Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

RAW vs JPEG

robgendreau said:
RAW? I've read several explanations, but most seem to say that it harkens back to the old capital letter convention for file extensions of all types, like JPG or JPEG or TIFF or EXE. I like it capitalized because I don't wanna write "I like taking pictures in raw" :eek:
Click to expand...

The part that I don't get is that all the other file formats you mention stand for something. Raw just stands for raw!
 
seadragon said:
Thanks Apple fanboy and kalliti. I've restored the pics. I clearly messed up taking the photo to begin with. But shooting RAW saved the image.

I actually shoot RAW+JPEG and this way I can have the best of both worlds.
Click to expand...


Same here and for the exact same reason. I will often use the JPEG images that I am really happy with and do not require a much post work. When exposure is involved though, I almost always use the RAW image to do my post work.
 
robgendreau said:
RAW? I've read several explanations, but most seem to say that it harkens back to the old capital letter convention for file extensions of all types, like JPG or JPEG or TIFF or EXE. I like it capitalized because I don't wanna write "I like taking pictures in raw" :eek:
Click to expand...

Whether right or wrong, RAW seems to be preferred over raw. Here is a page out of the Nikon D810 manual:

15002199242_c94788155f_c.jpg

Given the other text on the page, Nikon could have easily written raw. They chose not too. Menu items on Nikon cameras also list it as RAW and not raw. This doesn't prove that this is right, but it seems to be accepted usage.

MacRy said:
Yep, definitely shoot in RAW. Especially in challenging lighting situations.

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Image

Otherwise you're just a noob.

These were all JPEGS. Too much camera snobbery over RAW and JPEG in my opinion.
Click to expand...

All nice pics :) I have some older JPEGs taken with a 6MP Nikon P&S that I have framed. I don't think the argument is that you can't capture keepers if you shoot in JPEG. I think it's that it gives you some wiggle room in post if either you or the camera didn't get it right at capture. One can certainly argue --> then get better, make sure you get it right at capture. But as long as storage isn't a concern, what's wrong with giving yourself some room to play with things in post?

Going back to my original post, my brother-in-law sent me some pics last year from soon after his daughter was born. They were shot as JPEGs. The camera made some horrible exposure choices. Had they been RAWs, it would have been easier to salvage some of them.
 
Last edited:
acearchie said:
The part that I don't get is that all the other file formats you mention stand for something. Raw just stands for raw!
Click to expand...

RAW isn't a file standard, that is why. It is just a data file specific to the sensor - so every camera with a different sensor will produce a different RAW file.

Hence the need for new RAW files to be supported in various bits of software when a new camera comes out, and why camera manufacturers don't give much of a RAW file heads-up - it would effectively leak information about their sensor pre-product release.
 
MacRy said:
Too much camera snobbery over RAW and JPEG in my opinion.
Click to expand...

There is some but then if most people had a Super-super Fine JPEG setting, they would be there. At the end of the day some shots will need the extra data that is the reality of a RAW file vs a Fine JPEG, some will appreciate it and on some it will make no difference.

I used to shoot JPEG, now I shoot RAW, my Aperture import is effectively no different as it applies a preset to all images on import so other than data space, no difference.

Then I can go back to any file that is worthy (or necessary!) and work on it further, just as I would have done with a film negative. Working on it further is often easier with more data.

The only changes I make in-camera these days is to switch between 12-bit (for sports and 6fps) and 14-bit (which itself is 4x the data of a 12-bit of course), for anything else.
 
RAW vs JPEG

I totally get the advantages of shooting raw and I do it exclusively on one of my cameras, the other I choose to shoot JPEG as the files are really good and still allow room for manoeuvre.

What annoys me is when people basically say that you're not a proper photographer if you don't shoot raw and that it's the only real option if you want good photos. That's just a load of crap and terribly harmful for anyone starting out in photography. It's no better than recommending one camera brand over another.

Comments like this:

"I only shoot RAW. If you need to make adjustments this is the only way to go"

"don't shoot jpeg unless your camera has no other option"

"only shooting RAW and PP will make your photos stand out from the snappers"

I beg to differ and I would contend that a lot of my photos prove me right.
 
Last edited:
RAW vs JPEG

Meister said:
damn, some of these are good!
Click to expand...


Thanks Meister, that's very kind of you to say.

Who would have thought that a fixed lens, mirrorless camera shooting JPEGs could produce such pictures eh? ;)

You could use any of those phrases right there in this discussion about not being a proper photographer:

Mirrorless
Fixed Lens
JPEG

It's more about the photos than the gear at the end of the day.
 
MacRy said:
I beg to differ and I would contend that a lot of my photos prove me right.
Click to expand...
I really, really like some of your shots, but those would not have been possible without postprocessing.
Shooting jpeg just means you leave the processing to the camera.

----------
MacRy said:
Thanks Meister, that's very kind of you to say.

Who would have thought that a fixed lens, mirrorless camera shooting JPEGs could produce such pictures eh? ;)

You could use any of those phrases right there in this discussion about not being a proper photographer:

Mirrorless
Fixed Lens
JPEG

It's more about the photos than the gear at the end of the day.
Click to expand...
Those were shot with mirrorless, fixed, lens and jpeg? :eek:

What camera?

I still don't see this as an example against shooting raw.
It just means you are a great photographer who can work around the limitations of his gear.
Bravo! :)
 
Last edited:
Meister said:
Shooting jpeg just means you leave the processing to the camera.
Click to expand...

You can post-process jpegs, it just means initial jpeg processing in the camera is the starting point (good or bad). How much data you have there depends on the quality (Basic, Med or Fine for example), selected in-camera too.

I've done PP on my jpegs for years, but within those limitations. Now I have better skills on PP though, I am regretting some of that early output wasn't shot in RAW.... :-(
 
simonsi said:
Yep - your post makes a great point - completely fooled me until you put they were jpegs at the bottom - great catch out :)
Click to expand...


A bit cheeky I know, but like you say - it kind of illustrates my point. I, of course, did some work in PP with those and I chose shots that did have difficult lighting conditions that required highlights and shadows recovering. Still perfectly possible with JPEGs as you can see.

Meister said:
But you yourself shoot raw.
I really, really like some of your shots, but thise would not have been possible without postprocessing.
Shooting jpeg just means you leave the processing to the camera.

----------


Those were shot with mirrorless, fixed, lens and jpeg? :eek:

What camera?

I still don't see this as an example against shooting raw.
It just means you are a great photographer who can work around the limitations of his gear.
Bravo! :)
Click to expand...


I shoot raw because I like to have my own input into how my final image looks without an interpretation by the camera software. I get a blank canvas and I use that to express my vision. Having said that - with the camera I shoot JPEG only it produces really nice JPEGs that provide a good base and I just build on that. It shoots raw too of course, I just choose not to.

I wasn't intending to prove a point that you shouldn't shoot raw, just that it is misleading to say that it's the only way to go if you want decent shots.

My fixed lens, mirrorless JPEG shooter is a Fujifilm X100 and my raw shooter is a Fujifilm XE1. I wouldn't say that my gear has any significant limitations.
 
Meister said:
I still don't see this as an example against shooting raw.
Click to expand...

I don't think he is saying that it is (pun warning), that black-and-white, just that for some great images, RAW isn't critical. Nor is RAW necessary for post-processing.

My most commercially-successful image <ever> was shot in Fine jpeg, on a 6Mp D70.... Its the image that counts, not how it was obtained and the tools used, it is more complex than that.
 
simonsi said:
I don't think he is saying that it is (pun warning), that black-and-white, just that for some great images, RAW isn't critical. Nor is RAW necessary for post-processing.



My most commercially-successful image <ever> was shot in Fine jpeg, on a 6Mp D70.... Its the image that counts, not how it was obtained and the tools used, it is more complex than that.
Click to expand...


Exactly this.
 
simonsi said:
You can post-process jpegs, it just means initial jpeg processing in the camera is the starting point (good or bad). How much data you have there depends on the quality (Basic, Med or Fine for example), selected in-camera too.
Click to expand...
And I thought you can't pp jpegs ;)
With some cameras like the D6xx and D8xx not shooting raw just feels like a terrible waste.
The dr is so good, you can make hdrs out of only one nef.

----------
simonsi said:
I don't think he is saying that it is (pun warning), that black-and-white, just that for some great images, RAW isn't critical. Nor is RAW necessary for post-processing.

My most commercially-successful image <ever> was shot in Fine jpeg, on a 6Mp D70.... Its the image that counts, not how it was obtained and the tools used, it is more complex than that.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with you there.
 
Meister said:
And I thought you can't pp jpegs ;)
Click to expand...

Sorry mine was a cheeky comment :)

One of the main counter-arguments for RAW is that of disk space, I'm wondering where Mp counts will max out at, it will be interesting if the resulting jpeg from a 24Mp camera for instance will be comparable in size to a RAW from my 12Mp (except the additional data will be in resolution, not colour depth I know.

No-one has bothered making a >65M colour screen for decades since the human eye can't resolve greater, wonder where effective camera resolution will stop?
 
simonsi said:
Sorry mine was a cheeky comment :)

One of the main counter-arguments for RAW is that of disk space, I'm wondering where Mp counts will max out at, it will be interesting if the resulting jpeg from a 24Mp camera for instance will be comparable in size to a RAW from my 12Mp (except the additional data will be in resolution, not colour depth I know.

No-one has bothered making a >65M colour screen for decades since the human eye can't resolve greater, wonder where effective camera resolution will stop?
Click to expand...
they have to make lenses to resolve that much detail, which will be difficult on small format.
There are few lenses now that let the D800 shine.
The hasselblads already shoot 80mp. It's always usefull for copping and very large prints.

The standard for copies stored in the library of congress, by law, is large format slides.

I don't think there is a cap on how many mp are usefull. The more the better, but it might take decades to become a standard in small format.

MacRy said:
HDR looking images from a single JPEG you say?

Image
;)
Click to expand...
you win! :D
 
Last edited:
It's not a matter of whether we can take great photos in JPG - of course we can, and people do, every day. I also have a friend who does brilliant work with a pinhole camera. Trying to do great work when your equipment has limitations is almost undoubtedly going to raise your art, whether you're a student or master.

My problem with JPG (and MPEG) is, and always shall be, data destruction. Terms like "lossy compression" don't go far enough - that's still too much marketing spin for my taste. Bits go out, and they don't come back. Intentionally. One of the fundamental benefits of digital over analog is there is no generation-to-generation degradation (well, bits can still get lost and, hopefully, error-corrected, but it's no longer inherent in the process). Lossy compression is an unwelcome reminder of the bad old days.

As the OP's example images clearly show, if you don't have fine gradation in the initial JPG, it only gets worse when you try to fix it in post. And fine gradation is the first thing to go. It's built into the JPG (and MPEG) algorithms.

Now, some of the best shots I've taken were shot JPG with a small-sensor super-zoom. It's the camera I had. It was hard to justify the expense of a full-frame Nikon when my output was destined for 150kb 72 dpi files for the web, and 1" x 1.5" "prints" via a 150-line half-tone screen onto matte book stock. CF cards were far more expensive back then (anyone remember the 1GB CF micro drive?)... Lots of rationalizations. But I also know how much better the results could have been, if only I'd looked beyond immediate end-usage, or my current skill with image editing software. I'd like to make exhibition-sized prints of those great shots, but they'd look like utter crap.

The principal reasons JPG and MPEG exist were the costs of data storage and data transmission bandwidth, and processor speed, back in the day. It's an exercise in, "Considering the costs, 'good enough' will have to do."

Well, we can afford better today. We can afford to shoot RAW + JPG, we're gearing-up for 4K video streaming... "JPG is good enough" just doesn't cut it anymore.
 
I am mainly shooting JPEG. Just because I take so many pictures that I prefer them to take less space and I cannot really tell the difference.

My 2 cents
 
ApfelKuchen said:
As the OP's example images clearly show, if you don't have fine gradation in the initial JPG, it only gets worse when you try to fix it in post. And fine gradation is the first thing to go. It's built into the JPG (and MPEG) algorithms.
Click to expand...

It's also worth noting that the loss happens anew every single time you save the image. So, you throw away detail on the initial save, then if you edit the image, you throw away more detail, then if you go back and re-edit the edited image, you throw away more...

Paul
 
I agree that there is some snobbery about the use of RAW, but then again there is even more about software, lenses, cameras and camera types, etc.

Meanwhile, great photos appear that seem to have been created without any regard to any of that, as shown above. :rolleyes:

I just don't see the need for JPG per se. It's a format for compression, and for cameras, as opposed to phones, is that needed much anymore? Again, EVERY image you see is not RAW; it has to be processed by a camera computer or a "real" computer somehow. It's like manual vs auto settings, filters vs manual adjustment, etc etc. I just decided that on my cameras capable of RAW (and not all are) why not just do RAW? It seems to have no downside.

And I gotta say that there are situations where it makes a bigger difference. I don't have the samples, but I had an old Canon Powershot, like 5MP or something from years ago. I had occasion to use it again because it can make use of an infrared filter better than most P&S cameras without mod. And so I dusted it off, but also loaded hacked firmware so it did triggered time lapses and for the heck of it turned on RAW shooting, which in the unhacked state it can't do. I definitely got better results, probably because the compression and processing has improved over the years. I couldn't go back and compare a like for like, but it was noticeable.
 
Apple fanboy said:
If you don't need to make any adjustments to your pictures you are either a photography god, or your images are crap.
Click to expand...

When I read this it made me think back to the pre-digital days. I used to work with a few commercial photographers who shot only on transparency film. You shot more film, but having to get it right in camera taught discipline and skill. Anyone can learn to do this, you don't need to be a "god".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back