JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking. If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than RAW could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in RAW, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)"</i><br /><br />A very interesting, and controversial article on JPEG vs. RAW shooting. I have to admit that after reading it, I tend to side with the author. One of my chief objections to my shooting in RAW is the sheer hassle that the format represents. For instance, when I got my D200 I thought "Ok, it's time for some RAW shots!" and I happily loaded the images in ACDSee Pro, which I knew had RAW support...and promptly saw nothing. It couldn't load my images! I found out later that they'll be releasing an update this month that will add D200 RAW support - the D200 RAW files are different than previous cameras, so ACD Systems had to engineer special support for the format into the product. <br /><br />Can you imagine if this was the case with JPEG? What a nightmare it would be! I also shudder at the thought of trying to keep archives of my RAW images <i>and</i> the same files in JPEG format. I already need 16 GB of storage for my photos, adding RAW into the mix would make it even more cumbersome. I certainly think RAW has its places, and I'm not saying it's a bad idea for some people, but for me, JPEG is the way to go in most instances. I haven't completely given up on RAW - I plan on experimenting with RAW shooting once ACDSee Pro adds D200 support. Give the article a read and tell me what you think.

[marlof]

Sure, out of camera JPEGs can be quite convenient. And some cameras, even DSLRs, have awesome quality JPEGs coming out of the camera. So if you get everything right, especially white balance and exposure, you can usually use this. But what if you have a very contrasty scene? Which happens quite a lot with digital imaging, since our current sensors don't exactly know how to deal with high dynamic range. With a JPEG, if you want to stack different exposures, you better have your tripod with you. With RAW, all you need to do is develop the RAW file differently for the different parts of your images, stack those in different layers and you have your high dynamic range. All can be done (if you don't have to blow the highlights to get enough information in the darkest areas) from one shot.

My solution: I shoot RAW+JPEG. I usually use the JPEG for everything ordinary, unless I blew WB or exposure. Then I use the RAW file. Or I need to do some stacking. Then I use the RAW file. Or I need to print a large file. Then the extra quality from the careful developing of a RAW file comes in useful. Storage space is not that much an issue (I have 4 GB of CF cards, but also a 60 GB portable storage device).

One thing on RAW development: a good workflow counts. But also, getting a better result than the in camera JPEG counts (otherwise, why bother?). So please don't use ACDSee Pro for RAW development. Sure, it has RAW support, but it's really not that good, even on the cameras it does support. Use a good RAW developer. Each developer has its own characteristics, and some fit some cameras better than others. Spend some time finding out which RAW developer suits you, and then start using that. You might want to try ACR if you have Adobe Photoshop (Elements), or Rawshooter Essentials 2006 (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp) by Pixmantec (free, and supports your D200). If you don't mind spending some money on a good RAW converter others you might want to consider are Capture One LE (http://www.phaseone.com/Content/Software/LESoftware.aspx) from Phase One, Rawshooter Premium 2006 (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_premium.asp), Bibble (http://www.bibblelabs.com/) or Silkypix (http://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/). Or, with your D200, get Nikon Capture.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Not to mention the bugbear of shooting in an environment with light sources clashing colour temperatures and non blackbody sources. You'll go nuts trying to get WB correct the first time round. :P

BTW, Nikon Capture is a PITA to use. I saved the money and stuck with Adobe RAW in Photoshop CS. The only problem is that if I ever get a newer DSLR Adobe is forcing me to buy CS2. -_-

[Vincent Ferrari]

I absolutely have to disagree with the author, and I've read this article a few times.

Unless you're an exceptionally good photographer (which Ken is), there's no way in hell you can tell me there's no benefit to be had by shooting RAW over JPG. There have been many shots I've taken where had I taken them in JPG, they would've been lost.

With RAW, during processing, you can almost take the shot over again. You can fix exposure, white balance, and color temp so easily and accurately that doing a shot in JPG doesn't seem worth it.

It can be a pain to get RAW into a computer if you have a newer camera (I had that problem with my XT if you can believe it, and I bought ACDSEE Pro when it came out, only to return it because it was fricking annoying, but that's another story), but once your camera starts hitting shelves and becomes a more mainstream unit, support is almost universal in RAW processors.

If you're using a higher end SLR and not shooting RAW, you probably could've stuck with a P&amp;S.

[Jason Dunn]

With RAW, all you need to do is develop the RAW file differently for the different parts of your images, stack those in different layers and you have your high dynamic range.

That sounds like an interesting technique. Any good online tutorials for learning more? I understand the idea behind HDR images, but I've never created one before.

Storage space is not that much an issue (I have 4 GB of CF cards, but also a 60 GB portable storage device).

The storage issue is a bit frustrating for me. I've gone from my 6MP Digital Rebel where, on highest JPEG image quality, I could basically shoot as much as I wanted on my 4GB CF without worrying about running out of storage space. Now with the D200 on RAW, I about 245 pictures. That's a big drop! ;-)

You might want to try ACR if you have Adobe Photoshop (Elements)...Or, with your D200, get Nikon Capture.

I agree that a good sofware tool is important, but so far I've been really, really unimpressed with the RAW tools I've used. As you pointed out ACDSee Pro isn't all that great - I found it fairly clumsy with the RAW images from my Digital Rebel. I tried the Adobe Camera RAW plugin today, and I'm baffled by it - the adjustment tools are nice, but the only export option seems to be to a DNG file. And opening the DNG file starts the ACR plugin again! How the heck do I get it to JPEG format? Nikon Capture looks like it was designed in 1996 and then beaten severely with an ugly stick.

I'm not giving up on RAW, but I do find it frustrating to work with! I'll have to give some of those other tools you mentioned a try.

[Vincent Ferrari]

ACR is very simple... After you manipulate your image, click OPEN. It'll throw it into Photoshop for you to do with as you please... Also, a nice addition is that after you create a recipe for a file, when you open the CR2 file the next time in PS, it remembers those settings and tweaks automatically.

[Jason Dunn]

ACR is very simple... After you manipulate your image, click OPEN.

Oh. :oops: I had assumed that "OPEN" meant "Open Another RAW File". "Open in Photoshop" would have been a bett name for that button methinks. ;-)

[Jason Dunn]

Ok, I did a little experiment now that I know how to actually use ACR a bit. ;-)

I took a quick photo of my office, no flash, with ISO set to auto.

The original JPEG with no adjustments:
http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/officephoto-jpg.jpg

The RAW file opened in ACR, only change made was White Balance was changed to auto:
http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/officephoto-raw.jpg

The difference is quite noticeable. I'll have to try more experiments outdoors in better lighting.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Wow, Jason. Night and day!

I have a feeling that ACR is better at adjusting white balance than a camera. It helps to get it right on the camera, but I think software is more accurate. Just my worthless unprofessional opinion ;-)

And WHAT A FREAKING OFFICE! HOLY CRAP!

Had to be said ;-)

[Vincent Ferrari]

And yes, a better name would've been prudent. I think Transfer to Photoshop, since that's what it does, would've made more sense.

[rtrueman]

Interesting article. I've been shooting with the Nikon D70 since it came out (2+ years) and now the D200. I've always shot RAW+jpg and, for me, this makes the most sense. This allows me the flexibility of edits to the RAW file (white balance is the most common), but also to quickly view basic jpegs (especially through my XBox 360 via Media Center).

I use Capture, but mostly for it's ability to use in-camera custom curves on the D70. I was never happy with the D70's color and exposure out of the camera. Using curves, I was able to get much better pictures directly from the camera. The D200 is MUCH different. I'm finding the default colors to be superb. The only change I'm using is a +.3 EV. Because of this I don't believe Capture is needed and I'm only using ACR in CS2. I need to explore further.

Bottom line for me is the RAW is quite often useful for auto white balance (bad results will happen at some point). JPGs are great for quickly showing family and friends without (sometimes tedious) post-production.

Rob

[Leon]

Personally, I shoot in RAW only. Tweaking the WB is one benefit, having the photo 'developped' by dedicated software with lots of memory on a PC with a fast processor, instead of letting the camera do it with less power, is another. But having more bits available *all the time* is my main reason. And yes, you will notice the difference in large prints. Just keep an eye on the histogram while you are editing.

I don't feel the extra time for the RAW conversion is a burden. Like Marlof says, a good workflow is important. I'm a modest photographer (3500 shots in 1.5 years, so I don't shoot pictures like a machine gun) and only the best shots get converted, edited and published on my site (http://www.pbase.com/lschell). The very best get printed too.

[bmhome1]

The growing MB/GB issue is just evolution. Three years ago a 1MB was considered large. The D70 fine jpg are 2.5MB. The D200 jpg must be nearly double now. The RAW file is only double that size. But, that processed RAW saved as a tiff (recommended for every photo) grows to over 30MB.

With 300GB drives $80 shipped its time to simply redefine your concept of photo storage sizes. It's not going to get smaller as time goes on either.

I don't even bother with external drive enclosures anymore, just storing the filled hard drives as archives and mounted with an IDE/USB2 adaptor when needed. Wish someone sold plastic hard drive cases like old VHS clamshell boxes. They almost fit in if it wasn't for the molded-in center hubs.

[Neil Enns]

As Jason knows from our countless conversations on the subject, I shoot RAW full-time. The storage size problems don't concern me: that's what the delete key is for. Jason, from past conversations (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9740&amp;highlight=), we know you're a firm believer in the delete key so you shouldn't have problems here.

The simple fact is that RAW enables me to make better photographs. Notice that I said "make", not "take". This photograph (http://www.badcasserole.com/tulips/sun_tulips.jpg) is my top photo from a trip to the Skagit Valley yesterday for the tulip festival (http://www.tulipfestival.org/). I took something like 16 shots of this same scene trying to get the ice halo from the sun to show up, and yet still have some colour in the flowers. There is no way that as a JPEG I would have been able to take this into Photoshop and bring out what little colour there was in the flowers. Because it was RAW I had every single bit of the image data available, used a 16-bit TIFF workflow through the whole thing, and was able to make the necessary colour space and colour adjustments.

If I were in JPEG I'm positive I wouldn't have had the necessary data in the picture to make it look as nice as it does.

Sure, RAW adds extra steps here and there. But with the right software you can just stick all your selects in a batch process and be done with it. Or shoot in RAW + JPEG if you're lazy. Storage is cheap.

Neil

[marlof]

My solution: I shoot RAW+JPEG.

Or shoot in RAW + JPEG if you're lazy.

What are you trying to say here, Neil? ;)

[marlof]

only the best shots get converted, edited and published on my site (http://www.pbase.com/lschell).

It's been a while since I visited your site, Leon. Will do again in the next few days, when I have more time. But I didn't want to forget to mention that I was pretty impressed last time around.

And I agree with you: if you're not an event photographer, shooting thousands of images, there's nothing wrong with paying some serious attention to your best shot in RAW development. Otherwise, have a nice batch workflow with some default settings might also be quite easy for large amount of images. That said, sometimes I have a hard time getting the same quality out of a RAW file as the in camera JPEG gave me. Unless I use Olympus Studio, the proprietary RAW developer that is. It's not the best workflow, but the best results. It sometimes seems to be about balancing speed and result.

[Jeremy Charette]

My girlfriend frequently asks me to resize and format photos so she can print them and put them in her portfolio (she's a makeup artist). She gets everything from low-resolution JPEGs to 10 megapixel RAW files on DVD. In my experience, printing on a wide-format pro quality Epson photo printer (up to 13"x19"), there's no discernible difference when printing from an original RAW file, or a low-compression JPG file (assuming they have the same overall resolution).

And if I ever need someone to setup and organize my office, I'm calling Jason. :lol:

[Neil Enns]

In my experience, printing on a wide-format pro quality Epson photo printer (up to 13"x19"), there's no discernible difference when printing from an original RAW file, or a low-compression JPG file (assuming they have the same overall resolution).

Absolutely true. In fact, when I take my photos to Costco for printing I save them as JPEG quality 10 in Photoshop. It's not so much a matter of JPEG compression artifacts or whatnot. It's that when you have your camera produce a JPEG for you it is throwing away data the camera is perfectly capable of capturing before you ever get to use it. The simple fact that a JPEG is only 8-bit and my camera can capture 12-bits means there's data that's gone away. Shooting in RAW also makes it much easier to handle white balance issues and such.

The only question you have to ask is whether you'll miss the additional data for the images you typically shoot, and whether you'll have situations where you want the ease of colour correction. Some people simply don't care. That's fine, no big deal. It's your choice and it almost certainly serves your needs.

Neil

[Leon]

It's been a while since I visited your site, Leon. Will do again in the next few days, when I have more time. But I didn't want to forget to mention that I was pretty impressed last time around.Thanks Marlof. Sorry for the late reaction but I'm currently in Spain (working on yet another gallery, although the weather is horrible).