RAW vs. JPEG

[James Fee]

http://pcphotomag.com/content/2005/janfeb/jpeg.html

"Let’s begin by acknowledging that RAW offers superb benefits of increased adjustability for image files, and some photographers simply like working with all the adjustment possibilities it features. RAW isn’t the “pro” format and JPEG the “amateur” format, nor can it do miracles, however. Once exposure is beyond the range of the sensor, RAW offers no benefits over JPEG. Whether shooting RAW or JPEG, it’s always good technique to shoot it right from the start. Adjusting a well-shot photo to make it look its best is always less work and more profitable than fixing a problem shot. As a compression format, JPEG takes a file and reduces its saved size by removing redundant data. It then rebuilds that file to its original size when opened in the computer. JPEG has a number of important advantages to the photographer that are well worth considering"

I find as time goes on I take less and less RAW pictures and more and more JPEG. Most of the time I find that RAW just adds to my workflow creating a barrier between me and my photos that just takes time. I do still use RAW when I have a shot that I really want, but these days I keep my camera on JPEG by default. There is nothing that RAW can do to make a bad photo look good and there is nothing that JPEG can do to make a good photo look bad. Anyone think different?

[James Fee]

http://pcphotomag.com/content/2005/janfeb/jpeg.html

"Let’s begin by acknowledging that RAW offers superb benefits of increased adjustability for image files, and some photographers simply like working with all the adjustment possibilities it features. RAW isn’t the “pro” format and JPEG the “amateur” format, nor can it do miracles, however. Once exposure is beyond the range of the sensor, RAW offers no benefits over JPEG. Whether shooting RAW or JPEG, it’s always good technique to shoot it right from the start. Adjusting a well-shot photo to make it look its best is always less work and more profitable than fixing a problem shot. As a compression format, JPEG takes a file and reduces its saved size by removing redundant data. It then rebuilds that file to its original size when opened in the computer. JPEG has a number of important advantages to the photographer that are well worth considering"

I find as time goes on I take less and less RAW pictures and more and more JPEG. Most of the time I find that RAW just adds to my workflow creating a barrier between me and my photos that just takes time. I do still use RAW when I have a shot that I really want, but these days I keep my camera on JPEG by default. There is nothing that RAW can do to make a bad photo look good and there is nothing that JPEG can do to make a good photo look bad. Anyone think different?

[Neil Enns]

Originally Posted by James Fee

There is nothing that RAW can do to make a bad photo look good and there is nothing that JPEG can do to make a good photo look bad. Anyone think different?

Flamebait on a Wednesday morning. I'll bite

It really depends on what you mean by a "good photo". If you're speaking strictly of composition you're entirely correct. The medium is irrelevant, whether it's Kodachrome, Velvia, B&W 1600 ISO, RAW, or JPEG. Whatever you shoot, if what you shoot is boring crap the resulting photo is boring crap.

But when you're talking about colour balance, or rescuing underexposed shadows, or pulling a wee bit more detail out of the highlights, JPEG doesn't help. It doesn't make the photo "bad" (you'll still wind up with a nicely composed shot to print), but the photo can go from "pretty good" to "fine art" with the extra bit of data you can pull out of a RAW image.

For 99% of my images all I do is convert the RAW straight to JPEG with default settings, but I have the comfort of knowing the RAW is there if I ever want it. The added step of the conversion in C1 is a tiny hit to my workflow, so it's worth it. The only time RAW becomes a time sink is if you feel compelled to go over each image in gory detail before converting, and if that's your style you're probably shooting RAW already anyway *grin*.

RAW combined with a whibal card is a fantastic way to get lovely balanced photos with extremely little effort (see the other threads on whibal from last week). For those that want it, it's a great way to get accurate colour with nearly no extra work.

Neil

[marlof]

Since RAW on my Cybershot F828 is a real PITA due to the long writing times, and the idiotic large file size, I use it sparsely. The moments where I do use it, is when I want to increase the dynamic range of the picture involved. If I'd use JPEG, I'd preferably have to use a tripod and bracket my shot or take it twice, using different settings. Using RAW I can take one picture and "develop" the file differently for the darker and the lighter parts, and in the end combine the two end results to one picture with a good dynamic range that would be impossible to achieve with one JPEG shot.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I still think the whibal cards help regardless of RAW or JPEG. In fact they're a greater boon for JPEG shooters, because they don't have the flexibility of RAW.

Other than that, I think Neil's said whatever that needs to be said. I still shoot JPEGs myself though, expect when I anticipate it's going to be tough on light levels and/or white balance!

[James Fee]

Well for most people I think this is all just the law of diminishing returns. Sure in the right hands RAW is a more "powerful" format, but even then unless you are really gettting value out of it, why bother? If you don't know how to leverage the power of RAW, it does you no good.

[Neil Enns]

Originally Posted by James Fee

If you don't know how to leverage the power of RAW, it does you no good.

True, at least not in the present. Perhaps someday down the road you will learn, though, and want to go back and re-process some of your images. If you have RAW kicking around you do have the option. But, as with all things in life, it's your choice

I agree with Marlof's comment on file size and write speed. They're glacially slow to write to my 4GB Microdrive, but with the 9 shot buffer of the 10D I only really notice when I've done a huge burst which isn't very often. For those occasions I have a 1GB Ultra II that's speedy fast, but doesn't hold much. Another option for the lazy, although this takes even more space, is to shoot RAW + JPEG Fine and you wind up with the best of both worlds.

Regarding WhiBal, with JPEG the cards help if you remember to set the white balance on your camera after reading the white on the card. If you forget and do this after taking the shot you're locked into the camera's guess as to white and it's a ton of effort in Photoshop after the fact to adjust. With RAW you can do as many different interpretations as you want whenever you want.

This whole debate is kind of like stick vs. auto in a car though. Both are fine choices depending on how you want to work. Sometimes it's nice to drive an auto because you can sit back and relax and not worry about stalling out the car. Other times you want the power and flexibility and fun of a stick. At least with a digital camera you can flip between the two modes as you see fit. With a car it's a bit harder :P (And no, a tiptronic isn't a stick shift!)

Neil

[djh]

This is an excellent topic to discuss.

I use Nikon NEF RAW nearly all the time. I like having the ability to play with the WB and exposure and add custom curves after the event.

One thing I've noticed though, is that as my skills improve (If I work at it I might get to be mediocre) I need to play with post processing less and less. I'm getting better at making the picture close to how I want it, with only minor PP needed.

I do believe that a picture that is shot in RAW and converted to JPG on the PC is better quality than a JPG processed in the camera. I read somewhere that this is because of the greater processing power available. I have no idea if it's true, but it sounds plausable :lol:

For handling NEF files I have been using Nikon Capture, but of late I'm switching to Raw Magick. It takes a while to get what I want out of RM, but when it's finished it's going to be a fantastic package.

[TheWolfen]

I used to shoot just JPEG, but have pretty much switched entirely over to RAW now. While it is true that a bad photo is still going to be bad in RAW, I prefer to keep all my options open from the start. So that means using RAW (plus I prefer to have uncompressed originals). Fortunately I don't do much action shooting, so the speed hit I take with my 300D isn't a big deal. The downside (sort of) is that I have to keep buying more memory cards.. maybe one day I can get one of those nice Epson digital wallets!

[Doug Johnson]

Originally Posted by djh

I do believe that a picture that is shot in RAW and converted to JPG on the PC is better quality than a JPG processed in the camera.

That really depends. It seems the camera knows better than Photoshop about how to deal with chromatic abberation unless i take the time to adjust everything manually. You CAN get a better looking photo in Photoshop, but it takes time. If you just use the defaults, you're better off to use the camera's JPG.

The main reason I use RAW is for the additional latitude I get for manipulating images. Starting with 12-bit images with RAW lets me adjust levels and colors with more accuracy than I would get with 8-bit JPG.

[Bob12]

Though I've played around with RAW, I shoot JPEG almost exclusively with the compression set to the lowest possible setting. I think it's a personal preference thing in that I don't have the patience for "after the fact tweaking" beyond very minor adjustments. I prefer to take the time while I'm shooting, sometimes altering various camera settings and taking multiple shots of the same subject.