JPEG vs RAW

[Phrasikleia]

I think this is a terrible example... a) who would ever look at that shot and say... "Ah, I'll just fix it in post"... BS, you are going to fix your exposure and take it again. b) That camera must be borked, or this example was way under-exposed on purpose making this a very unrealistic example... no camera is going to meter the scene to give this kind of exposure.

Post processing of RAW should not become a replacement for crappy photography skills or a broken camera.

You're missing the point. He gave an extreme example from which you should be able to extrapolate how much latitude you can gain in an average shot.

Look, nobody is telling you what's right for you. Those of us who shoot raw have our reasons for doing so and have shared them here. It's up to you to decide what your goals are and what you're willing to do to achieve them.

 

[Afterthecalm]

I read pretty much everything here, and I have my own reasons that I shoot in RAW.. I don't care to much about the others on here for why or why not.

here is my take.. Memory cards are cheap, I have a boatload. I'll run out of battery power before I run out of memory

I also have a 1TB external harddrive

Storage is a non issue with me, if that's the case then shoot in JPEG, they're your pictures not mine

I shoot in both RAW & JPEG, because most of the time, JPEG will suit just fine, and will be used 99% of the time.. when I shoot non-important stuff.. social events, live band performances, drunken endeavors with non-photogs that I want to hand my D80 to for fun. I shoot in RAW just in case there happens to be that one in a million shot, its insurance so to speak.

Now when I get paid to shoot someones special event or 'glamour' type shoot, well it only makes sense for me to shoot in RAW as I am given the flexibility and lossless data to do what I have to do.

I try my damndest to get all my settings 'correct' in camera to provide me the best picture out of the box to spend less time in PP, but an awesome shot still needs to be tweaked regardless.

If you're only using iPhoto, then just stick with jpeg

 

[VirtualRain]

You're missing the point. He gave an extreme example from which you should be able to extrapolate how much latitude you can gain in an average shot.

Look, nobody is telling you what's right for you. Those of us who shoot raw have our reasons for doing so and have shared them here. It's up to you to decide what your goals are and what you're willing to do to achieve them.

You're missing my point...

With respect to the example, it is extreme to the point of being unrealistic which is why I take exception to it. To me such an unrealistic example is saying that if your camera is broken, or you have no skill, then shoot RAW so you can salvage your pictures. My point is that RAW is no substitute for good equipment and skill.

OreoCookie also pointed out that this example is useless... so I'm not sure why you're all over me about it?

@JeepGuy
That's exactly a situation where RAW is `useless:' the photo is not properly exposed. If noobs take pictures like that, then the first course of action is to learn how to expose properly and not to switch to RAW, because `you can fix it.'

BTW, I agreed back in post #30 that RAW is good way to shoot and I'm going to shoot RAW on my upcoming trip to start learning more about how to work with it. The whole point of starting this thread was not to bash RAW but to share that JPEG's actually have a lot more flexibility in post processing than I was led to believe.

 

[pyramis]

I'm in a similar boat as the OP, except I use Aperture. (OP -- if you care as much about this topic to create this thread, you probably should make the switch too, as I did.)

Like the OP, I've begun to wrestle with the JPG vs RAW question. As a RAW newbie, I compare the highly-processed JPG coming out of my Nikon D40 (w/ warmed white balance and saturation maxed out, as I like it) to the dim, plain-jane RAW file that comes out and simply think: jeez, I have to do a lot of work to get this RAW file to look as nice as this JPG! What a pain. Of course, I know, that's where the artistry comes in, where the flexibility of RAW allows more room for modification. Regardless, it is more work.

Now there is also the 'insurance' idea that has been raised a lot in this thread -- that there are a few rare shots that are badly exposed or badly white-balanced, but the composition is just so good that you want to be able to salvage it into something good. In these cases, RAW will clearly make it easier to pull something great out of that botched shot -- as this link shows so well (shared earlier by someone in this thread):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/jpg-follies.shtml

In that case, it's a pic that you *want* to put a lot of time/work into anyway. Me, a non-professional who takes a ton of shots just to capture the beauty of life as it streams by, I'd rather spend that time living the life.

I think I'll turn RAW on for shoots where I think there's a high chance of getting priceless shots (e.g. the wedding kiss) that might be botched by extreme lighting or other factors. Otherwise, 99% of the time I adore the JPGs that come out of my camera.

 

[OreoCookie]

You're missing the point. He gave an extreme example from which you should be able to extrapolate how much latitude you can gain in an average shot.

No, you can't extrapolate like that: if you expose properly, chances are that your picture needs minimal modifications and not extreme modifications.

In my experience, RAW files (with properly exposed pictures) have advantages in subtleties like skin tones or slight changes in the white balance. But these are small corrections (which I care about) and not big ones that decide whether the picture is any good.

 

[nutmac]

• With RAW, you have approximately 1 EV headroom for correcting exposure. With JPEG, you can get at the most, 1/3 stop with JPEG. Your example represents very mildly overexposed image that most software apps can correct.
• RAW processing algorithm on computer software is getting better all the time, sometimes dramatically so. If you shoot in JPEG, you are stuck with the algorithm implemented on your camera and settings chosen at the time.
• Not as widely discussed is white balance (color) correction. White balance is just as difficult to correct (if not more) if you shoot in JPEG. Yes, we should all be using custom white balance, but not everyone can do that at will.
• Perhaps you can retake the photos over and over again, but quite often, you can't (i.e., baby/kids will not pose for the same shot again, important events like the wedding).

 

[Phrasikleia]

You're missing my point...

With respect to the example, it is extreme to the point of being unrealistic which is why I take exception to it. To me such an unrealistic example is saying that if your camera is broken, or you have no skill, then shoot RAW so you can salvage your pictures. My point is that RAW is no substitute for good equipment and skill.

OreoCookie also pointed out that this example is useless... so I'm not sure why you're all over me about it?

You are definitely given to exaggeration. Nobody is suggesting that shooting raw is a substitute for skill; that's a conclusion you've just formulated, not something asserted by anyone in this thread. Also, nobody is "all over" you. We're trying to help you.

No, you can't extrapolate like that: if you expose properly, chances are that your picture needs minimal modifications and not extreme modifications.

In my experience, RAW files (with properly exposed pictures) have advantages in subtleties like skin tones or slight changes in the white balance. But these are small corrections (which I care about) and not big ones that decide whether the picture is any good.

toxic provided a very coherent defense of that particular example. If you can recover that much EV out of a raw file like the example, then you obviously have great latitude with raw. Therefore, you can extrapolate from that example that whenever you're in a high-contrast situation that would benefit from 11 EV, shooting raw can get you there. I don't see why this should be so controversial!

 

[VirtualRain]

I'm in a similar boat as the OP, except I use Aperture. (OP -- if you care as much about this topic to create this thread, you probably should make the switch too, as I did.)

Like the OP, I've begun to wrestle with the JPG vs RAW question. As a RAW newbie, I compare the highly-processed JPG coming out of my Nikon D40 (w/ warmed white balance and saturation maxed out, as I like it) to the dim, plain-jane RAW file that comes out and simply think: jeez, I have to do a lot of work to get this RAW file to look as nice as this JPG! What a pain. Of course, I know, that's where the artistry comes in, where the flexibility of RAW allows more room for modification. Regardless, it is more work.

Now there is also the 'insurance' idea that has been raised a lot in this thread -- that there are a few rare shots that are badly exposed or badly white-balanced, but the composition is just so good that you want to be able to salvage it into something good. In these cases, RAW will clearly make it easier to pull something great out of that botched shot -- as this link shows so well (shared earlier by someone in this thread):
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/jpg-follies.shtml

In that case, it's a pic that you *want* to put a lot of time/work into anyway. Me, a non-professional who takes a ton of shots just to capture the beauty of life as it streams by, I'd rather spend that time living the life.

I think I'll turn RAW on for shoots where I think there's a high chance of getting priceless shots (e.g. the wedding kiss) that might be botched by extreme lighting or other factors. Otherwise, 99% of the time I adore the JPGs that come out of my camera.

Good stuff... A nice practical view. That's how I see it, but then, like yourself, I'm not a professional photographer. However, I can see why Pro's need to exploit every potential quality measure they can.

In my case, I'm the kind of nut that gets totally immersed in a new hobby until I've learned way more than I really need to and then level-out to more of a steady-state practical path until something else attracts my attention.

I'm definitely going to delve into RAW and see what I can do with it.

You are definitely given to exaggeration. Nobody is suggesting that shooting raw is a substitute for skill; that's a conclusion you've just formulated, not something asserted by anyone in this thread. Also, nobody is "all over" you. We're trying to help you.

I suppose you're right, I do appreciate your and other's help.

• With RAW, you have approximately 1 EV headroom for correcting exposure. With JPEG, you can get at the most, 1/3 stop with JPEG. Your example represents very mildly overexposed image that most software apps can correct.
• RAW processing algorithm on computer software is getting better all the time, sometimes dramatically so. If you shoot in JPEG, you are stuck with the algorithm implemented on your camera and settings chosen at the time.
• Not as widely discussed is white balance (color) correction. White balance is just as difficult to correct (if not more) if you shoot in JPEG. Yes, we should all be using custom white balance, but not everyone can do that at will.
• Perhaps you can retake the photos over and over again, but quite often, you can't (i.e., baby/kids will not pose for the same shot again, important events like the wedding).

A great summary.

 

[JeepGuy]

@JeepGuy
That's exactly a situation where RAW is `useless:' the photo is not properly exposed. If noobs take pictures like that, then the first course of action is to learn how to expose properly and not to switch to RAW, because `you can fix it.'

This is only an example of how far you can push it. No ones is suggesting that you don't need to learn how to properly expose a picture. Even Pros screw up sometimes, no one is perfect, nor is the hardware, and it may be the only shot you got of that "magic" moment, there is no replay in life.

If your just hacking around who gives a crap if you shoot RAW or JPG, the idea is to add a new tool to your arsenal, you may never need it.

 

[OreoCookie]

This is only an example of how far you can push it. No ones is suggesting that you don't need to learn how to properly expose a picture.

I'm aware of that.
But the use of shooting RAW in my opinion is not correcting extremes, but getting the nuances just right, be it skin tones, white balance or improving the details in the shadows.

Hence my advice that people shouldn't shoot RAW, because they can fix horribly under-/overexposed images, but rather they should shoot RAW if they really want and need the extra control over details.

And if you don't know/care what these details are, whether or not to shoot in RAW is not important. It may even be better to shoot jpg, because shooting jpg saves you time.

 

[fiercetiger224]

I'm aware of that.
But the use of shooting RAW in my opinion is not correcting extremes, but getting the nuances just right, be it skin tones, white balance or improving the details in the shadows.

Hence my advice that people shouldn't shoot RAW, because they can fix horribly under-/overexposed images, but rather they should shoot RAW if they really want and need the extra control over details.

And if you don't know/care what these details are, whether or not to shoot in RAW is not important. It may even be better to shoot jpg, because shooting jpg saves you time.

Yeah, RAW is there for perfecting the little things. You wouldn't use RAW to fix an over or underexposed image. You can use it for that purpose, but it's not there for that reason. RAW allows you to extract the dynamic range of 14-bit images. JPGs are only 8-bit.

JPG has one big advantage over RAW, and that's fast delivery. Say you're shooting sports, and you need to deliver images to the media quickly. You need to shoot JPG obviously, so you can deliver them immediately after you shoot.

 

[carlgo]

There are a lot of interesting posts here, good info. I think a beginner could read this thread and get a good insight.

Another issue, as I understand it, and please let me know if I am wrong: Nikon, Canon, every manufacturer, has their secret proprietary RAW format and they offer their own software to decode it. They don't give out the technical info to other vendors.

You therefore should get better results using Nikon's software for your Nikon RAW shots than you would get from Adobe, MS, Apple, etc.

The problem is that manufacturer's software usually sucks in comparison and so people mostly use the more friendly 3rd party software.

There are ongoing attempts to come up with a universal RAW format that might democratize the process. I presume there is resistance because Nikon might think their software would make Nikon photos better than Canon photos and so on, that they don't want to reveal their codes and such.

A universal RAW format would allow even the simplest photo programs to produce nearly perfect results because they wouldn't have to try to work with dozens of different codes.

All this would pretty much make some form of RAW the default program for everyone. I would thin, though, even then someone will come up with something "better", Ultra-RAW or something that has some advantages and everyone will have to go out and buy new cameras and software...!

In the meantime, though, what are people's results with RAW as processed by Nikon, etc. compared to Adobe, Apple, etc. programs? Is it worth the extra hassle? What is your workflow?

 

[firestarter]

Another issue, as I understand it, and please let me know if I am wrong:
<snip>

You're a bit right, and a bit wrong.

There have been some attempts by the manufacturers to encrypt bits of their raw files, but these have been decoded. Nikon for instance managed to encrypt white balance data.

The raw data from the sensor itself is easy to get out of the RAW files (there are some good free open-source libraries which do this), and the conversion of this data through de-mosaicing code is well understood. It's certainly not rocket-science.

In short - there's no particular reason why the manufacturer's applications would be any better than third party ones. Certainly they have less reason to compete when they're making these apps, and most of them have a really poor workflow.

Personally I've always avoided the manufacturer apps (I've owned Nikon and Canon DSLRs). I think that Phase One (Capture One) has some of the best quality conversions - but with the releases of Lightroom after 2.5, Adobe is now pretty good. I use Lightroom 95% of the time.

Adobe has a standard called 'dng'. Leica have adopted this, but it's not that widely used by camera manufacturers.

I don't think RAW file compatibility is a big deal. The popularity of apps like Aperture, Lightroom and Capture One means that the manufacturers have a disincentive to encrypt their RAW files.

 

[gnd]

Adobe has a standard called 'dng'. Leica have adopted this, but it's not that widely used by camera manufacturers.

Pentax also supports DNG format for its RAW files. You can set your camera to record either Pentax raw format PEF or open RAW format DNG. DNG files tend to be a bit bigger than PEF though, but that's not a big concern.

 

[firestarter]

Pentax also supports DNG format for its RAW files. You can set your camera to record either Pentax raw format PEF or open RAW format DNG. DNG files tend to be a bit bigger than PEF though, but that's not a big concern.

Cool.

DNG is actually an extension of the TIFF file format - and both the DNG and TIFF standards are controlled by Adobe...

 

[OreoCookie]

Another issue, as I understand it, and please let me know if I am wrong: Nikon, Canon, every manufacturer, has their secret proprietary RAW format and they offer their own software to decode it. They don't give out the technical info to other vendors.

For the most part, this is true. Since the physics of the sensors is the same, the data and the algorithms to convert the RAW data [sic] (see the dark image I've posted earlier in this thread) to something usable, you can use the same techniques. Unfortunately, for the most part, only manufacturers (like Leica, PhaseOne) you cannot afford anyway use a de facto standard format dng. It's not really a standard, because it's an image container format controlled by Adobe. (Kind of like saying .doc files are standard because most people use Microsoft Office.)

There are ongoing attempts to come up with a universal RAW format that might democratize the process. I presume there is resistance because Nikon might think their software would make Nikon photos better than Canon photos and so on, that they don't want to reveal their codes and such.

I haven't noticed any moves from Nikon and Canon to agree on an open standard. Such a thing would be spectacular, because we probably wouldn't have to wait months before the RAW format of our favorite new camera is supported by our favorite operating system.

All this would pretty much make some form of RAW the default program for everyone. I would thin, though, even then someone will come up with something "better", Ultra-RAW or something that has some advantages and everyone will have to go out and buy new cameras and software...!

There is nothing better than the unadultered data coming straight from the sensor. I would think that something different is a better compromise: use a lossy image format with a 16 bit color depth. That would give average people more leeway without having to go through the hassle of shooting RAW (I'm thinking of consumers here).

In the meantime, though, what are people's results with RAW as processed by Nikon, etc. compared to Adobe, Apple, etc. programs? Is it worth the extra hassle? What is your workflow?

My workflow hasn't changed. I've switched from iView Media Pro to Aperture before I switched to RAW and Aperture's workflow doesn't depend on which image format you use.

Even though I like some of the things present at least in the Lightroom 3 Beta, I still hate Adobe's insistence that I should work with modules. This is a matter of taste and heated debate. But basically workflow-oriented solutions such as Aperture and Lightroom are agnostic to the image format. You can start using them even though you may still shoot jpgs and while that won't give you the advantages you have shooting RAW, you can get used to the complexity of the software.

 

[pyramis]

I'm aware of that.
But the use of shooting RAW in my opinion is not correcting extremes, but getting the nuances just right, be it skin tones, white balance or improving the details in the shadows.

Hence my advice that people shouldn't shoot RAW, because they can fix horribly under-/overexposed images, but rather they should shoot RAW if they really want and need the extra control over details.

And if you don't know/care what these details are, whether or not to shoot in RAW is not important. It may even be better to shoot jpg, because shooting jpg saves you time.

As I said above, I shoot JPG 99% of the time because I'm just not that detail-obsessed when it comes to my photos. Still -- as an audiophile, I can appreciate that some folks do obsess over those details and develop finely tuned senses that pick up on them, appreciate them when well-done and get disappointed when they're botched (to the expert eye). The artifacts in a 160 kbps MP3 make me cringe. I've yet to develop that kind of acuity with my photog habit. Maybe one day I will. No doubt that will be the day I switch to RAW. Damn.

 

[JBmac]

5 -10 years from now...

RAW extends beyond "saving" an image. not all scenes will fit in the limited DR of a Jpeg or have a nice consistent color temperature, or you may want to make large changes in exposure or brightness or color in post to suit your vision.

Jpeg processing is also limited to how good or bad the manufacturer's software is. Jpegs rarely yield the same amount of detail as a RAW, and it is impossible to completely eliminate noise reduction in most cameras sold today (RAWs are mostly immune to this).

and then there's lossless vs lossy formats.

Jpeg is good when you can't edit a photo to look better yourself or you don't have time to edit. in either case, it still might be a good idea to keep the RAW, since you can always come back to it later.

I have some digital photos from 1997 that I compressed down to kilobytes and deleted the originals because of hard drive space. I wish I had those originals now! Now I shoot in RAW, and save everything, because in 5 - 10 years from now who knows what you may be able to do with those pictures.

 

[NightGeometry]

I've said before on this forum, but I just don't see why anyone (apart from sports photographers possibly), wouldn't shoot raw. Why wouldn't you want as much info as possible from your camera?

People talk about the hassle of converting. I don't use iPhoto anymore, choosing Aperture instead, so maybe iPhoto has some weird convoluted process for working with raw images. In Aperture I just import all my images, and flip through them. For snapshot type images i tend to just use the auto adjustments, and pretty much instantly have an image that is the same as the out of cam jpeg. If I were shooting jpeg, I'd follow the same process, but not hit the auto adjust buttons. I'd save what 5s to 10s per photo. I don't think that is much a bind, to me. For those photo's I think are better than snapshots, then I can spend a bit more time and get more out of the image. If my better half decides she likes a particular photo then I have latitude to go and see if there are improvements to be made.

One other item, which I haven't really used much, but which the extreme exposure posted may suggest - in a extreme exposure situation then the extra latitude gives far more room for taking the same image, overlaying and adjusting part of the image. Say a backlit image with no fill on the foreground, but where the background is a) of interest and b) properly exposed.

But really, it just comes down to I see no downside in just shooting raw, and I can't see why you wouldn't take the most information you can lay your hands on.

 

[carlgo]

I've said before on this forum, but I just don't see why anyone (apart from sports photographers possibly), wouldn't shoot raw. Why wouldn't you want as much info as possible from your camera?

People talk about the hassle of converting. I don't use iPhoto anymore, choosing Aperture instead, so maybe iPhoto has some weird convoluted process for working with raw images. In Aperture I just import all my images, and flip through them. For snapshot type images i tend to just use the auto adjustments, and pretty much instantly have an image that is the same as the out of cam jpeg. If I were shooting jpeg, I'd follow the same process, but not hit the auto adjust buttons. I'd save what 5s to 10s per photo. I don't think that is much a bind, to me. For those photo's I think are better than snapshots, then I can spend a bit more time and get more out of the image. If my better half decides she likes a particular photo then I have latitude to go and see if there are improvements to be made.

One other item, which I haven't really used much, but which the extreme exposure posted may suggest - in a extreme exposure situation then the extra latitude gives far more room for taking the same image, overlaying and adjusting part of the image. Say a backlit image with no fill on the foreground, but where the background is a) of interest and b) properly exposed.

But really, it just comes down to I see no downside in just shooting raw, and I can't see why you wouldn't take the most information you can lay your hands on.

I have been importing my RAWs into iPhoto and using the tools there without a problem. Works well for most shots. Some very detailed or very poorly lit shots seem to benefit by sending them on to Elements because it seems there is a wider range of adjustment on its little sliders.

I presume this would be true with Lightroom or Aperture?