What is so bad about RAW?

[unpopular]

What is the problem with someone believing that an stating why?

I love this kind of argument. It's like saying 'it's ok to have an opinion provided that you don't disagree with anyone elses' opinion'.

Likewise, we could be asking, 'what's wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinion and stating why?'

The guy is a complete charlatan, I have no idea where he is coming from. but as far as I can tell he's just a guy with a vlog. He doesn't seem to know what raw files are by stating 'camera makers are turning away from raw' - even if this were true, why stick with jpeg and not switch to lossless png? He repeatedly states that 'most pros shoot jpeg', and that 'video is always [mpeg]' and that there is now RAW for video, both points are completely false.

He's a DANGER TO PHOTOGRAPHY!

 

[Superfitz]

Didn't you just get through trolling a thread with this?
HA HA HA HA HA! IT WAS SUPER FUNNY THE FIRST TIME AND NOW ALMOST A DAY LATER IT'S BOUND TO BE EVEN MORE FUNNY!

HA HA HAHAHAHA!!!!!!

Easy there big fella! I am not trolling. It is a real question. Out of all the videos/blogs out there why focus in on this one to dispute? Nice caps though.

 

[Superfitz]

I love this kind of argument. It's like saying 'it's ok to have an opinion provided that you don't disagree with anyone elses' opinion'.

Likewise, we could be asking, 'what's wrong with disagreeing with someone's opinion and stating why?'

The guy is a complete charlatan, I have no idea where he is coming from. but as far as I can tell he's just a guy with a vlog. He doesn't seem to know what raw files are by stating 'camera makers are turning away from raw' - even if this were true, why stick with jpeg and not switch to lossless png? He repeatedly states that 'most pros shoot jpeg', and that 'video is always [mpeg]' and that there is now RAW for video, both points are completely false.

He's a DANGER TO PHOTOGRAPHY!

Ah.... Got it. You are saying there is quite a bit of mis-information in there. Make sense to me now. Thanks

 

[tecboy]

I don't have problem with people shooting jpeg. However, this video claims jpeg is better than raw.

Why I REALLY Shoot Portraits in JPEG instead of RAW. - YouTube

JPEG is better than raw. What is the problem with someone believing that an stating why?

Why don't you shoot raw and do post processing yourself and see how you like it?

 

[Superfitz]

Why don't you shoot raw and do post processing yourself and see how you like it?

I have. I don't really care for it, or see the sense in it. Actually I've shot raw+jpeg, and when I did the baseline edits to the raw it ended up looking like the jpeg anyway. Any other edits that i need to be done can be made to a jpeg just as easy to a raw. That being said, there is no reason for me to do that initial edit to a raw file.

 

[Compaq]

Lol, most you guys criticizing the video don't understand what he's saying. He is not telling you how to make your art, but merely telling how shooting jpeg helps him as an artist. Then he suggests that maybe you will benefit from it also. I found it enlightening; I have not looked on the the raw vs jpeg debate from that angle before.

 

[Gavjenks]

I really don't like the idea that the only purpose for raw is to fix mistakes. this is kind of like saying the only reason to adjust developer time is to fix a missed exposure.

RAW doesn't add THAT much more dynamic range, etc. If you use it on purpose for effect or to be able to use a faster shutter speed, then you had better know precisely what you are doing, and be underexposing or whatever by precisely the right amount, or your RAW plans will go awry. That's fine, but it's tricky, and I assume anybody legitimately trying to do that knows what they're on about and will ignore any comments otherwise.

If you treat it as a "mistakes only" tool, then it's more likely to be useful by giving you a little cushion in color and exposure, which is what will probably be useful to most people, especially ones still considering whether to shoot RAW or jpeg. They most likely are not considering purposefully pushing their images, etc.

 

[unpopular]

Raw doesn't add dynamic range, per-sey, but it does permit higher bit depth.

This allows you to ETTR, which gives legroom for the shadows that would normally be plugged up.

 

[Steve5D]

I shoot raw files and export to jpeg and upload to website and my ipad. Why these people are so adamant about jpeg better than raw? This is false information. If you want to shoot jpeg, then go ahead. People have a choice, but don't insult photographers who are shooting raw.

They're adamant for the same reason people are adamant about raw being better. It's what they believe.

Personally, I don't shoot raw too often. There's just no need to.

With the gig I have now, I just hand my card in to the nice lady in the office and she deletes the photos she doesn't want, and uploads the rest. So, workwise, shooting raw just isn't a viable option.

Even so, during my 3-1/2 week cross country trip, I may have shot raw, maybe, once or twice. I just didn't see a need to do it...

 

[jake337]

RAW, TIFF, JPEG, ETC....

These are simply tools in your bag just like your lenses, flashes, filters, etc.


Use the tool that best fits given the situation at hand.

 

[unpopular]

What i don't understand is why are camera companies so damn stuck on jpeg? it's just an all-around lousy format. PNG is way better on every level. It can be compressed similarly to jpeg, can be left uncompressed, supports 16bit file formats and is an open format (i think). It's all around more suitable for about every application.

 

[Overread]

What i don't understand is why are camera companies so damn stuck on jpeg? it's just an all-around lousy format. PNG is way better on every level. It can be compressed similarly to jpeg, can be left uncompressed, supports 16bit file formats and is an open format (i think). It's all around more suitable for about every application.

Probably because your average user has never heard of PNG.
Most people have heard of JEPGs - in fact even just shifting to RAW (which is documented in the manuals of most cameras with the feature) confuses them for ages. IF they changed the base working file type it would lead to mass confusion in the market; that is a bad thing for any manufacturer as it means MORE costs for them in product support and also a chance that they will lose a proportion of the market.

Now granted they could phase it in pretty easily by just giving us the option to save in different formats alongside JPEG, however I'm unsure if there are any legal barriers to that aspect with regard to using a different generic file type. Otherwise it might be a software aspect on storage space and how the camera works internally - it could also simply be a case that they don't think its worthwhile since they likely assume anyone taking "photographer seriously" will simply use RAW all the time.

 

[tecboy]

I shoot raw files and export to jpeg and upload to website and my ipad. Why these people are so adamant about jpeg better than raw? This is false information. If you want to shoot jpeg, then go ahead. People have a choice, but don't insult photographers who are shooting raw.

They're adamant for the same reason people are adamant about raw being better. It's what they believe.

Personally, I don't shoot raw too often. There's just no need to.

With the gig I have now, I just hand my card in to the nice lady in the office and she deletes the photos she doesn't want, and uploads the rest. So, workwise, shooting raw just isn't a viable option.

Even so, during my 3-1/2 week cross country trip, I may have shot raw, maybe, once or twice. I just didn't see a need to do it...

I have never say raw is better than jpeg. The only time I shoot jpeg is my P&S camera and my ipad. For DSLR, all raw file format.

 

[Gavjenks]

What i don't understand is why are camera companies so damn stuck on jpeg? it's just an all-around lousy format. PNG is way better on every level. It can be compressed similarly to jpeg, can be left uncompressed, supports 16bit file formats and is an open format (i think). It's all around more suitable for about every application.

PNG gets around 9:1 compression for an average image.
JPEG can get up to 100:1 compression for an average image if aggressively compressing or if the image is not too busy, and around 20:1 even at higher settings and busier images

Also, jpeg is specifically designed for naturalistic images like photos. It cuts corners in the places that are most logical to cut corners, based on human perception of images. So even though it has higher compression that begins to enter into the lossy realm, the losses are the ones that matter least for what photographers care about. PNG is lossless, so it isn't making any of those corner cuts that we can and frankly should get away with if looking for an immediate, SOOC export format.

PNGs would not really add anything useful. They would accomplish less compression, AND do so only for the sake of retaining information that your eye doesn't see very well anyway, which is pretty silly and unnecessarily clogs up hard drives and servers. Also, it wouldn't offer a sliding scale of reasonable->high compression based on preferences in the moment, like jpeg does.

Finally, PNGs are not compatible on quite as many devices and programs as jpegs are. And some programs or websites, even if they accept PNGs, will simply turn them into jpegs anyway before using or posting them (like facebook, in order to save on storage space due to higher compression of jpegs), so if you edit a PNG to look the way you want, you won't get the results you expect when uploading, unlike a jpeg at the right compression.



For the DSLR world, PNG would just be a less useful attempt to fill a niche that jpeg already fills better for SOOC, decent looking shots that take up minimal space. Nor does it replace RAW, because PNGs are only 8 bit (still have to throw out RAW data to get there, just like before converting to jpeg) or 16-24 bit (unnecessarily large and storing a bunch of 0s you don't need). Plus, camera companies can't store as much weird metedata in PNGs like they can in their own RAWs.

PNGs are best for storing very small things like avatars or logos, etc. where you might as well have crispness at the cost of only very minor extra storage space due to small size. They're not good for photo storage.

 

[tecboy]

Why don't you shoot raw and do post processing yourself and see how you like it?

I have. I don't really care for it, or see the sense in it. Actually I've shot raw+jpeg, and when I did the baseline edits to the raw it ended up looking like the jpeg anyway. Any other edits that i need to be done can be made to a jpeg just as easy to a raw. That being said, there is no reason for me to do that initial edit to a raw file.

Why didn't you say that in other thread instead of created a firestorm of debate.