jpeg vs. raw

I don't think there's any question that raw is theoratically better, as long as a converter is available.

Jpeg would seem to be good enough for some use (e.g., web display); so the question is: when is jpeg good enough?
 
I work looking at a computer screen for about 8-10 hours a day. When I take photos it is to get out and have fun. I know RAW will always be better than JPEG, but the delta is much less on certain cameras with good processing.

I ended up with an OM-D and only feel the need to process from RAW on maybe 10% of my shots. Granted, I rarely print and don't do any commercial work. I for one would love it if more manufacturers spent time perfecting their JPEG processing...
 
as a complete amateur with no professional aspirations whatsoever...i shoot only raw.
but with the x cams i have been shooting raw+jpeg in case i luck into an award winner! while waiting for a better raw converter...
 
With my aging eyes, a moderate level of color blindness, my un-calibrated monitors and ink jet printer and my 8-bit color space editor (the GIMP), I have never seen any difference in prints I made (shipped out to a lab) from RAW files (that I edited to 8-bit JPG's) or the JPG's out of my NIkons or my Fuji X100.

So . . . I shoot fine-grade JPG's and I'm really pleased with the 8X10" lab prints.The quality of the new camera JPG's is not a limiting factor for the pictures I personally make. What really holds me back is the content of the pictures I make, not the quality of the prints.

What do they say? . . . "Different strokes for different folks."
 
The only reason I take pictures in RAW is to have the ability to change settings in post. WB, camera profile, exposure etc. The captured data in RAW with high end cameras allows the recovery of blown highlights and hidden shadow detail with ease.
Side by side it's very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between a RAW conversion to jpeg and a shot jpeg at normal print sizes and viewing distances.
I've recently started using RAW+Jpeg for ease of viewing on others laptops who do not have converters.
 
I have been using jpg+raw as well... In terms of the samples I have tried, c1 is doing a better job then both RPP and LR.

Gary
 
Hope not to sound cynical.

When you listen to music…
Do you prefer to have control of the volume, treble, bass, Balance?
Or, have the recording fixed at one volume point that you can make louder with audible distortion, or softer with muted dynamic range of sound etc….

Same with food.
Sometimes everything is just perfect. Other times it needs a bit of salt or squeeze of lemon :D

There is no one size fits all when it comes to all things subjective.
 
It's the old time, effort, quality debate. Each artist needs to accept his/her own requirement. As a film shooter, I know I could shoot 8x10 and get amazing quality but there is a trade off in time, process, etc....no right answer. Out of camera jpg or post processing in Adobe, same debate. Some Polaroid, some wet plate, some enlarge, others use AZO paper and contact print.......all the same topic really....we all won in the end....who's to judge!
 
I don't see any basis for a tecnological battle because the camera companies don't have to spend a penny to make raw an option. The software companies have a problem because the new cameras are coming so fast they do have to spend some money to keep up.

I think the philosophical issue is convenience vs inconvenience. Raw files do take up more space and more importantly, they take time to refine. Most of us have to invest time to learn how to understand rendering software to make adjustments.

Scientists and engineers would never modify original data using lossy compression unless there was no other option. Photographers are not scientists and a technically competent photographer can produce excellent work without ever storing a raw file. All they need to do is nail the exposure and insure the WB is close. Some photographers threw their negatives away after they made great prints. JPEGS provide even more flexibility than that.
Others value their negatives and store them carefully.
 
I shoot jpeg+RAW on a D800 and process/view in Aperture.
I have no problem picking out the RAW version in 80% of the side by side comparisons. It may be that the Nikon jpeg converter doesn't have the same pop as Aperture one. I read somewhere that jpeg conversion from RAW is CPU intensive and most cameras stop processing at a reasonable level, perhaps not the best, whereas a desktop/laptop application can crunch away to its heart's content. The RAW as displayed in Aperture seems more true to the actual colors as I remember them, the OOC jpeg is somewhat muted.


nobbylon said:
The only reason I take pictures in RAW is to have the ability to change settings in post. WB, camera profile, exposure etc. The captured data in RAW with high end cameras allows the recovery of blown highlights and hidden shadow detail with ease.
Side by side it's very difficult if not impossible to distinguish between a RAW conversion to jpeg and a shot jpeg at normal print sizes and viewing distances.
I've recently started using RAW+Jpeg for ease of viewing on others laptops who do not have converters.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RAW is a lossless format; JPEG is lossy, with the manufacturer's baked-in processing algorithms. Why throw away data that you might want in future, if you want to re-interpret the image in pp?
 
marcr1230 said:
I shoot jpeg+RAW on a D800 and process/view in Aperture.
I have no problem picking out the RAW version in 80% of the side by side comparisons. It may be that the Nikon jpeg converter doesn't have the same pop as Aperture one. I read somewhere that jpeg conversion from RAW is CPU intensive and most cameras stop processing at a reasonable level, perhaps not the best, whereas a desktop/laptop application can crunch away to its heart's content. The RAW as displayed in Aperture seems more true to the actual colors as I remember them, the OOC jpeg is somewhat muted.
Click to expand...

what in camera profile are youusing?
I use D2X profile which is far more neutral than standard.
It's more like the portrait profile. I use NX2 and PS and rarely see a difference. I'm using D700 and D3.
 
I shoot raw on the M9 and jpeg on the X100. I think the advantages of one and the deficiencies of the other are way overstated here. You can do lots of adjustments on jpegs in Lightroom. Many here have stated that they are perfectly happy with adjusting X100 jpegs in LR. Fuji is a very clever company as is Panasonic and the jpegs their cameras generate, the product of a lot of research, are very clever and more than good enough most of the time. Why insist on throwing away their clever contribution to your pictures?

Blown highlights are uncommon in X100 jpegs. I even use the M9 black and white jpegs, which are very good and have occasionally given me a result in difficult light that I have been unable to replicate from the raw file in LR. If you blow the highlights significantly, there's nothing to retrieve from the raw file. Photgraphers used to expose film, including slide film. Getting the exposure right is easier with digital and you can sometimes check the result and take another if necessary.

There advantages in raw, certainly, but the deficiencies of jpeg are overstated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom