jpeg vs. raw

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...

+1 100% - This is exactly my thinking and my practice. I used to switch to JPG if I was running out of space on a card and I could get more shots, but otherwise this is how I >ahem< roll. With SD cards at the size they are now, I don't really ever run out of space any more.

Recently I read something on TOP about a JPG challenge or somesuch. Maybe it was Ken Tanaka's piece about the Olympus. I tried it for a couple of days, but the first time I had a blown highlight that I couldn't recover I was back to RAW only.

Let's face it, there are not unlimited hours in the day for these sorts of choices. I just choose RAW and leave the settings unchanged for months at a time.

Ben
 
In a scene with a lot of dynamic range, only RAW with careful postprocessing can capture good shadow detail and good highlight detail. This is a real, not theoretical, advantage.
 
Raw = hooey.

I've spent hours, days, playing with it, I have 5 different converters, studied the algorithms and processes-it is pretty much hooey.
 
pass the popcorn...

this battle has been going on for a while, and I've seen epic word wars over this on other forums by ordinarily very civil and reasonable people :).

For myself, I shot jpeg for 10+ years because I did not have a convenient way to handle RAW. I then upgraded my computers and software, and now I shoot RAW the majority of the time. BTW, my RAW and Jpeg workflow are the same.
 
It seems to be an old debate to me. It was already around in 2005 when i fell in the digital world.

When i was all Canon, i used raw only because i didn't like the jpgs, but since i got the x-pro1, I mostly shoot jpg. I have made great large prints from my jpg files. But lately i have been trying fuji's converter, its not so bad, so i'm now in raw+jpg depending on the situation, for the case i might need the versatility of the raw files, especially to recover the highlights.
 
it's weird. i was strictly RAW in all cases, for all my cameras.

up until I got my Ricoh, and a lot of images I used straight off the camera in JPG, mainly because some functions to the camera require shooting in JPG so they can be rendered (multi exposure and filters). The results were astounding.

But those images were mainly for web use. I still have yet to print them out and see how it holds up.

so besides that exception, i would say RAW is still the winner, especially if you modify images afterwards.
 
Here's a crappy example. The first shot is OOC jpeg, apologies for the crappy exposure, but it is the only one in a few bracket shots in which the sky is not completely blown. Try as you might to pp the jpg, I know I cannot get anything out of it.
8372195562_109da91a0e_b.jpg


Here's the same shot processed from RAW, it's not perfect (like the color cast due to underexposure) but as least it's a start. I am sure someone can produce better examples. So, unless jpeg is a lossless format that can be manipulated as much as RAW, I am not going jpeg.

8370621591_3e9b016463_b.jpg


PS. It's taken with your CV 15, Joe ;)
 
Starting with the X100, I changed my mind. I shoot only RAW :confused: But I use mostly only the internal converter to JPEG for the keepers :D
This is a big step forward in my (dual) workflow, having an already well developed JPEG to start off final crop and smooth colour changes for web or print. Exactly the same WF as I'm used for my scanned film images, which begin with a big JPEG file too.

I don't miss the RAW fiddling on the laptop.
 
aleksanderpolo said:
Here's a crappy example.[...]Here's the same shot processed from RAW, it's not perfect (like the color cast due to underexposure) but as least it's a start. I am sure someone can produce better examples. So, unless jpeg is a lossless format that can be manipulated as much as RAW, I am not going jpeg.
Click to expand...
Agreed what you can get out of a crappy shot using RAW and PP properly.
But, used to film, I accept that I have to think at the EV space before I push the shutter, using the right film, the right exposure settings and maybe correcting manually +/-. In terms of digital cameras: I set ISO and dynamic range compression before I take a shot in this difficult light conditions with blown sky highlights and deep shadows. This helps delivering a good JPEG copy from the beginning (talking of X100), reducing my PP duties.
 
I know zilch 'bout post-processing (should do a course!) but I use RAW. Why? Look at the post by Aleksanderpolo. But, what converter. Moved to Adobe Lightroom, but the pictures lacked in a big way. Might be my inability to use it correctly, but I didn't like the results. So, I moved back to RAWTherapee with PaintShopPro X2 and I'm happy again with the results (not the speed though). So, another advantage of RAW is it enables you to use the converter you like!
 
not sure is there a battleground, but every shot am taking is with knowing that its on raw and will be perfected on post. expose correctly highlights and develop out the shadows.
 
On my x1 I shoot raw+jpg . In normal/good light situation the jpgs are really good. In difficult light situation raw allows a better result from the post processing, if you (me!) are able to do it correctly. In a few cases the jpgs were better than my raw with my postprocessing (my fault of course). My conclusion? go on shooting both ! Import them in LRxx (not destructive) and learn more how to post-process...
robert
 
As far as I'm aware tiff has no advantage over jpg other than in being uncompressed you can save it multiple times without any degradation, it doesn't have any of the advantages of a raw file.
 
Sparrow said:
I have never understood what the problem was with .tiff ... why didn't that just become the industry standard?
Click to expand...

It has most of the disadvantages of JPEG (inability to adjust white balance or recover blown highlights) with none of the advantages (small file size so you don't fill your memory card too fast).

That said, TIFF is the industry standard as a final image for high-end printing. I convert my RAW files to TIFF, which allows 16bit image and the use of layers in Photoshop, and I save these TIFFs after post processing, as my archive files.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom