JPEG or RAW

[jrdnc09]

I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??

Thanks
JO

[linuxgear]

If you after quality of your images and you know how to edit- proccess your images then
full steam ahead for RAW
it will take more -Gb- of your HDD space but I think its worth doing
ask around for more good reasons to do so ...
:th3:
regards

[bobt]

I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??
Thanks
JO

First you need to be able to define which is better - Holden or Ford, Collingwood or Richmond or any of the other issues that people take sides on! RAW and JPEG have devotees on both sides, so there's no "right" or "wrong" - just differing viewpoints.

However, that said let me say that RAW gives you the best potential to produce the best image but it has a bigger learning curve and requires more knowledge.

Some cameras shoot both at once, and that's what I do, but it uses up a lot of storage.

Maybe until you can say you're no longer a newbie, you should stick with JPEG, and then work up to RAW once you have your head around the whole photography thing a bit more. Do some reading about RAW and see what that brings you. RAW files are very big and not all software can process them, but that's just part of the RAW learning curve.

Think of it like your camera - when you're new you put it on manual - then after a while you work up to the various dials and settings - using RAW is similar, so it's better to walk with JPEG before trying to run too quickly. :)

[pollen]

When I first started photography I only captured in JPG mode. I really regret not having RAWs of those early shots nowadays

imo go RAW+JPG

[jev]

Horses for courses. Sometimes RAW is better, sometimes JPEG is the preferable choice. In general: if you've got the time shoot RAW - if nothing else, you always can create the exact same JPEG from the RAW as when you shot JPEG directly.

[kiwi]

I have a rule - if the shot might matter later I shoot raw, if it's something that's disposable or for quick bulk processing, like sport, I'll shoot jpeg

[jrdnc09]

Thanks for the info.
I have software to convert RAW files, should I adjust any of my images before conversion??
Jo

[pollen]

The idea of a RAW file is that there is extra data to allow more scope in adjustment before posterisation occurs. If you are just converting RAW images without adjusting...then it's no different from JPGs...except you are just wasting time and computer power

[arthurking83]

.... I really regret not having RAWs of those early shots nowadays

imo go RAW+JPG

RAW+Jpg is a waste(for most people)... but, for the reason pollen stated(regret not using raw in those early days) is why I always recommend (especially!!) newbies to use raw from day one :th3:

The biggest drawback with jpgs is the fact that you can't make a raw image out of one... but you can always make a jpg image out of a raw file.
Which mode makes best sense to you? ;)

If you were shooting hundreds(or more) images per day and needed speedy turnaround of images, shooting raw may end up slowing you down relative to shooting in jpg mode.

[Wazza]

Hi
I always shoot in RAW. The reason is that there is more bit depth in the RAW format, so there is significantly more exposure latitude. If you use LightRoom to develop your RAW files then it's very straight forward. It is a simple matter to recover lost detail in highlights and shadows. The main reasons to shoot in JPEG would be if you're shooting lots of frames and you have a small memory card or if you're not worried about quality and just want to bang out a few quick prints.
Hope this helps
Wazza

[coolie21]

Raw all the way. I'm not good enough to get it right in jpg :)

[Tony B]

Raw. I too saw the light .

[Helen S]

[QUOTE=arthurking83;482642]The biggest drawback with jpgs is the fact that you can't make a raw image out of one...QUOTE]

Not entirely the case, because with Photoshop, you can use the Open As... command and open a JPG as a Camera Raw file, but of course it'll never be the same as starting with a true RAW file from the beginning. ;)

I'm with the others though and would advise on shooting in Camera Raw unless, as Kiwi says, you're shooting "disposable or bulk images." :)

[HansPeter]

G’Day. I’M A NOT A GOOD Photographer, I’m a beginner however I been shooting film in the 1970s the cost factor stop me.
Now I’m back to photography thanks to the digital-age“. Digital it is a lot cheaper” when you got your gear together.
I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, ho swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or Raw. I started shooting Raw not long ago and I found there is a difference, I would not go back to JPG.
I discovered a instant comparable difference…so I’m sorry Mr Rockwell on this one you are wrong.
And for all you photographers thinking Raw or JPG.. tray Raw you’ll properly surprise your selves, what have you got to lose?
Cheers Hans…

[Robjess]

I shoot RAW but I think its horses for courses.. I shoot RAW because I do alot of post processing.. if you dont do post processing and are happy with minor adjustments out of the camera then continue to shoot JPG. When you start getting more into post processing then change over to RAW. The down side to RAW is that the files are MUCH bigger.. so be prepared for the amount of space your images will start to take up on your hard drive.. I started to shoot RAW around the time I moved out of the Green/Auto mode on my camera.. having said that, there is nothing wrong with shooting auto/green and there is nothing wrong with shooting in JPG.

[Kym]

I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, who swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or Raw. I started shooting Raw not long ago and I found there is a difference, I would not go back to JPG.
I discovered a instant comparable difference…so I’m sorry Mr Rockwell on this one you are wrong.

Hans! You have proven the well known axiom - If KR says A instead of B then B is correct (most of the time) :lol:

Remember: Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.• Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after Ken Rockwell's silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" Rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues.

(Its a joke)

[mongo]

OK Kym , we all know how much you disapprove of Ken.

Raw is a lot more mucking about and does not necessarily give a measurably /noticeably better image. Nearly all of the images Mongo has posted on AP have been from Jpeg originals and doubts they would have looked any different if they had statred off as RAW

Mongo used to shoot raw most of the time but more recently he has found it makes so little difference that he mostly shoots Jpeg now unless it is something really important.

[Xenedis]

I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??

If you're shooting in a time-critical scenario (ie, you're a photojournalist and need to get images back to the office quickly), shoot JPG.

Otherwise, shoot RAW.

The benefits of RAW are significant.

Firstly, RAW images are essentially untouched, and the least-processed image your camera can create. It's literally the raw data captured by the camera. White balance information is not written to RAW images, so you can apply whatever WB you like. With a JPG, the camera permanently writes WB information to the image, based on whatever WB you've chosen prior to exposure, or whatever the camera decides if you're using auto-WB.

RAW images contain a much greater bit depth (minimum of 12 bits) than JPG. With a 12-bit image, you have 4,096 brightness levels, as opposed to 256 with JPG. This means you have finer gradation and much more latitude for recovering detail from under-exposed images. Some cameras have a higher bit depth when shooting RAW.

Think of RAW files as digital negatives. These are as pure as you can get.

What scares a lot of people is the concept of having to process the image. In practicality, there's only one extra step, and that is conversion from RAW to JPG (or PSD, TIFF et al.). It takes a whole 30 seconds to do it, and it isn't complicated at all.

The advice I always give people is to capture the highest quality image with the camera, as you can never add what wasn't there, and you never know what your future requirements may be. You may only be uploading small JPGs to a Web site now, but in the future you may need much higher resolution and depending on your image, you may need to recover shadow detail that would be heavily compressed and perhaps unrecoverable if you're working with an 8-bit JPG.

The other concern people have with RAW is the file size. With the current generation of DSLRs with pixel counts pushing into medium-format territory, the images are rather large. My advice still stands: Do not compromise image quality unnecessarily. Flash cards and hard disks are very inexpensive these days, so storage should never be a reason for throwing away previous detail in your images.

[Dylfish]

I like my Photos like my sushi... Raw

[swifty]

For all of the reason everyone else has said, shoot RAW.
But I must confess, when shooting digital I'm about 90% jpeg, 10% raw. I may regret this later but IMO much of what it comes down to is output. Where are your images destined?
Shooting raw only for facebook and I think it's overkill, but jpegs for exhibition prints and you might be handicapping yourself.
Having said that, workflow is important when shooting raw and it's not necessary any more troublesome to deal with the file sizes, conversions etc. But it is a good habit to get into establishing good work flow.
Now my reason for shooting jpeg most the time:
-slow raw shooting speed on my camera (S5 - quite ancient by today's standard)
-bad workflow (too lazy)
-computer not fast enough (too poor)
-raw files are massive on a S5 (25mb) for a 6mp output
-Output are generally web, maybe 10% print.
In an ideal world, I would like all my files to have a raw back-up but I live.

[N*A*M]

i'm with mongo and swifty...

used to shoot raw format, but back to JPG 90% of the time, unless i can't nail WB or exposure on site.

now that i have set up the picture controls the way i like in camera, the SOOC jpgs are generally better than i can push/pull the raw file - as long as i have exposed adequately. nikon engineers spent lots of effort developing the JPG engine in the camera. might as well make use of it.

i'm time poor so spending hours in front of the computer doing PP on raw is not why i took up photography.

i also have an old laptop with an uncalibrated screen so it's not an ideal PP environment.

my PP workflow is mainly cataloging, slight crop/rotate and a little bit of levels. i just try hard to get it right at the time of shooting.

[campo]

I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, ho swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or Raw.

Warning always take what KR says with grain of salt...

That said, I tend to agree that there comes a point where shooting RAW is overkill. I'm not there yet personally and I still like the extra latitude RAW provides in hard lighting conditions at fast pace events (eg. weddings) but one day I can see myself switching back to JPG.

Quite a few wedding pros shoot jpg...why? because they're good at what they do and get the shot right the first time and apply minimal effort after that. It's all about spending time wisely and taking a bit more care when shooting to minimise time in front of the computer.

[Shane.R]

I'm at the conclusion that RAW is overated. Learn to read your histogram first, then nail the shot. All else is 2nd - many "awesome" photo's from around the world are shot in Jpeg, if you have the time, the patience and/or a fast computer, then go RAW.

You can also adjust WB in jpeg, worried about shadows? Then do it right the first time.

I shoot both when I feel the need.

[farmer_rob]

RAW all the way for me. ViewNX for Nikon gives a fast, bulk JPEG conversion for RAW files to give the same result as OOC JPEGs if necessary. I like to get the shot right so PP is low, but if I don't (e.g. WB) RAW PP gives me much more flexibility.

[Shane.R]

^ Ken Rockwall shoots with a Nikon D40 - you shouldn't feel the need to use RAW.


..who is Ken any way? Is he famous?

[Xenedis]

I'm at the conclusion that RAW is overated. Learn to read your histogram first, then nail the shot.

Reading the histogram and achieving a correct exposure has nothing to do with shooting in RAW mode.

RAW mode gives you at least six more bits of data per pixel, which makes recovery of shadow details much easier if you need to do that.


You can also adjust WB in jpeg

Re-saving JPGs degrades image quality.

[Shane.R]

Does recovering the shadow alter the pixels (degrade them in anyway)..?

[Xenedis]

Does recovering the shadow alter the pixels (degrade them in anyway)..?

With RAW images?

Certainly with RAW images you don't experience the sort of degradation you'd encounter with JPG. The more you push the shadow tones, the more noise you introduce; and with JPG's very limited bit depth, there are not a lot of tonal variations at the dark end of the spectrum, compared to the lighter end. The compressed tonal variation at the dark end of the spectrum limits your recovery options.

[bigdazzler]

For me its simple. Studio portrait session (maybe less than 100 frames) = RAW or JPG, depending on the lights and what I plan to do with the pictures. Landscapes (less than 100 frames and tricky dynamic range) = RAW. Sport or happy snapping (heaps and heaps of frames) = JPG.

As someone else mentioned a lot of wedding photographers shoot most of their stuff in JPG and shoot RAW+JPG for the critical must get shots as insurance. The thing with shooting in JPG is to know what you are doing, once youve got that down and the need for intense PP lessens, JPG is great.

[Shane.R]

Thanks for that Xenedis^

[jrdnc09]

WOW!!! So much to learn and so much to understand - hopefully soon I will be able to shape an opinion about a technique or equipment etc - but for now I think I will remain in jpeg until I am confident my shots are how I want them to be before going up the next level.
I have no issue with the conversion area and can understand the differences better now between personal opinion, equipment used etc.
One point noted the space taken up very quickly on mem card using RAW. as a newbie I am taking endless amounts of snaps, filling card very quickly and i noticed the battery appeared to run out quicker - could be my imagination!!

Thanks for the info - very much appreciated.

cheers
Jo

[Shane.R]

Nope, not your imagination. RAW will take longer to process to your memory card. Unless you paid $80 or so for a 64mb/sec flash card.

..anyway, you can set your camera for delete 'RAW' only - that's if your shooting setting is set to raw + jpeg.

Don't be fooled into thinking you have to shoot in RAW to be a better photographer, it doesn't work that way.

[jev]

Nope, not your imagination. RAW will take longer to process to your memory card. Unless you paid $80 or so for a 64mb/sec flash card.
But compressing to JPEG and applying in-camera postprocessing also takes a lot of power. I think the difference in power consumption is close to zero when compared to other causes. Perhaps you are chimping more, tend to use longer exposure times or do whatever else different that makes a lot more impact.


Don't be fooled into thinking you have to shoot in RAW to be a better photographer, it doesn't work that way.
That's a truth nobody can deny.

[Analog6]

As your camera will shoot RAW + jpeg, buy some large cards and do that for a while and decide for yourself. I always shoot RAW, for the extra depth of everything you get, and the processing latitude, but you must make up your own mind. Jpeg can limit your processing options severely.

[Wazza]

Hi Friends

This discussion has been interesting and it so far has been in the realm of experience and opinion. I'd like to support those who say that for quality we should shoot in RAW, with a little data to back up this view. I took an image, any image will give the same results, and compared 8-bit (i.e. JPEG) PP with 16-bit (i.e. RAW) PP...

My attached histograms (numbered in order) show:

1. As-shot in RAW, 16-bit

2. 16-bit after Levels and Colour Balance Adjustment in CS4

3. Converted to 8-bit (i.e. equivalent to JPEG) then Levels and Colour Balance Adjustment in CS4 (Note spikes in histogram, indicating pixel destruction)

4. 16-bit after Levels and Colour Balance Adjustment in CS4, then converted to 8-bit (note no perceptable data loss, indicating non-destructive editing)

I could continue and what we see is that if we do even simple PP in 8-bit mode (i.e. JPEG) we are destroying image detail. The worst result, after extensive PP can be image banding.

A preferable workflow is to shoot in RAW, develop in LR or ACR etc, which gives you a 16-bit TIFF, edit, and then do your conversion to 8-bit or whatever for printing or for web display. So, as many people here have already said, we pay big bucks for a great camera, why not get the most from it.

If quality isn't a concern then forget the above.

I hope this helps the discussion and apologies for boring the experts.

Cheers
Wazza

[campo]

nice post Wazza - great explanation

[swifty]

Agree, great post wazza. The truth is that when u pp, a raw file will always be superior to a jpeg. The caveat is can you notice the difference for your given output. Trained eyes will see much more and just because u can't see a difference it doesn't mean it's not there. Differences become more obvious the more you 'push' the pixels of course. So decide what this difference is worth to u.

[rellik666]

Just my two cents as a relative newbie, I have just moved to RAW only. I only have 4GB cards and can use a CF and SD at the same time only giving me 400 shots max, but as I am inexpereinced I like to be able to manipulate my images and it helps me to learn what I did wrong.

If I could take the shot right every time I don't think I would need RAW as much...I have lots of memory cards and a large external hard drive...so space doesn't matter so much, also PP doesn't take that long and I only convert the images I want, you don't have to do all of them!

Roo

[keith-killer]

A lot has been said on this topic. I think I read it all, so forgive me if this has been said.

I say RAW because the software to process RAW is getting better all the time. Photos I took in RAW in 2005 I can now look so much better with CS4 than I could with the comparable software of the time. (My skill has since improved since then I hope too). The JPEGS I have, they can also be improved more now than in 2005, but not as much choice. Lightroom does wonders on some old JPGs I took on holidays with .3 megapixel camera (made in circa 1998) back in 2001.

The same goes with Panoramas in regards to software getting better. I have been re-doing a lot of panoramas I took over the last ten years. I keep EVERY photo I ever took, so I have quite a few attmpted panorams that the software, or myself doing manually could not stitch. Now, with CS4, I am getting some awesome panoramas. I am very happy.

Add to that the current processing ability of CS4 and/or Canon's latest RAW software and the photos are getting better.

These days, I do everything in RAW + JPG. In ten years of digital photos, and DSLR since 2005, and my photos don't take up 1 TB yet... I think. Hard drives are very cheap these days, so storage is not a problem (I am no millionaire) I have 2 external drives (1 as back up) and keep the current year's photos on the PC Hard drive. Also burn two copies of a DVD full of photos, one gets sent to my parents.

[jrdnc09]

Thanks for the info.

I went out last night and took some shots of the sunset in RAW(the format not me) sorry still learning lingo) and then processed using the Canon conversion software and post processing program ---- AMAZING!!! I like the Canon software.

I had in the past always used Picasa, Jalbum with p/s pics to manipulate and upload - Canon software is easy to use and is appropriate for what I need - for now!!

Cheers
Jo

[Gremlin]

can you batch process raws? Like lets say I shoot 100 images in raw and save them to dvd whatever as a master file for archive which i do everytime i upload to computer,
can i then tell photoshop to "batch convert" all those 100 shots to jpeg so I can edit them in PS, that way I still have the raw images if theres that one shot that begs for raw image editing?
Ive got CS4 and its making my head explode. Too much info trying to cram in my tiny tiny brain (much like an old 128mg sd class 1 card i think is a good methaphor!)
Grem

[arthurking83]

can you batch process raws? ....

Grem

Yes!(you should be able too)

of course that's going to be software dependent. Good software allows all options.

[Jacs14]

Wow! Jo thank you for posting this question ... as a relevant newbie have also wondered about jpec vs raw, and enjoyed reading all the feedback ... and it would appear that possible bobt sums it up best ... probably it'll end up with my own personal preference! Having said that, one more question ... being new don't have necessarily the best computer software ... any particular recommendations for post processing packages for raw? Wazza mentioned Lightroom ... any other packages people would recomend?
Jacs

[Xenedis]

any particular recommendations for post processing packages for raw? Wazza mentioned Lightroom ... any other packages people would recomend?
Jacs

I've not used Lightroom, but if you have Photoshop, it comes with Adobe Camera Raw. This is what I use, and it works well.

Alternatively, your camera's included software will include a RAW converter. I've never used my camera's RAW conversion software, but it could be said that it would be the most effective converter.

For my liking, ACR works fine.

[KALBO]

I first got into DSLR and photography 20 months ago and have been shooting in JPEG format... I have now shot a few RAW images in the last couple of weeks. I thinks there's a lot more detail and a lot more you can do in post processing when shooting RAW.. so why not try it and see the difference for yourself. ITs part of learning.

[Topgunn]

can i then tell photoshop to "batch convert" all those 100 shots to jpeg so I can edit them in PS, that way I still have the raw images if theres that one shot that begs for raw image editing?

Grem

Im not sure if I have got what you wrote correctly but the way you have made it sound is, you want to batch convert to jpeg and then edit them? If thats what you meant I wouldnt do it that way. You want to edit the RAW file and lastly save it as jpeg. No matter what you do you will always have the RAW file as PS doesnt actually alter it, just a copy of it. If you have photos that you dont want to edit and just convert them to jpeg then yeah PS can do that quite easily. I hope I have got what you meant right but either way it doesnt hurt to clarify. :)

[Gremlin]

sorry top i have the problem of knowing whats in my head but the transition from head to keybrd often gets foggy,
yep you got what i meant, I send copies of photos to friends who were in those photos and they often play with the images themselves, last time i emailed raws they didnt know what they were? so I tend to convert to joeg and for those that just want the pic only I usually resize for sending via email I have a 3rd party image resizer prgram that batch converts size only, good for posting on photobucket etc, but it doesnt do raw hence i use jpeg/tiff/png more. I get a lot of ppl in costume photos. Now if i could only work a way of getting myself in the pic when in costume would be better esp when we are on the move ;) a lot of our pics are more "happy snaps" if i can use that term see http://tinyurl.com/yhpatm5 so raw is kinda overkill, but now Ive got decent comp gear and learning more about editing, then i prefer raw... depends on the image for me really.

[soulman]

A few points that may be of interest:

Everything is shot in RAW. When you set your camera to output JPEGs you are telling it to process the RAW file according to its own settings and save it as a JPEG. Some cameras allow you to adjust the way it processes RAW into JPEG. The difference between shooting RAW and shooting JPEG is simply that in the latter case you accept the camera's RAW processing and JPEG settings. These sharpening, white balance and tonal adjustments made by the camera cannot be undone once baked in to the JPEG.

JPEGs are to RAW files what MP3s are to WAV or AIFF audio files - i.e a conversion that involves lossy compression as a way of reducing size. Every time you save a JPEG you re-compress it, losing a bit more of what was there originally and adding compression artifacts. As has been noted in a previous post, JPEG also only allows for 8 bits-per-channel of colour - a total of about 16 million - which doesn't leave one much headroom when processing and which will easily produce banding on subtle colour variations. Many cameras produce 12 bit-per-channel colour, about 68 billion colours in total, and some do 14 bit, which yields about 72 gazillion colours all up.

I have RAW files I made 5 years ago that I am able to process much better now I have superior tools and more skill. I can do something similar with my old JPEGs but the difference is nowhere near as great because I can't restore the lost information.

JPEG is a good image format to end up with after you've worked on an image, not, I would suggest, a great one to use as a working format. Better to use a lossless format like TIFF or PSD if you can afford the disk space and, let's face it, an enormous hard drive will cost you less than a 50mm 1.8 lens.

I don't have a huge amount of experience with RAW editors - I know Lightroom reasonably well & I've used Canon's Digital Photo Pro - but I know that processing RAW images in Lr is as simple as processing JPEGs in, say iPhoto for example. The files are larger, but there is nothing difficult or unusual about the processing. Lr has more controls than iPhoto obviously, but working with images in general is very similar.

If one has to process a RAW in, say Digital Photo Pro, then save a TIFF, edit in Photoshop & then save a JPEG, then it's a tedious and time consuming process that results in many files that need to be stored and managed. On the other hand, using one of the modern RAW processing and cataloging tools like Lightroom or Aperture takes all the pain out of shooting RAW and provides a logical and efficient workflow. These apps do require a bit of learning obviously, but so does everything worth doing.

I know that plenty of people will only use JPEG and I'm not trying to suggest that there is anything wrong with that. Hopefully it might be useful to know a bit more about the differences though, even if you don't think shooting RAW is worth your trouble.

[kiwi]

Well, firstly jpeg editing in lr is lossless

I like to think the Raw is a safety parachute for those that can't nail in camera jpeg


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[soulman]

Well, firstly jpeg editing in lr is losslessAdjustments to JPEGs made in Lr are included in the files' metadata as instructions - no pixels actually get changed - which is why they call it non-destructive editing. Opening the file in another (non Adobe) editor or viewer ignores the changes made in Lr. Once the changes get baked in, the file must be saved as normal. An excellent system to be sure - eliminating all the image degradation from saving whilst working for example - but not lossless. :)

John Nack explains it here (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2007/02/nondestructive.html) for those interested in further reading.

[kiwi]

Yip, and unless you're silly and overwrite your original jpeg lossless as well as non- destructive


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jeffde]

Weddings / Portraits / Still Life / Landscapes etc RAW
Sport (cause of the number of images i would take) JPEG

I take 181 images on a 4Gb CF card in RAW - About 800 (i think) in JPEG mode so roughly 4 times as many...

[dowden photography]

if you have RAW shoot it, you learn more about PP and it will lead to better photos.

I shoot everything in RAW, from studio to street to sport in RAW, I have control over the PP. I use 4GB cards where I get around 250 shots from, if I'm at the football I change card every break, racing after every race and so on.

[kiwi]

Why on earth shoot sport in raw?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dowden photography]

16-bit lossless v 8-bit compressed

Shooting on a fast enough card so my buffer is fine, why on earth would anyone shoot in jpeg if they have RAW?

[kiwi]

I take 400 shots a footy game on average with often having to transmit onsite, I see no reason to slow down my workflow or edit that many photos that significantly that raw offers any benefit and regardless of card speed the buffer is afftected on my d3 anyhow


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clubmanmc]

I have a rule - if the shot might matter later I shoot raw, if it's something that's disposable or for quick bulk processing, like sport, I'll shoot jpeg

agree... but i shoot raw and jpg... when it counts... makes processing easier, if the jpg is ok i dont need to process, other wise i tweak the raw...

as for the comment its useless... my camera wont shoot any faster in just RAW, so i may as well get a free jpg...

M

[ving]

i shoot raw... but in all honesty why not try both. its a matter of personal preference really... we have read kym tirade of anti-ken rockwell sentiment and why jpg is no good and we have also read plenty of ppl state the benefits of jpg use... in the end it up to you...

[saratoga]

If you're a top notch shooter and can nail the exposure everytime then shoot HQ jpegs. If you will play with your images after the shoot...then you should be shooting in raw.

Raw gives you much more scope for editing and making changes to your images.

I only shoot Raw nowdays, unless its just throwaway shots.

[JM Tran]

If you're a top notch shooter and can nail the exposure everytime then shoot HQ jpegs. If you will play with your images after the shoot...then you should be shooting in raw.

Raw gives you much more scope for editing and making changes to your images.

I only shoot Raw nowdays, unless its just throwaway shots.


LOL, even top notch shooters CANNOT always nail the right exposure or colours or contrast etc, RAW is more than just about exposure:)

[Steve Axford]

Since I don't take sport or weddings, I think I'll stick to RAW. For macro, I often change the white balance and exposure. If I used jpeg, the results would not be as good.

[pgbphotographytas]

I also only use RAW now and find I can produce much better results in PP with it.

[Bryan]

I would say that you should consider the 'fit for purpose' rule. If you're aiming for stock or art images, then use RAW. If you are doing a childrens birthday party - then JPEG will suffice (of course, nothing stops you from shooting RAW). Portraiture should alway be done using RAW. The data available in the RAW file provides greater control of the image without the artifacts of the JPEG format.

[xiaocai]

I alway shot in raw , with small jpeg for preview.

[Xenedis]

I alway shot in raw , with small jpeg for preview.

I used to shoot RAW + JPG so I could use the JPGs as preview images, but software such as Lightroom, Adobe Bridge and even the Mac's Finder can view RAW files natively, so there's no need to consume disk space with redundant, lesser-quality JPGs.

[Jcas]

This is an interesting thread, i have been shooting jpeg until recently when i changed to raw, i really need to get some bigger cards now for the extra space the raw takes, on my camera i have a sraw setting, would there be any difference in quality using the smaller raw?

[soulman]

sRAW has less pixels, so there will be a decrease in quality. Whether this is limiting for you would depend on your requirements I guess. It's important to note too, that very few 3rd party image editors recognise sRAW formats, so you may be stuck with using your camera's RAW software if you shoot sRAW.

[Bax155]

you always can create the exact same JPEG from the RAW as when you shot JPEG directly.

My thoughts exactly, I was told also to convert to TIFF not JPEG, as magazines and what not will not take JPEG, is this true?

[jev]

My thoughts exactly, I was told also to convert to TIFF not JPEG, as magazines and what not will not take JPEG, is this true?

Depends on the magazine I guess. I shoot for a couple of local magazines and one actually requires sRGB JPEG. A high glossy cover might set other requirements than a quarter column image somewhere burried deeply in the second half of a cheap magazine.

[draco]

i always shoot in raw now, even for just those birthday parties, as it gives more flexibility during PP

[FallingHorse]

I'm a noob too but I shoot in Raw. I'm more confident in my PP abilities than in my actual photography lol. The only time I'm inclined to shoot Jpeg is when shooting sports and need the faster frame rate that Raw slows down

[Danylu]

I shoot in RAW because it offers more for WB and a lot more flexibility. The only time I have shot jpeg is when the 6 frame buffer of my D60 has been too little for birding :(

[I @ M]

I shoot in RAW because it offers more for WB and a lot more flexibility. The only time I have shot jpeg is when the 6 frame buffer of my D60 has been too little for birding :(

:th3: :th3: :th3: Always good to see someone thinking about the best way to get the picture and not bound by rules or regulations.

[enduro]

I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??

Thanks
JO

Shoot RAW.

There is maths behind it.

Shoot RAW.

[AdamR]

I shoot RAW 99% of the time. Occasionally if Im shooting kids I coach or whatnot Ill shot Jpeg so I can give the photos to them easily. In my thoughts, with prograsm like LightRoom there is no reason not to shoot RAW for personal work. Its tooo easy.

[kiwi]

How often do you find you need the data in the RAW file, just interested


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Blueywa]

I have the two card option [D300s] and thought ok I'll have Raw on the high capacity, high speed SD card, and Jpeg on the slower CF card - great idea.
I have loaded ViewNX, but I can't find the instructions on how to use it.
Where to now?
:lol:

[aycee]

Weighing into the old crusty Raw vs JPEG arguement here..its like who came first....it depends on what you do with the photos...the advantages of JPEG is its a lot lot smaller in file size.......to get this smaller file size there is a huge amount of compression and to do this 10% of the date is lost on every save including the first as i am lead to believe..its not very noticeable to the eye on the first save but the information is lost..and never to be got back...ever....so if you were high end manipulating you are on the back foot as 10% is gone that would almost for sure make the difference

because of smaller file size many many more photos can be taken in a bracket if taking speed photos so it comes into its own for that

the only argument is whether you want quality retained completely or is it faster, smaller lower quality files

thats my two bobs worth

Alan!

[Pretending2bDarren]

After reading this it look like I will have to shoot some photos in raw and see what they are like.

[ricktas]

After reading this it look like I will have to shoot some photos in raw and see what they are like.

Remember that a raw file will often not have the POP of a jpg etc, and it adds to your workflow.

[Xenedis]

Remember that a raw file will often not have the POP of a jpg etc, and it adds to your workflow.

Also remember that the preview image on the chimp screen is a JPG, not the RAW file itself, so it cannot be used to accurately assess sharpness, colour or exposure.

[fairy bombs]

Robt has some good advice,its a very,very step learning curve,I am only now just starting to understand a little bit,and take photos in RAW,after 2 years of stumbling around trying to learn stuff.

I did'nt mimd starting my journey just in JPEG,and still only use it on many occasions.only when I am shooting a subject that I really want a good pic out off will I use RAW.

Once you have gained some understanding and experience you will use RAW as well.

hope this helps FB

[FeedMeTrance]

i prefer raw, a lot more control over files. but depends what im shooting, if its a simple happy snap then jpg, but if its for a client or paying customer, then raw, or portfolio

[arnica]

Shoot RAW .. definitely more flexible when it comes to PP.

[soulman]

its a very,very step learning curvePerhaps worth noting that the hassle factor in using RAW is very software dependent - modern photographer's tools like Lightroom and Aperture make processing RAW much more like other file formats. Once you have adopted RAW processing, it makes other workflows seem cumbersome by comparison I think. For example, you can forget about having to strategically save copies of your JPEGs at various points in the editing process and avoid all the attendant file management issues that go along with that.

[andrask]

... For example, you can forget about having to strategically save copies of your JPEGs at various points in the editing process and avoid all the attendant file management issues that go along with that.

I think it depends on the actual RAW image one processes - for some, the initial RAW processing from e.g. Lightroom would be the first step in many steps to follow in more specialised editing in Photoshop as in many of the images I do.

I started my digital photography with just jpegs, progressed to RAW + jpegs, and now only RAW for the mostly non-dateline critical shooting I do.

I would not agree that there is no difference between jpegs and RAW for final photo quality except in the case of the superbly talented natural shooter who gets it all perfect in every shot.

[soulman]

for some, the initial RAW processing from e.g. Lightroom would be the first step in many steps to follow in more specialised editing in Photoshop as in many of the images I do.Sure. I was speaking primarily to the idea that learning to edit RAW is inherently difficult or requiring a lot of learning.


I would not agree that there is no difference between jpegs and RAW for final photo quality except in the case of the superbly talented natural shooter who gets it all perfect in every shot.Even then, there is no getting around JPEG bit depth. 16.7 million colours may be enough if one's images only ever get displayed on monitors, but I just don't think 8 bit is enough for printing stuff with subtle tonal gradations.

[aycee]

Somewhere somebody including myself is lost in all this..it really is down to two things ...the two Qs...Quality vs Quantity..Raw retains the quality and JPEGs retain the abiltiy to have more photos on your card and take up less disc space and to me that is quantity....if you have plenty of quantity go for quality every time..Alan!

Raw is the brand name and Jpeg is the black and gold brand

[GerryK]

Fantastic thread.
I was doing jpeg, but now doing raw. Only today I had a relook at some shots I did in raw+ (raw & jpeg concurrently) The raw has so much more detail and can be worked. Even with the Pentax supplied raw processor software (laboratory) the base image can be really well lifted and then moved to photoshop for finessing (finishing).

[GlennSan]

Hans! You have proven the well known axiom - If KR says A instead of B then B is correct (most of the time) :lol:

Remember: Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.• Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
The term tripod was coined after Ken Rockwell's silhouette
Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" Rockwell
Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues.


All the absolute truth! I have been reading Ken's messages from the mountain for years.



..who is Ken any way? Is he famous?
I can't believe you don't wake up every day with a feeling of warmth and security, knowing that Ken is with us on this planet...


i'm with mongo and swifty...
now that i have set up the picture controls the way i like in camera, the SOOC jpgs are generally better than i can push/pull the raw file - as long as i have exposed adequately. nikon engineers spent lots of effort developing the JPG engine in the camera. might as well make use of it.

i'm time poor so spending hours in front of the computer doing PP on raw is not why i took up photography.


+1 to all the comments above.

But I do have serious doubts about my workflow regarding the best was to use RAW at this stage of my conversion to digital. I need to do a lot more reading before I can decide for myself. For now I'm shooting RAW as "insurance" but may go back to JPEG if I decide I don't have the time/knowledge to do RAW images full justice.

[Brian500au]

I always shoot raw but spend the same amount of time setting up my camera and shot as if I was shooting JPEG. I suppose I look at it as I can always convert to JPEG but I can never convert to raw. There have been times when shooting raw has saved the shot for one reason or another. I only time i shoot both is when i travel and i shoot raw and a small jpeg in case i want to download and email or show somebody on a computer screen, otherwise i just shoot raw. I spend very little time on processing but in truth even if it was a jpeg file I would spend the same amount of time (cropping, adjusting WB, colours etc).

As many have said horses for courses - I am a hobby photog - might be different if I was shooting high voloume stuff.

[cafezeenuts]

I'm new to photography but coming from Hi-Fi Audio background i always shoot in raw because i want the best possible digital data available. Just like in a studio recording all pros record in raw wav files and they can process them and convert to which ever format they wish later..

[chrisprendergast]

im another for raw but depends on ur situation, and use after you shot the image i guess.

[ricktas]

Ultimately, as long as your understand both formats, know what they do and how they do it, it is your choice as to which you use. But to say JPG for me, without even attempting to find out and test out RAW, or using RAW and debunking JPG without any experience in using it, in camera, would be to sell yourself short. Learn both, and make your own informed decision.

[Ray Heath]

G'day all

An interesting thread and probably one that many will never concede.

In my experience shooting in RAW is problematic, a waste of time and unnecessary for my purposes.

Yes RAW is "better", but the post processing is a chore that delivers little gain.

Ray

[Xenedis]

Yes RAW is "better", but the post processing is a chore that delivers little gain.


I gather you do no post-processing at all.

The act of converting from RAW, dropping the image into Photoshop and saving as a JPG is really quite trivial.

[Ray Heath]

Hi Xenedis

I do very little post-processing. Rarely anything more than Levels and Unsharp Mask in Photoshop.

I believe a good image starts with good camera technique; interesting subject, fill the frame, strong composition, consider movement and depth of field, get the exposure right. That doesn't leave much to post-process.

Ray

[Xenedis]

I believe a good image starts with good camera technique; interesting subject, fill the frame, strong composition, consider movement and depth of field, get the exposure right. That doesn't leave much to post-process.

I agree with you on what constitutes a good image, but what you're overlooking is that digital cameras (DSLR cameras in particular) don't produce publication- or print-ready images.

Sure, cameras can (and do) apply white balance, sharpening, contrast and colour adjustments to images they subsequently save as JPG, but I would rather be the decision-maker when it comes to what's done to my image.

RAW has the added benefit that white balance is not written to the image, unlike JPG. What you set (or what the camera chooses) is what you get in the end. With RAW, white balance can be whatever I want, whenever I want.

On the issue of processing, it is also worth remembering that even film gets processed.

There are also some lighting conditions that a camera cannot handle in a single-exposure. Try shooting seascape/landscape images at dawn when facing the eastern sky and you'll see how much variation in light levels there is between foreground and sky.

The ability to blend different exposures of the same thing allows an image to be seen in a way your human eye can see a scene, but which no camera can see.

[Ray Heath]

G'day Jude

I'm not exactly new to digital imaging, I've shot all kinds of images Fine Art, Weddings, Portraits, Photojournalism, and I cannot see any great advantage to using RAW.

This question has long been debated on other sites I frequent and no-one yet has been able to offer visual examples that prove the worth of RAW capture.

[Sheila Smart]

There is always a debate about RAW vs Jpegs, Nikon vs Canon etc etc. I shoot RAW plus a small Jpeg - only because that Windows Explorer cannot see my .CR2 files from my 5DII. In the past, shooting RAW was only used by folk with a lot of room on their hard drives but these days, external drives are getting cheap as chips as are CF cards. I started shooting RAW in 2004 but when I have to find an image prior to that and find that its only in Jpeg, its a tad disappointing as I know I have little or no room to play with. Conversion is simple. Just open Adobe Bridge and send to CS4 (or whatever). Or use Canon's software (which I don't) which came with the camera. I am sure Nikon has similar - but I don't want to go there:)

Sheila

[Xenedis]

I shoot RAW plus a small Jpeg - only because that Windows Explorer cannot see my .CR2 files from my 5DII.

I used to do the same; I used the JPGs as preview files to determine which RAW files I'd process.

I later decided to start using Adobe Bridge, which can display RAW files. Later again, I moved away from 17 years of DOS and Windows, and converted to Mac. The Mac can natively display RAW images too, but Finder (a sort-of equivalent of Explorer) isn't the best tool in the world, and I continue to use Bridge.


Conversion is simple. Just open Adobe Bridge and send to CS4 (or whatever).

Exactly. I don't quite understand the fear of RAW people have, and claims that it's too much messing around. It really is just one extra step which requires little effort, and if the shooter is going to process the bit depth-lacking JPGs anyway, nothing is saved by boycotting RAW, but much is lost.


Or use Canon's software (which I don't) which came with the camera. I am sure Nikon has similar - but I don't want to go there:)

I'm not sure what the Canon software is like, as I've never used it, but as I've mentioned somewhere before, Adobe Camera Raw doesn't leave me lacking, and minimises the number of distinct software packages I need for my workflow. All I have and use is CS4.

[Xenedis]

I'm not exactly new to digital imaging, I've shot all kinds of images Fine Art, Weddings, Portraits, Photojournalism, and I cannot see any great advantage to using RAW.

This question has long been debated on other sites I frequent and no-one yet has been able to offer visual examples that prove the worth of RAW capture.

Maybe in some cases it's not easily apparent to a viewer's eye what the difference is, and I certainly haven't specifically gone looking to compare images.

I suspect that the difference is in the processing latitude rather than the final result, which almost invariably is a compressed 8-bit JPG. Push exposure too much while processing a JPG (which has already been processed by the camera, and not necessarily how you want) and you run into problems. RAW allows recovery of details much more than JPG could ever do.

Also, consider this:

JPG = 8-bit.

2^8 = 256 brightness levels.

RAW = 12-bit or 14-bit.

2^12 = 4,096 brightness levels; 2^14 = 16,384 brightness levels.

Personally, I want the best image quality and the most options the camera and image format can give me. I can never introduce what wasn't captured, and even if an image is going to be used as a small JPG for a Web site now, who knows what I may want to do in the future?

[sketty]

I used to do the same; I used the JPGs as preview files to determine which RAW files I'd process.

I later decided to start using Adobe Bridge, which can display RAW files. Later again, I moved away from 17 years of DOS and Windows, and converted to Mac. The Mac can natively display RAW images too, but Finder (a sort-of equivalent of Explorer) isn't the best tool in the world, and I continue to use Bridge.

Olympus provide a plugin to enable Windows Explorer to display their raws - I imagine other manufacturers would provide the same?

I use both Mac and PC, but Apple only just updated their system to natively display my raw files. Only took them a year!! :D

[fillum]

I don't quite understand the fear of RAW people have, and claims that it's too much messing around. It really is just one extra step which requires little effort, and if the shooter is going to process the bit depth-lacking JPGs anyway, nothing is saved by boycotting RAW, but much is lost.
BINGO!!! The whole argument in a nutshell. JPGs only provide an advantage* if you do no post processing whatsoever. In fact in Capture NX2 (which I use) it is zero extra steps. NX2 pulls in the camera settings which you can either leave alone or change if desired. I can upload raw files and run a batch process to generate the exact same JPGs I would have got in-camera anyway. However I also have the flexibility to work on the raw image if I so desire (WB, exposure, etc).

* Refering to post processing. JPG does have advantages with increased FPS in 'burst' mode and smaller files (more shots per memory card).


Cheers.

[Steve Axford]

Maybe in some cases it's not easily apparent to a viewer's eye what the difference is, and I certainly haven't specifically gone looking to compare images.

I suspect that the difference is in the processing latitude rather than the final result, which almost invariably is a compressed 8-bit JPG. Push exposure too much while processing a JPG (which has already been processed by the camera, and not necessarily how you want) and you run into problems. RAW allows recovery of details much more than JPG could ever do.

Also, consider this:

JPG = 8-bit.

2^8 = 256 brightness levels.

RAW = 12-bit or 14-bit.

2^12 = 4,096 brightness levels; 2^14 = 16,384 brightness levels.

Personally, I want the best image quality and the most options the camera and image format can give me. I can never introduce what wasn't captured, and even if an image is going to be used as a small JPG for a Web site now, who knows what I may want to do in the future?
I can't be bothered posting any examples, but RAW has much greater dynamic range. I use the extra range in about 20% of my photos. I can retrieve highlights that are just gone with jpeg. With some images that counts a lot. If I used jpeg I would have to underexpose many images and thus lose shadow detail. With some types of photography it may make little difference, but with any photography the pushes the dynamic range then RAW is a must.

[carrg1954]

The debate of RAW v JPG will continue, use what you are comfortable with. Don't judge others for their choice either. Just like the Cannon v Nikon crap that continues. At the end of the day if its a good image that is all that matters. regards

[Dirkbox]

Myself still being a new photographer I have found that I have been able to rescue many photos that would have been in the bin due to exposure issues. Thats why I now shoot RAW, memory cards are cheap, HDD are too and only going to get cheeper. Alot of my photos don't get post processing but its nice to have more flexablity.

D

[Steve Axford]

The debate of RAW v JPG will continue, use what you are comfortable with. Don't judge others for their choice either. Just like the Cannon v Nikon crap that continues. At the end of the day if its a good image that is all that matters. regards
I think comments like that just muddy the waters. RAW has more data than jpeg. That's a simple fact. If you don't post process then it is likely to make no difference, but if you do then it could make a lot. One of the factors that goes into producing a good image is understanding your tools. If you understand the differences and you choose jpeg, that's fine, because it means that you have decided that the benefits of RAW don't outweigh the costs. But, if you think it's like Nikon vs Canon, then you will probably miss out on some good images, which, as you say, is what matters.

[Indigo]

I started with JPEg, but only use RAW now, with more software supporting RAW
it is very easy to process, try RAW, you maybe surprised how easy it is and there is a
difference between RAW and JPEG, I can produce much better results post processing

Cheers Indigo

[Xenedis]

with more software supporting RAW it is very easy to process

RAW mode has been around for quite a long time now.

My first digital camera (Canon PowerShot S45 (http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/dcc/data/2001-2002/2002_ps-s45.html?lang=us&categ=crn&page=2001-2002), which I purchased in 2002) offered RAW mode.

I didn't use RAW mode (or process photos), but I'd imagine that the Canon software which came with the camera would have provided RAW conversion capability.

I don't know whether or not non-vendor software could perform RAW conversion.

[Alpacamike]

I’m doing a photograph course at the moment and I asked the similar question of the tutor whether to save in Raw or Jpg, she replied Raw or Tiff never in Jpg as you lose some of the file quality every time you open a Jpg,Is this true? sorry to throw this into the ring but us newbie’s need all the help we can get.
Alpacamike

[aycee]

I dont think its the opening that loses information in the file its every time you save..approx 10% each time..Alan!

[dowden photography]

The thing with jpeg is its a compressed file format, think of it as music or video.
when you rip a CD, if you do lossless you as the name says don't lose anything detail, ie raw.
if you rip to mp3 or aac you lose some detail to get a smaller file.

If you plan on using that file in print, edit or even viewing it on a large scale shoot raw, if you are working for someone who needs them quickly & undedited shoot jpeg

[campo]

I dont think its the opening that loses information in the file its every time you save..approx 10% each time..Alan!

correct, every time you save a file in JPG you lose quality, the amount of which depends on the amount of compression you use. (ie. the higher the quality, the lower the compression)

That said, there are some lossless operations (eg rotate, crop) that can be performed on images meeting certain criteria. There are limitations. Here's a quick article I found that discusses it a bit more: http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/lossless-rotation.html

[Ray Heath]

Yeh, in .jpg losses compound when changes are saved, not each time a file is opened.

So if planning on doing changes to a .jpg file first save as a .tif and then no lose will occur each time the changes are saved.

[Xenedis]

So if planning on doing changes to a .jpg file first save as a .tif and then no lose will occur each time the changes are saved.

It's a better option than re-saving the JPG each time, but on the first instance you'll still experience data loss, as you're taking a compressed JPG, converting to a lossless raster format, and after making changes, re-saving as a JPG again.

I haven't worked with TIFF before, but I do all of my work in layers and save my files as 16-bit PSD files. I then export whatever I need or want to JPG, so there's only ever one phase of data loss.

[dche5390]

Composition is one thing, but sometimes, there are situations where you want to pull the darks/shadows up and this is only possible with RAW (to get decent results).

[RememberThis]

I began shooting Jpeg, and it was good for file size and ease, but when we started shooting weddings professionally we switched to RAW, for white balance (you wouldnt believe how many brides have photos from there wedding day showing blue dresses these days) and you can retrieve more data in highlight and shadows. I know you can do that in JPEG too, but raw does it better before going to a final JPEG image.

my 2c

[kiwi]

theres no debate with those that are experienced

[Xebadir]

I think you are right there Kiwi. HDD space is cheap, larger cards are becoming far more common, realistically the limited negative reasons for shooting raw have dwindled and will continue to so. If you just want usable files straight out of the camera, fine shoot Jpeg (or better yet, tiff which has less loss) but if you intend to do any PP (especially that which is necessary for digital shots) it would be a bit silly not to shoot raw.

[Ray Heath]

theres no debate with those that are experienced

nor with those who lack emagination

[kiwi]

nor with those who lack emagination

Eh?

[Zac]

I always shoot in RAW. Happy snaps can be converted to jpg with the appropriate settings, and then the RAWs discarded if storage space is an issue. However, you can't get the detail & qulaity that RAW captures from a jpg unless you get the white balance and exposure spot on in camera. As soon as you start adjusting a jpg you loose quality...

[alba100]

Day 1 in AusPhotography - I said in my intro I was looking for knowledge, and I appreciate all that has been given here. I'm new to digital, so while I knew that RAW existed, I had no idea why.
Thanks to these posts I am already much better informed.

I may be still confused but on a much higher level - many thanks
Now I need to go and play with RAW and compare JPG

dan

[Ray Heath]

G'day all

An interesting article in the latest Australian Photography magazine makes the point that RAW is better than jpeg only when the exposure in camera is wrong. This would also be my experience.

[Kym]

G'day all

An interesting article in the latest Australian Photography magazine makes the point that RAW is better than jpeg only when the exposure in camera is wrong. This would also be my experience.

While that can be true, the big reason for RAW as Steve pointed out earlier is more dynamic range.
So even a 100% correctly exposed image can be PP'd from raw to bring out more detail than a JPEG.

Simply - you have much more data to work with.

[soulman]

An interesting article in the latest Australian Photography magazine makes the point that RAW is better than jpeg only when the exposure in camera is wrong.I'm surprised they would say that, given that it's not true. I have no trouble accepting that the differences are not important to everyone or that RAW files are much easier to recover bad exposure from, but there are many ways in which RAW beats JPEG. As Kym notes, RAW provides far more of what the sensor captured than JPEG - 12 or 14 bit per channel colour vs 8 bit, and lossless (or no) compression vs lossy compression, being the two major areas. A JPEG from the camera is a RAW that has already been processed and a lot of the original data has been discarded.

[Xenedis]

An interesting article in the latest Australian Photography magazine makes the point that RAW is better than jpeg only when the exposure in camera is wrong.

That's patently incorrect.

JPG = 8-bit.

RAW = 12-bit or 14-bit.

2^8 = 256
2^12 = 4,096
2^16 = 16,384

I know how many brightness levels I'd rather have.

[soulman]

I know how many brightness levels I'd rather have.FWIW, bit depth is about colour rather than brightness. This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth) has more info on the topic. Dynamic range is a function of the sensor and to some degree the electronics of the camera.

[Ray Heath]

OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.

[Steve Axford]

FWIW, bit depth is about colour rather than brightness. This Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth) has more info on the topic. Dynamic range is a function of the sensor and to some degree the electronics of the camera.
AND the file format. jpeg has 8 bits. You cannot store more info than 8 bits in it. The camera makes a decision about how you want your 14 bits of information (from the sensor) stored in those 8. Some it throws away because it assumes you don't want them. Some it compresses in a predefined way. The end result is usually ok, but not always. With jpeg - bad luck. With RAW, you get to redefine how you store your 14 bits into 8 bits - and you don't get just one try.

[Steve Axford]

OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.
Ray, why should I spend 30 minutes hard work proving this one to you. If you choose to think that jpeg is just as good - keep using it. You'll never know the difference, because you will never have really looked.

[Keith]

OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.

Here you go, just Googled it:
http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/04/07/raw-vs-jpeg-a-visual-comparison/

[soulman]

OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.Aww come on! :p You don't believe there's a difference and, based on your previous posts, you seem pretty attached to that idea. That's totally fine with me, really, but I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of something you don't want to believe. I don't think it's all that easy to demonstrate on a screen anyway. Prints, yes, but not screens. Particularly without knowing whether your graphics card & monitor support high bit depths - your computer may not be capable of displaying the difference. Maybe it is, but I don't know.

Let's just say that I fully and happily accept that you are completely satisfied with JPEGs and that you believe the differences between them and RAW files are not of any consequence. :)


AND the file format. jpeg has 8 bits...Yes, but the bits you're talking about are bits of colour, not brightness. I know that one can produce an image with a greater apparent dynamic range from a RAW, but that's only because some of the shadow & highlight detail can be recovered in PP - the real dynamic range is not increased.

[H2OMotion]

My 2c.

Magazines generally will NOT accept anything other than RAW for images to be published.
(there are exceptions)

I think the reasons are obvious, and have been expressed by a multitude of previous posts.

Apart from that, if your happy shooting in JPG then continue but ONLY after you have correctly evaluated RAW and all it entails. :cool:

Storage space is a non-event. Its cheap as chips these days. :D

[RaoulIsidro]

Try this experiment:

Shoot RAW and JPG if your camera can perform it.
Shoot in low light if possible, like the front of your desk with lamp.

Open both RAW and JPG files side by side and zoom 200%

The JPG file will look a little bit refined and nice because the camera has processed it from the RAW file, and made this JPG file, and got rid of the RAW.

The RAW file will look a little rough and grainy, because nobody has touched it yet, not even the interpolants inside the camera.

Now the question: Are you able to make this RAW file appear and look similar to this finished JPG file? (You can try to process and manipulate as the 2 images are side by side and you can see your progress...)

If you can't match it or find it hard to make it as exactly the same as what the camera produced as a JPG, then maybe RAW is not for you, at this time.

That is why it is also good to save as RAW+JPG because, aside from you producing the image from RAW, there is also the second opinion... the camera.
Safe bet.

[jev]

Magazines generally will NOT accept anything other than RAW for images to be published.
(there are exceptions)
I do not know of any magazines that would accept raw images. Commercial editors do not have tools and/or the time to create usable images from raws. Usually, they want JPEG or, if it's something special, TIF.

[Xenedis]

OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.

If you can do the math, then you should be able to understand why someone would use raw.

I suggest you Google the many raw vs. JPG comparisons out there and see for yourself. Other people have already illustrated the differences, so if the advice people have offered in this thread isn't going to convince you, feel free to invest five minutes looking further afield.

[Ray Heath]

Ah ya gotta luv these forums, you can type anything and make all kinds of assumptions like ".. other people have already illustrated the differences", ah excuse me, they haven't.


And the one about magazines and RAW is great, now just who do we believe?

And in another thread, in regards to wedding photography, to paraphrase, you'll need two bodies and and at least will need to be full frame. Um, why?

[Xenedis]

Ah ya gotta luv these forums, you can type anything and make all kinds of assumptions like ".. other people have already illustrated the differences", ah excuse me, they haven't.

Perhaps not to your satisfaction.

I don't know what it would take to convince you of the benefits of shooting raw, but on the other hand, I neither care nor need to convince you of anything.

You can believe whatever you like, as it affects only you.



And the one about magazines and RAW is great, now just who do we believe?


Photography magazines aren't infallible.



And in another thread, in regards to wedding photography, to paraphrase, you'll need two bodies and and at least will need to be full frame. Um, why?

I'm not going to entertain that discussion, as it's out of scope for this thread, which is specifically about raw vs. JPG.

[Error99]

My 2c.

Magazines generally will NOT accept anything other than RAW for images to be published.
(there are exceptions)

Are you serious?
And where would this little gem have been gleaned from?

I've never shot raw and I've supplied images to most of the daily newspapers and high profile magazines in this country and several overseas publications as well as ad agencies etc
Images have been published on covers, used in adverts and posters and billboards.
Never have I been asked to supply a raw image or had a submission rejected because it was a jpeg.

Have you ever heard of a phone camera?
Many publications are these days publishing images from these these days - hardly high quality RAW images

[keith-killer]

Both have advantages. I always shoot RAW+JPG. For quick emails to the relatives of holiday snaps, I choose the JPGs and attach to the email. Bing! off goes the email, quick and simple. Later I will send them some photos I have worked on, put a frame on or whatever.

JPS are great for a slideshow on the PC or TV.

For print work, yes the magazines don't take RAW, but I can proces the photo myself to get the desired result I want. Just as ALL photographers or publishers had to do with film (no one printed a negative so to speak)

Benneifts of RAW, as Photoshop and the RAW software get better, you can go back over older photos and make them better. The low light shots from old 350D (KISS X here in Japan) look much better now when I get the chance to do them again in Lightroom/Photoshop. Even my old JPGs from a .3 megapixel camera from 1998 look MUCH better now in PS CS4/5 or Lightroom 2.5/3.

As you get better working with RAW, you can go back over your older photos, so even if you dont use the RAW files now, keep them.

I use Lightroom on both JPGs and RAWs of the same image and I can do more to make a RAW photo pop than a JPG. However, for many photos, if I took a JPG and don't need it for commerical quality prints or such, the JPG is 95% good enough.

[Art Vandelay]

Here's a quick comparison,

I was doubtful the difference would show up on youtube, but you can clearly see it.

** video removed as it breaches site rules regarding nudity **

[Ray Heath]

Thanks Art

Now there's an argument worth considering for shooting Raw, but I still have a problem with the idea of shooting IN Raw

[farmer_rob]

...
Yes, but the bits you're talking about are bits of colour, not brightness. I know that one can produce an image with a greater apparent dynamic range from a RAW, but that's only because some of the shadow & highlight detail can be recovered in PP - the real dynamic range is not increased.

How else will the brightness be represented to either the screen or the printer, if not through the bits for each pixel stored in the image file? BTW, the wikipedia article is talking about bit depth for computer displays/tvs, not bit depth in image storage.

[TOM]

we seem to be talking about raw images as though they are a file format. Raw files are no file formats, it is simply a blanket term which covers each camera or software company's proprietry file format such as NEF, or DNG. As such, each raw file will have its own intrinsic properties. Having said that, a JPEG can be only viewed as a convenience, one which I have been required to use when shooting sport for newpapers (although with the ease of batch processing, this is less of an issue nowadays). Any JPEG comes from the camera's raw file, as mentioned before. Raw means you do the post, JPEG means the camera does the post. I don't see why this is such a volatile subject.

[H2OMotion]

Are you serious?
And where would this little gem have been gleaned from?

I've never shot raw and I've supplied images to most of the daily newspapers and high profile magazines in this country and several overseas publications as well as ad agencies etc
Images have been published on covers, used in adverts and posters and billboards.
Never have I been asked to supply a raw image or had a submission rejected because it was a jpeg.

Have you ever heard of a phone camera?
Many publications are these days publishing images from these these days - hardly high quality RAW images
Yes.

Newspapers, mmm, yep they only ever ask for jpgs! :eek:

Phone cameras, I'll leave those with the publications that publish them.

From one of the current magazines I deal with, sent out to photographers at the beginning of every year.

"The following protocols are in line with current industry‐standard workflow practises.

FILE SUBMISSION PROTOCOL
Metadata:
At minimum, please ensure the following information is recorded in all your images metadata:
• Your full name
• Your photo credit (if required, otherwise name will be used)
• Your email
• Your phone number
• Your website (if applicable)
Plus keywords to identify (at minimum) the following:
• location

Further, please ensure your camera’s clocks are set to the appropriate local time and date, as we will
assume this information is correct.
Folder Naming Convention
Regardless of the content, submissions must be contained within one folder, named according to the
following protocol:
YY_MM_DD_YOURNAME_SubmissionName_JPGorRAW
Please send all submissions (whether through FTP, DVD, or otherwise) in this format.
Example:
Photographer Joe Blogs is submitting a low res (JPG) preview of his shoot at location XX of YY on the seventh of December 12th 2009.
He would create a new folder called: 09_12_07_BLOGS_XX_YY_JPG.
When he later sends the high res versions (RAW), they’d go in a folder named:
09_12_07_BLOGS_XX_YY_RAW.

Notes:
• As all appropriate information should be contained within the metadata and keywording
there is no need to separate your submission into subfolders, though this is optional.
• Limit the total number of images to no more than 50.
• Place any additional text, interviews or editorial material relating to the submission in a subfolder
named “info”.
• In the interests of tracking and requesting files, do not rename images from their filenames
as stored on your computer, ie. don’t rename ‘IMG_02036.CRW’ to ‘Kelly_Wilson.CRW’,
unless you have renamed it on your machine also.

As I mentioned, there are exceptions. :th3:

[kiwi]

It doesnt say anywhere in there you have to submit a RAW file ? It gives a file naming convention if you do, that's all

Ive never had to, or even been asked to either, not for magazine or news editorial stuff anyhow

[H2OMotion]

It doesnt say anywhere in there you have to submit a RAW file ? It gives a file naming convention if you do, that's all

Ive never had to, or even been asked to either, not for magazine or news editorial stuff anyhow
Kiwi, the example used of .CRW is Canon RAW.

I don't want to get into a big argument, I'm just stating my experience with publications, this is what they require.
I understand some magazines, or by the sounds of it ALMOST all magazines from the posts above, will accept anything. :confused013

I think my statement about "Generally" was in context to the magazines I deal with, I should probably have stated it as so. :(

[ricktas]

OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.

Members are entitled to express their view, strongly or otherwise, as you have done in threads several times with your own views. Telling others 'enough', just cause you do not want to continue the discussion is not appropriate.

[Tonto]

Great topic! I have been having a good read.
I was considering doing Jpeg and then RAW for low light and when I am taking my time shooting.
Jpeg I use as it has the quickest 'shoot to show' as my photos go straight from my camera to network hard drive where Jpeg is the most compatable viewing format. PS3 and Wifi enabled computers to view/display.
However NOW I feel I will shoot jpeg+RAW and use Jpeg only as my fast shot user mode when I want the quickest response for day walkabout.
I think the 'digital negative statement' convinced me as well as someone saying how newer software may deal with older photos better.

One last question though, those who shoot RAW or RAW+Jpeg....do you ever delete shots IN camera?

[ricktas]

Great topic! I have been having a good read.
I was considering doing Jpeg and then RAW for low light and when I am taking my time shooting.
Jpeg I use as it has the quickest 'shoot to show' as my photos go straight from my camera to network hard drive where Jpeg is the most compatable viewing format. PS3 and Wifi enabled computers to view/display.
However NOW I feel I will shoot jpeg+RAW and use Jpeg only as my fast shot user mode when I want the quickest response for day walkabout.
I think the 'digital negative statement' convinced me as well as someone saying how newer software may deal with older photos better.

One last question though, those who shoot RAW or RAW+Jpeg....do you ever delete shots IN camera?

Yep, when I do silly things. Last night I was taking long exposure night shots (which i need to edit and get up on AP tonight), but I was stupidly taking shots with fast shutter speeds on occasion, cause my remote release you push the button on and slide it forward to lock the camera shutter open. My brain was out of sync and I kept just pressing the button and expecting a long exposure...So I was deleting those as I went.

[Ray Heath]

Yeh, and your berating me to get back on subject when I raised valid points in another thread in which you had strong opinions and not doing the same in the current wedding thread is also "... not appropriate."

[ricktas]

Yeh, and your berating me to get back on subject when I raised valid points in another thread in which you had strong opinions and not doing the same in the current wedding thread is also "... not appropriate."

Ray, get off your high horse, or I will ban you!

[Kym]

we seem to be talking about raw images as though they are a file format. Raw files are no file formats, it is simply a blanket term which covers each camera or software company's proprietry file format such as NEF, or DNG. As such, each raw file will have its own intrinsic properties. Having said that, a JPEG can be only viewed as a convenience, one which I have been required to use when shooting sport for newpapers (although with the ease of batch processing, this is less of an issue nowadays). Any JPEG comes from the camera's raw file, as mentioned before. Raw means you do the post, JPEG means the camera does the post. I don't see why this is such a volatile subject.
:th3:

This diagram (from NTP) explains raw/JPEG processing (in camera)...
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/technical/CameraInternal.jpg

FYI ... DNG is not proprietary (not camera brand), its an open format owned by Adobe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Negative_%28file_format%29

[soulman]

How else will the brightness be represented to either the screen or the printer, if not through the bits for each pixel stored in the image file? BTW, the wikipedia article is talking about bit depth for computer displays/tvs, not bit depth in image storage.Actually, it's there in the first line of the article:


...[a] term describing the number of bits used to represent the color of a single pixel in a bitmapped image...

To try to answer your question, we need to look at what dynamic range is and how it differs from colour bit depth, but before I go onto that I should say that I didn't express myself very clearly in that response that you quoted above. Of course brightness is represented in the data in the image file. I wasn't suggesting, nor did I say, otherwise. What I should have said was to reiterate that the bit depth refers to the number of discrete colours that can be stored (or displayed in the case of monitors for eg) not the range of brightness, i.e. dynamic range. The colours do vary in brightness obviously, but the overall range of that brightness is not determined by the bit depth. That range is effectively determined by the sensor, and, as I previously said, the electronics of the camera. Looking at the diagram Kym has posted above, I am referring to the amplifier and filter. By the time the signal gets digitised, the dynamic range has been determined.

Going back to the sensor, these have a basic inherent dynamic range that is largely determined by the size and quality of the pixels. All things being equal, bigger pixels can capture more photons before they become saturated and therefore have a greater dynamic range. Say we have a few pixels of differing size but they all have the same noise floor, so require the same number of photons to register something over 0. Say it takes 100 photons to get above zero and that the small pixel is fully saturated at 25,600 photons. Given that each stop is a doubling of photons and we've doubled it 8 times, this pixel has an 8 stop dynamic range. The bigger pixel accepts, say 102,400 photons before it is saturated, which is another 2 stops worth, giving a total of 10 stops of dynamic range. To express this more succinctly, the first pixel accepts 100 X 2^8 photons, whilst the second takes 100 X 2^10. This is not an analogy - it is what actually happens, amongst other things, and excepting that the numbers of photons have many more zeros and there are millions of pixels.

One of the things that happen in the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC) is that all the voltages (which represent the photons that hit each pixel) get converted to discrete steps, i.e. digitised. Depending on the ADC, this might be 2^8 steps per RGB channel - what has been referred to here as "8 bit", though is actually 2^8 * 2^8 * 2^8, or 16,777,216 colours. Virtually all modern digital cameras break the data up into much smaller steps than this. It is mentioned because this is the maximum amount of colours the JPEG format supports. Even though 16.7 million colours sounds like it should be enough for most purposes, this limit is what causes banding in subtle gradations in some images. Other things cause banding too, but this is one of the sources of it and one of the reasons that modern cameras use 12 or 14 bit ADCs. The numbers quickly get eye glazing, but 12 bit per channel AD conversion gives 68,719,476,736 colours - lets call it 70 thousand million, or 70 billion if you tend to call arithmetic "math" - while 14 bit conversion gives us about 72 X 10^15 possible colours, which really is a lot.

All these brazillions of colours increase our capacity to render subtle differences of colour and tone. They do not, however, have any direct bearing on the dynamic range that we can capture, store or render: the sensor and associated circuitry determine how big the pie is; the ADC determines how many pieces it gets cut into.

[Steve Axford]

What you say is correct if you are looking at the camera internals, but not if you are looking at the camera as a whole, which we, of course, are. The camera, as a whole, registers the light through the sensor, processes it, and outputs a file to the storage device. We then read that file. What the sensor can detect isn't important to us since we cannot access that. So, the file is the only product that we see. If that file is incapable of showing the full dynamic range that the sensor can detect, then we, as camera users, cannot see that range either. JPEG cannot show more than 8 bits of brightness information. The sensor can detect up to 14 bits. Certainly, the camera attempts to include as much of the 14 bits as possible into those 8 bits (by use of compression governed by the gamma function), but it is still only 8 bits. Your discussion of colour really isn't relevant, as each channel (R,G or B) has its own brightness and can safely be ignored here. It is possible to imagine a better algorithm for storing information in 8 bits x 3 channels, but jpeg is what jpeg is, and it isn't designed for extreme cleverness. Anyway, why bother? We have 14 bit RAW, or 16 (or 24) bit TIFF to do that.

[soulman]

JPEG cannot show more than 8 bits of brightness information. The sensor can detect up to 14 bits. Certainly, the camera attempts to include as much of the 14 bits as possible into those 8 bits (by use of compression governed by the gamma function), but it is still only 8 bits.No offence, but this is very confused. Sensors are analogue devices. They don't "detect" any bits of anything. Sensors produce voltages from light. This can be easily verified from any number of sources, such as this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor). JPEG (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg) compression (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_compression) has no direct relationship to bit depth or dynamic range and nothing at all to do with the gamma function (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function), which is a mathematical function related to factorials. I suspect that you're getting it mixed up with gamma correction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_correction), which is a term related to the display of RGB values but which also has nothing to do with bit depth or JPEG compression.


Your discussion of colour really isn't relevant, as each channel (R,G or B) has its own brightness and can safely be ignored here.I was talking about the relationship between colour depth and dynamic range and I stand by the relevance and accuracy of what I wrote. If you do read through it, you'll see that I'm not disputing the fact that image files record brightness levels. What I'm saying is that bit depth does not determine dynamic range. If you can point me to any references that say otherwise, I will be happy to read them and learn. :)

[Steve Axford]

My mistake - I thought you may have been trying to say something. I now realise that you just wanted an argument - that costs extra.

* baiting, do it again and you will be on the receiving end of a site ban - Admin *

[soulman]

There's no need to be rude. I showed you the courtesy of reading your posts and not responding until I was reasonably sure I understood what you were saying. I politely corrected you, quoting references, and your response is to play the man. I actually meant what I said about being open to being corrected myself.

Perhaps my refutation of your previous post was overly strong. I offer you a genuine apology if so.

[farmer_rob]

It's getting messy here. As I see it, the colour (0,0,0) is at the bottom of a displayed dynamic range, and (255,255,255) is at the top. How those figures appear to the viewer depend up the print or display device, and assumptions/reference levels (possibly in jpeg/tiff standards - I know I have read it somewhere, but can't remember where) about how much light (or differences in light) these figures represent. If the difference between the bottom and top of the DR is 10 stops, you can't represent gradation detail as well as if the difference is 6 stops.

I can see where Steve is coming from, but agree more with Soulman. Unless we bring the (0,0,0)/(255,255,255) or (0,0,0)/(4096,4096,4096) reference details into play, we are arguing at cross purposes.

I do think you can argue that, sticking to RAW files, a manufacturer's implementation (e.g. NEF for nikon) may inherently be able to represent a larger DR. When that is turned into a common standard such as jpeg, something has to give though.

[Steve Axford]

There's no need to be rude. I showed you the courtesy of reading your posts and not responding until I was reasonably sure I understood what you were saying. I politely corrected you, quoting references, and your response is to play the man. I actually meant what I said about being open to being corrected myself.

Perhaps my refutation of your previous post was overly strong. I offer you a genuine apology if so.
ok, so you don't want an argument. First, lets agree on what dynamic range is, and what a particular storage format is capable of representing accurately. If we include colour (which is normal) then the brightness is an average of the brightness of the 3 colours (well, not exactly as green is more prevalent than red or blue). The dynamic range is the ratio of the highest brightness level to the lowest. While this is not exactly the bit depth, it is a function of the bit depth. Do we agree so far?

[arthurking83]

My understanding of raw data is that each pixel is dependent on at least three of it's neighbours for some of it's data.
So if that is true(as I've understood it to be from reading various sources), then the collective power of four pixels(two green and one each of red and blue) make for a more powerful data collection set. So not only is this 14bit(or 12 bit) kind of irrelevant to the argument as to whether jpg is as good as raw files, for the basic reasoning that each pixel is referring to at least some of it's neighbours for more accurate data sets(ie. light information).

All raster images are basically dumb images. Each pixel works independently of any other around it, so that should you ever require to recover 'lost' data, it;s becomes harder due to the nature of the pixels not having a bit more info to work with.
This is the same for all raster formats, whether tiff or jpg, but jpg is worse because of it's compressed nature and the fact that it can only work with 8bit brightness/colour data.
This will be important if you ever want to print a high quality large print .. ie. pixel for pixel or larger.
if you shot in jpg.. you're stuffed(compared to had you shot in raw and converted to tiff, that is).

Had you shot in jpg mode, you're stuck with the colourspace you decided to use at the time of capture(or even conversion, if shoot in raw but delete raw files for space)

raw is everything! literally. As file formats progress over the coming years, so do colourspaces.
If you shot in jpg even at aRGB, you can't then convert to ProPhoto colourspace, if this is the next best thing for print quality.

I keep all my raw files, shoot only in raw(NEF) format and I see the benefits in many instances with approximately 3Ev(I think more) of recoverable dynamic range.. but that's because I use Nikon's NEF processing software... and not some lesser thirdparty offering.
Yep! that includes al of Adobe's crap(PS and LR) and now that I've trialled and worked Bibble5 that is as bad(but at least fast).

(note!! from a Nikon perspective only!!)
the problem with these thirdparty offerings, is that they work on raster images. While they can read and understand many raw formats, they don't actually work on or rad the raw data correctly.
I could never get LR3 to work with my NEF files as well as CaptureNX(CNX) can.
Someone touched on the topic of software and each vendors ability to reproduce a raw file.

With CaptureNX, I get minimum of -2Ev highlight recovery with exceptional quality, and probably more like -2.7 to -3Ev of recoverable highlight data, and that's in ISO100 images(where I always shoot now) and where ISO100 is not ideal for recovering highlight data.
Base ISO (200 on most modern Nikons) is best for recovering highlight detail, not the lower uncalibrated versions of ISO.

As for raw bit depth, I currently have no way of seeing the tonal range advantage of shooting @ 14 bit as compared with 12bit, no screen(as I understand it) is capable of reproducing the tonal range advantage of these 14bits over 12bits.
Current uber high end displays are only at 10bit, and even then, the graphics cards are lagging behind that 10bit colour information, so even if you did have the necessary $5K for the screen, there is a high chance hat your graphics card can't reproduce it anyhow.
But once again for the purpose of future proofing yourself, you want every extra bit available to yoursel
The extra 2 bits(14 over 12) in the raw file can make a difference in printing, apparently? I don't print, but I do have plans to do so one day.
I generally shoot in 12 bit, but when I go out for a serious session I shoot 14bit.

The way I see it:
if you don't really place any real value on your images... shoot the McDonalds way(jpg of course)
in one end and out the other as fast as possible just to get the process out of the way.

if you want the Iron Chef(best cooking program ever! :th3:) then you shoot in raw, at the highest bit depth!... for that day when it'll all make it worth doing so.

back to raw processing, and I have no idea on how other manufacturers software handle their respective raw formats, but Nikon's software is at least twice as good at (raw)data handling.. as you would expect of the manufacturer that produces the data format!

First up, I sometimes have to shoot over exposed(because it's digital :th3:), and that overexposure can be by up to +2Ev over. Blown highlights are ugly as, and if I used a non nikon software, I wouldn't dare shoot in that manner. But I know what the raw file is capable of, and as I already said, there's more than 2Ev of exposure compensation recovery detail in them NEF files, for when you do have to overcook it(common in landscapes). I over expose to give myself that 2Ev advantage for the shadow detail. Shadow detail is harder to recover without getting noise and losing colour, so a self imposed limit of approx +1.5Ev is used when I have too(very rare tho). As I use filters this is very uncommon, but it does still sometimes happen.
Note Nikon's software is limited to +- 2Ev exposure compensation, but is capable of more with some cameras, you can then use brightness adjustments to further recover 'lost' detail.
I'm counting a -20%brightness colour control point as the added negative -0.7to -1Ev exposure adjustment when recovering highlight detail.

LR, PS via ACR, and Bibble all cannot recover as much detail in both the shadow or highlights.
And the reason must be that they read the raw data ok enough, but cannot operate on the data itself, and have to render a raster image, either tiff or jpg(in both LR3 and Bibble's case they're jpgs from what I've seen in the cache folders??).
Results were basically crap. I've never been able to process a jpg file as well as a raw file, if that image has extreme lighting conditions to deal with.


OK guys, enough, I can do the math. My concern is not the theoretical but the practical. Show me some examples or lose the strong statements.

LOL! are you serious?

Strong statement alert!! jpg sucks as a digital image capture format, raw rules(except for limited capacity storage space... easily fixed).

If you shoot flat boringly lit scenes, then yeah jpg is for ewe! Go forth and rejoice with KR(he, who's name shall never be typed ever again by me :p)

What do you do when you're faced with scenes with 13Ev of dynamic range?

Your chair scene Ray is a lame attempt at something... I just dunno what! Trying to show us something.... that a P&S camera can easily achieve.
With a P&S you generally have no option other than jpg. Rare is the raw shooting compact camera.
I thought there was an assumption that we're generally discussing the capabilities of the DSLRs and the reasons we've all invested in them in the first place!

Show us a non HDR high dynamic range image captured in jpg mode!

here's a small sample of the difference between a raw file and the McDonalds image format
(don't get me wrong, I have nothing against jpg as a file format, great for uploading to the web, and better formats are surely around the corner. But for digital image capture it basically sucks!

1. basic jpg, as it would have come out of the camera, had I set the camera to jpg only.
I have on occasion set it to raw+jpg, but almost always end up discarding the jpgs or simply downsizing them without saving the original fine version.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/raw_vs_jpg/DSG_1139.jpg
I believe jpgs are a useless image format, other than for web display.
I'd never print a quality print from a jpg... they're reserved for snaps(@ 4x6) for my mum.
Image is blown in this 1005 crop of a portion of the sky.
The jpg version of this image would instantly be a Ctrl-Del job without even thinking about it.
But I shoot for maximum dynamic range in camera, using GNDs and all those silly infuriating and inconvenient obfuscations! That means over exposing to the limit, knowing that the raw file is where it's at.
Five mins of processing/converting the image to a convenient for display type(whatever the current trend is for a given moment in time) and done.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/raw_vs_jpg/DSG_1139_-2,5EV_TIFF%20to%20jpg.jpg
The maximum possible exposure compensation highlight recovery possible in this file is -2.5Ev with what can only be described as laughable results. Both -ve EC at -2.5Ev and highlight recovery were attempted on that small portion. That was working on a tiff file converted straight from the raw file.
I see absolutely no difference between the tiff and jpg images, except for more immediate posterisation of the jpg image, as you attempt recovery beyond a lower threshold.
As Steve said it's got to be the extra bits of dynamic range info in the tiff file. It's subtle, but the point is it's still there.

Working directly on the jpg version of the raw file yielded this image. I did push EC to -2Ev, but that also took the image beyond the posterisation stage.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/raw_vs_jpg/DSG_1139_-2EV_jpg%20to%20jpg.jpg
I should have stopped at about -1Ev, when posterisation started, but as the posterisation is a small part of the image, in a teeny corner of the scene, I did push as far as I could(get away with). Posterisation is clearly seen in the lower RH corner of the cloud area. A pixelated mass of greyishness.

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/raw_vs_jpg/DSG_1139_-2EV_jpg%20to%20jpg.jpg
Here's the NEF processed jpg, as edited and converted by Bibble5.
It is slightly better, but barely 1/3Ev different to the tiff based file.
As previously said, your choice of raw conversion software may play a key role in seeing the difference between raw and jpg images(when the difference IS there... which may be a lot more than you think it is).


G'day all

An interesting article in the latest Australian Photography magazine makes the point that RAW is better than jpeg only when the exposure in camera is wrong. This would also be my experience.

:lol:

define the term ... "exposure in camera is wrong"?
Wrong? For what purpose. Is there a right exposure then?
Was the camera actually wrong, or the operator wrong... or maybe the light was wrong?

My understanding of the concept of exposure is that there is no right or wrong exposure, that's a ridiculous concept, but there are degrees of appropriateness.
I think many people like to stick to well oiled and disciplined regimental routines for some reason, and are afraid of going out on a limb and doing something that pleases themselves, and need to appease the masses. wrong exposure is what?...

This?..
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/staff/AK83/raw_vs_jpg/DSG_1139_NX_-2EV_NEF%20to%20jpg.jpg
Once again, the 100pixels of posterisation I could live with, in a 12Mp image! :rolleyes:
I could easily take care of that with a few seconds of processing... but in a technical sense, this last image is also a 'wrong exposure'.
The posterisation is only evident in the jpg conversion, and neither the NEf itself, nor the tiff file(if I ever want to print this mass of grey clouds).
Processing was a quick and simple 2mins of :
-2Ev EC via CaptureNX and crop and spot darkening...
(and View NX produced the exact same result, and that's free!... makes for a far better program than Adobe's PS/CS suite which I vaguely remember to cost upwards of $1500? :lol:)
(but people never listen!... they want :confused013 ... cloning, and healing, and easy uploading to their fave website... not the best quality images!? :confused013)
Only reason for opening the NEF in CaptureNX is because ViewNX is so basic, it doesn't allow you to crop :action:

More info @ DPR on the difference bewteen raw and jpgs - D300 specific (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300s/page14.asp)

Quote: DPR's assessment!

As expected the RAW converted images look sharper than JPEG (images look crisper and demonstrate better per-pixel sharpness), it does appear as though View NX and Capture NX are using the same engine as their output is identical. Overall there's little difference in sharpness between the three RAW conversion engines compared here.

NOTE: I personally used an earlier version of ACR with PS2. Once bitten ... never again! Adobe's software never gets installed on my PC again.(no need for it).

Quote DPR again:

Although it is hard to see here, slightly more detail can be recovered from the D3S's NEF files than from its JPEGs at standard settings. Nikon's Capture NX2 (and View NX, which gives identical rendering at default settings) delivers slightly sharper results than Adobe Camera RAW at Adobe's default sharpening settings (with camera profiling turned on), but there is little to separate the two images in terms of absolute detail resolution. As we've come to expect from Nikon DSLRs (and most other brands for that matter), straight from the camera, JPEG files look slightly soft compared to the processed raw output, and benefit from a little post-capture sharpening. Bibble 5 Pro has delivered the flattest image here from the D3S's raw file, but detail is very high. We have darkened the image produced by Bibble Pro 5 (using the 'exposure' slider in Bibble's interface) prior to conversion, as the default rendering was far too bright.

Same with the D3s review (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3s/page16.asp)

the results are there for you to see, if you care too.
If not, then ignore them again. As you please.

So now, while I've helped you by saving you the time it wastes ... takes to test these waters for yourself, I'm now hoping you can do me a the favour of answering my question as to what constitutes a wrong(or conversely correct, if that's easier) exposure.

[Steve Axford]

. So not only is this 14bit(or 12 bit) kind of irrelevant to the argument as to whether jpg is as good as raw files, for the basic reasoning that each pixel is referring to at least some of it's neighbours for more accurate data sets(ie. light information).

Please Arthur, consider this. If jpeg used only one bit, then you would get almost no dynamic range. If it used 2, we would get more - up to the limit of what the sensor can detect (though that word is apparently banned). The dynamic range is f(bit depth), up to the limit. Is it not? Why do so many have to deny this very simple fact.

P.S. Colour does not effect this. It just brings some more numbers into the equation.

[ricktas]

Please Arthur, consider this. If jpeg used only one bit, then you would get almost no dynamic range. If it used 2, we would get more - up to the limit of what the sensor can detect (though that word is apparently banned). The dynamic range is f(bit depth), up to the limit. Is it not? Why do so many have to deny this very simple fact.

P.S. Colour does not effect this. It just brings some more numbers into the equation.

But the initial topic of this thread was


I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??

Thanks
JO

I think you are all trying to prove the same answer here, that RAW is better than JPG :Doh:

[Steve Axford]

Mod note: not constructive, baiting.

[ving]

my opinion for what its worth...

this is one of those topics that has been done to death a million times over. if you want to know which one to use then why not try them both? its digital so it doesnt cost you anything to shoot, process and view the results. then make up your own mind which you like...

all this arguing is useless.

[Ray Heath]

WOW I stand corrected arthur. By shear weight of words your opinion is obviously more important than anyone else's.

My chair picture was obviously wasted on you. It was meant to show that there are many considerations over and above raw v jpeg. Sorry you didn't get it.

[bobt]

all this arguing is useless.

However, it's a bit like the 'ol "If a tree falls in the forrest".

"If a discussion occurs in a newsgroup, and no-one reads it - does it matter?".

I always feel that there are two sorts of people - those that read circular threads and those who don't. If those who do find it boring, tedious, pointless or whatever, then there is always the simple solution. Turn off the thread!

I glance at this thread periodically, and if something grabs my attention then I read it - otherwise I move on. I doubt that I will ever understand why bystanders get concerned about various messages - sifting through them just isn't a problem, and there's always the chance I might learn something.

I've started shooting in RAW because on an intellectual level I feel it is better, but haven't really demonstrated to myself that I'm getting significantly better results. However, one compelling argument for me is that one day it might prove beneficial, and if it does then it's too late to be of benefit to past shots - so taking them in RAW now is a form of future proofing.

[ving]

However, it's a bit like the 'ol "If a tree falls in the forrest". only if it falls in bear poo.


"If a discussion occurs in a newsgroup, and no-one reads it - does it matter?".
hey, just giving my opinion :)

...and if a discussion has occurred in a news group then one or more people have read it and commented to make it a discussion... otherwise its just a singular comment :p


I shoot raw.


but more importantly :umm:, do you prefer green or blue... I like green better.:rolleyes:

[bobt]

but more importantly :umm:, do you prefer green or blue... I like green better.:rolleyes:

Pink! Pink is the best colour for RAW ! At least it is in the pictures I'm looking at ..... :cool:

[William]

I'd say to the original question posted . If your a "Newbie" shoot in JPEG , Till you get the hang of what your doing , Once you get confident and get the right Software for processing , Lightroom , Capture One or whatever , Start shooting in RAW , You'll never look back , Save your RAW files and you can always go back and reprocess with no loss of of Data information, Shoot "RAW" save to TIFF and just for the WEB Convert to JPG , Probably should'nt have said anything , But just my 2 cents worth , RAW shooter Bill ;)

[kiwi]

I would say use whatever gets you the results that you want now (and in the future). When I look at a photos whether you used RAW or JPEG is irrelevant.

You could have all gone outside, caught a lovely picture of a flower in RAW+Jpeg (what I shoot) and have it processed, and hung on the wall by now

[ricktas]

WOW I stand corrected arthur. By shear weight of words your opinion is obviously more important than anyone else's.



Ray, as per my other post to you. Stop these statements or I will ban you from the site permanently. Members are discussing the benefits and disadvantages of raw against JPG here. All opinions are welcome, not just those that agree with you.

[Error99]

Wow,
I thought a pizza with the lot had everything

[arthurking83]

Please Arthur, consider this. If jpeg used only one bit, then you would get almost no dynamic range. If it used 2, we would get more - up to the limit of what the sensor can detect (though that word is apparently banned). The dynamic range is f(bit depth), up to the limit. Is it not? Why do so many have to deny this very simple fact.

P.S. Colour does not effect this. It just brings some more numbers into the equation.

Yep, as I said Steve(at least I think I said it) the tiff file(@ 16bits) I processed could be pushed further than the lowly 8bit jpg file before posterisation became evident, even on my cheapo(but large) 6bit LCD screen.
The extra bits of info(or possibly dynamic range) will be useful for high quality printing.
Apologies if I wasn't totally clear on that, but not all DSLR's are capable of shooting at 14bit, so that part of the equation is less important than the jpg vs raw argument.
Also note, to further add to the info, the same raw file(scene) shot in 12 bit vs 14bit on my D300, will generally produce up to approx 25% more raw data, ie. on average 20Mb for the 12bit and 25Mb for the 14bit raw files.
When I'm out shooting landscapes I usually set the camera to 14bit.


WOW I stand corrected arthur. By shear weight of words your opinion is obviously more important than anyone else's.

And so it should! :p
At least I took the time to display the differences between raw and jpg files, and under what circumstances it can matter. A single low res example taken in flat light doesn't really highlight the significant differences between the two file types!
As one example of what Steve mentioned is the loss in dynamic range as you process the image to your liking.

So, and I have to ask... was DPR's findings(re jpg vs raw) comparatively insignificant too then?
Are there findings also not to your liking?
If not, do you simply dismiss them and ask them to "... Show me some examples or lose the strong statements." also?

All you've offered as a counter point is that 'shooting raw is problematic' no if's or butts strong statements indeed, but no data or proof to back it up!

So now that someone took some time(actually a lot of time with my currently very slow net connection!) all you have to offer as an argument is some wasted bandwidth with a malicious and condescending overtone. Good one! :rolleyes:

I suggest you take a strong dose of your own hyperbole as medicine, before you pour scorn on others.


... My chair picture was obviously wasted on you. It was meant to show that there are many considerations over and above raw v jpeg. Sorry you didn't get it.

So how do you determine the conditions when jpg is going to be good enough?
Do you shoot only in those types of conditions?
Do you consider the possibility that conditions can/will change(dramatically) or that an opportunity may eventuate where having the camera set to raw could be the difference between a blown shot or not?
Do you dilly dally about fumbling with camera settings, or do you shoot when the chance arrives?
If the conditions change dramatically, do you just go home?

When a newbie asks this kind of question, We at least try to offer the best possible advice, and that's to shoot raw, because at some point down the road they'll end up regretting the decision not too.
When this newbie becomes uber elite super pro photographer #1, they can then decide for themselves what's best.

Anyhow. There's no argument here. We each choose to shoot as we determine is best for our own purposes. But newbies to DSLR photography should always shoot raw!

[creativefotography]

Iv always photographed in RAW and i tend to get fustrated with my friends when they give ne JPEGs to fix up for them. JPEGs are less flexible. :D i figure i can always convert my RAW images into JPEGs but you cant do it vice-versa

kimmii

[Ray Heath]

Yep, as I said Steve(at least I think I said it) the tiff file(@ 16bits) I processed could be pushed further than the lowly 8bit jpg file before posterisation became evident, even on my cheapo(but large) 6bit LCD screen.
The extra bits of info(or possibly dynamic range) will be useful for high quality printing.
Apologies if I wasn't totally clear on that, but not all DSLR's are capable of shooting at 14bit, so that part of the equation is less important than the jpg vs raw argument.
Also note, to further add to the info, the same raw file(scene) shot in 12 bit vs 14bit on my D300, will generally produce up to approx 25% more raw data, ie. on average 20Mb for the 12bit and 25Mb for the 14bit raw files.
When I'm out shooting landscapes I usually set the camera to 14bit.



And so it should! :p
At least I took the time to display the differences between raw and jpg files, and under what circumstances it can matter. A single low res example taken in flat light doesn't really highlight the significant differences between the two file types!
As one example of what Steve mentioned is the loss in dynamic range as you process the image to your liking.

So, and I have to ask... was DPR's findings(re jpg vs raw) comparatively insignificant too then?
Are there findings also not to your liking?
If not, do you simply dismiss them and ask them to "... Show me some examples or lose the strong statements." also?

All you've offered as a counter point is that 'shooting raw is problematic' no if's or butts strong statements indeed, but no data or proof to back it up!

So now that someone took some time(actually a lot of time with my currently very slow net connection!) all you have to offer as an argument is some wasted bandwidth with a malicious and condescending overtone. Good one! :rolleyes:

I suggest you take a strong dose of your own hyperbole as medicine, before you pour scorn on others.



So how do you determine the conditions when jpg is going to be good enough?
Do you shoot only in those types of conditions?
Do you consider the possibility that conditions can/will change(dramatically) or that an opportunity may eventuate where having the camera set to raw could be the difference between a blown shot or not?
Do you dilly dally about fumbling with camera settings, or do you shoot when the chance arrives?
If the conditions change dramatically, do you just go home?

When a newbie asks this kind of question, We at least try to offer the best possible advice, and that's to shoot raw, because at some point down the road they'll end up regretting the decision not too.
When this newbie becomes uber elite super pro photographer #1, they can then decide for themselves what's best.

Anyhow. There's no argument here. We each choose to shoot as we determine is best for our own purposes. But newbies to DSLR photography should always shoot raw!

Yep, OK, Thank :th3:You.

[Steve Axford]

Yep, as I said Steve(at least I think I said it) the tiff file(@ 16bits) I processed could be pushed further than the lowly 8bit jpg file before posterisation became evident, even on my cheapo(but large) 6bit LCD screen.
The extra bits of info(or possibly dynamic range) will be useful for high quality printing.
Apologies if I wasn't totally clear on that, but not all DSLR's are capable of shooting at 14bit, so that part of the equation is less important than the jpg vs raw argument.
Also note, to further add to the info, the same raw file(scene) shot in 12 bit vs 14bit on my D300, will generally produce up to approx 25% more raw data, ie. on average 20Mb for the 12bit and 25Mb for the 14bit raw files.
When I'm out shooting landscapes I usually set the camera to 14bit.


Thanks Arthur. It all seemed quite simple from this end - how did it all get so complicated? :confused013
Anyway, I use a good camera, but I do admit that not all cameras will produce such good results with RAW.

[Kym]

Offering advice to inexperienced members (http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=47638)

[bigdazzler]

Wow ... I just ate a whole pizza reading this thread. :D


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Xenedis]

Wow ... I just ate a whole pizza reading this thread. :D

Was the pizza cooked and sliced into only eight bits, or was it raw?

[Error99]

Was the pizza cooked and sliced into only eight bits, or was it raw?

I like my pizza cut into 6 bits because I cant eat 8 bits

[bigdazzler]

Was the pizza cooked and sliced into only eight bits, or was it raw?

booom .... you know I was gonna write something cheesy like that but thought better of it .. :D

[darkbhudda]

I was using RAW+JPG so I could review my photos easily but I've switched to RAW only thanks to a handy little free tool called Instant JPEG from RAW.

http://www.rawworkflow.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility


Once I copy my files off my camera I select the RAW files then right click click on the Instant JPEG from RAW option and it extracts the jpeg that's stored in the RAW files.

Best of both worlds so far, easy review of photos and also ability to work with the RAW file. Less space used than RAW+JPG too.

[arthurking83]

buddah!

some image viewing software uses the embedded jpg file in the raw for display purposes anyhow.

So your use of IJFR is probably not really required anyhow.

Still a great program to have handy tho.

(Nikon specific.. because I use Nikon! :D)
ViewNX uses the jpg image in the raw file for browsing, but CaptureNX doesn't.(possibly for thumbnails tho??).

(generic software)
Another image browser I use a lot is FSViewer(FastStone), and it can be set to load the jpg file for browsing raw images for faster browsing .... or not.

[Gaz]

Well this post sure answered a whole lot of questions !!!
Thanks :th3:

[moonshine]

When i am snappy happy and just having fun i use jpg. When i do a shoot i use raw.

[arthurking83]

When i am snappy happy and just having fun i use jpg. When i do a shoot i use raw.

LOL! funny that you say that moonshine... should I dare explain how I have a jpg set memory bank in my D300 too? :p

While my replies may have a very serious tone to them, it;s usually just so that the newcomer to photography fully realises that once you commit to shooting in a non raw format(and many DSLR's may have various file types to choose from.. such as jpg, tiff(whoa! on the file sizes.. forget it :p), and then the respective raw formats, which I understand on Pentax'es to be both their proprietary PEF format, and DNG.

many camera's come with software from the manufacturer, and that software usually integrates very well with the camera itself, allowing in camera editing/enhancing to be done via the PC, to determine what, if any enhancements in the camera can improve the quality of the resultant image. But this only applies for the raw format and not the raster formats(jpg and tiff) as there is no 'intelligent data' in the raster formats for the manufacturer specific software to read.
Stuff like sharpening! much better done via the PC with either (my preferred USM) or High Pass. In camera sharpening results in a more grainy looking blur/bokeh.. mainly in the blue channel. I've noticed that(with Nikon cameras) the in camera sharpening settings are 'very coarse' compared to how you can apply it via USM via your image editing program.
Hence I have all my in camera sharpening set to zero.
ie. all in camera enhancements set to zero, should I decide to use them
The images still come out looking standard, neutral or vivid for each enhancement type, but there is no sharpening or other tweak enabled.

So, if I 'only shoot raw' as I think I've already stated, why would I have a jpg set memory bank in my camera?
On the odd occasion, non intelligent (ie. raster) third party human life forms have used my D300 for the purpose of attempting to "see if a better camera is something they'd like to have"?? :confused013
Because of the way memory banks work, and the way I have my camera set up to only focus via the AF-On button, they've never been able to use it correctly, and end up with a 6fps burst of 12 images(buffer deliberately set! ;)) of very artistic blur.
up until I took the time to set it up that way, the consensus from these non intelligent raster types, the consensus is that these big cameras are too complicated to operate! :Doh:

So I dumbed it down, and made sure that if any images on my camera are jpg only, they're not mine. I've only used that setting once, and that was to confirm that it worked correctly :lol:
Geezus .. I felt so dumb afterwards tho.

[darkbhudda]

buddah!

some image viewing software uses the embedded jpg file in the raw for display purposes anyhow.

So your use of IJFR is probably not really required anyhow.

Still a great program to have handy tho.

Another image browser I use a lot is FSViewer(FastStone), and it can be set to load the jpg file for browsing raw images for faster browsing .... or not.
The embedded jpgs will still be useful for a while. I have an old computer so they display faster and they've come in handy for some of my image manipulations. I have been reading up about FSViewer and I think I'll give it a try, thanks for the tip.

[arthurking83]

The embedded jpgs will still be useful for a while......

Always! :th3:

a case in point is the differences in how a non manufacturer raw converter/viewer will render the raw image as it deems to be the best way.
From my experiences, the manufacturers software generally displays the raw image as your camera captured it.

And the embedded jpg can help you to determine how good or bad third party software shows the differences between the two images.
A jpg is a set image. Once it's been made, all software will render it to be roughly the same looking. There may be some very subtle differences in tones and colours, but I suspect that in the majority of cases they're going to be nothing by comparison to the differences between the rendering of raw images.... that I've seen between the different software I've used.
I've used PSCS2 or thereabouts via ACR(something early), Bibble Pro, LightRoom3, And just about all of Nikon's own raw viewing software.. except I hated Nikon View, which was an early and buggy program form many years ago(replaced by ViewNX).
The example screenshots I have currently are only with Bibble Pro< as I never thought to record the differences when I had a working copy of LR3 trial. LR3 is not quite as bad as Bibble with 'over exposure', but far worse in terms of colour and contrast looking so flat in terms of tone that I'd be inclined to give it all away! With Bibble, all have to do is set -1.5Ev compensation for every image and I'm done.
But this is a seriously deluded workflow system as the exact same image opened as a jpg and rendered by Bibble is perfectly acceptable!
I noted similar differences with LR3 too(compared to how my camera renders the images as well as Nikon software does).

The main point is that my digital camera is loaded with it's own specific image rendering substance. I capture it one way in the camera, and when I get it home and see it via thirdparty software... it can only be described as crappy looking!.. unless the raw viewing software displays the embedded jpg file(as FSViewer does)

Maybe this is isolated to Nikon only raw images...on my PC?? ... or something, as there are a lot more people that seem to be happy with their images via these thirdparty software vendors than I would ever imagine possible :confused013.

FSViewer is what Nikon ViewNX should be(like).
ViewNX is a crappy program that is more than capable(if that makes sense :p). It has barely any editing ability other than very mild tweaking and really only good for viewing and mass converting NEF images into more manageable jpgs.
FSViewer is awesome considering it's free.
The flexibility of how it allows you to save images and with what compression settings and some of the editing ability is very nice. Only problem is that it's woeful at converting raw images into jpgs. it creates badly rendered images, just as the others do.

it's also great in the way it's almost nonexistent on resources on your PC, and you can run it directly off an external memory source(such as a USB drive or whatever!!) but that's a separate program to the one that installs on your PC. The slideshow feature is also very good. Good for old PC's or laptops and suchlike.