vast majority of us, that's just not the case.

I thought the same. As in most things there isnt a "one size fits all".

 

[Ysarex102 96]

Really? Guess we should tell all the film aficionados on TPF they don't exist, because they dont have technology. LOL

You don't think a film camera lens or a mechanical/electrically powered shutter is technology? LOL Nicholas Roosevelt's 1810 steamboat was technology.

Breaking down your ETTR method,

I don't do ETTR I just use the sensor -- all of it.

the fact that JPEGS are 8 bit vs the 12 -14 bits in a RAW file means you automatically have more headroom before the highlights blow. Whether that carries through when you convert it back to a JPEG is debatable,

No it's not. Anyway there are a number of reasons in addition to my being able to expose more when saving a raw file that guarantee IQ superior to what's in a camera JPEG. In addition to more DR to work with, being able to expose more means I get less noise -- better SNR. Which means I can reach deeper into the shadows because the noise floor is lower -- and carry that over to the JPEG I create.

as pure white in RGB is 255.255.255, anything above that is lost.

Pentax highlight correction in the K1MII expands the dynamic range by underexposing 1 stop to prevent clipping and boosts shadows/midtones for a balanced file. If you save as JPEG they are applied to the file. If you save RAW they're saved as a tag but tge RAW file is not changed.

My Fuji cameras do the same thing. What that can't do is record more DR than a full capacity sensor exposure. Sensor DR capacity is fixed in manufacture and can't be further extended. A full capacity sensor exposure records the maximum amount of DR that camera system is capable of recording.

In the latest. I typically ETTR the RAW to the point where clipping just starts. Guess I need to try the highlight correction on a JPEG to compare. On the new K3iii highlight weight average to anaylize the scene.


I thought the same. As in most things there isnt a "one size fits all".

 

[RacePhoto]

You can have the biggest sensor, while JPEGS that are only 8 bit vs the 12 -14 bits in a RAW, but the paintbrush doesn't make the painting, and the best paints in the world, will never make me a better artist. I'll admit that better tools make a craftsman more able to work with their talent level, but shooting RAW isn't the end, it's just a means.

You can have the headroom, pixels or anything else, with the best and most modern technology, but the results aren't dependent on that. The eye is, the editing, the composition, the exposure. Where the argument of RAW over JPG fails is, JPGs are not so inadequate that they can't produce a comparable image. Shooting a RAW image, doesn't automatically make the image better, or the resulting image better.

How fine, how large, how much latitude, does someone need? and ps when you save that RAW as a JPG, it's 8 bits.

I can see three potential positions or arguments here. I may be missing something else.

One is shoot RAW because you have more data and more control.
Another is, more pixels, bigger sensor is always better. More data. (Which is somewhat like the first)
Yet another is, the lens is the eye of the photo, you can't capture everything without the best lens.

I'm an advocate of the last group. I'm convinced that the lens is more important than the pixels or the bits. You can't correct an inherently, visually flawed image, with more pixels or more latitude. But I admit that's me. I'm sure there are people who have settled on pixels and sensors and other that want control, by shooting RAW.

Pick your personal poison obsession?

I don't find that shooting JPGs are a severe limitation.