RAW vs JPG

[boojum]

Think about whether you could even manage your affairs these days, let alone in the future, with your computer unplugged. I don't have a smart phone, and find that I am constantly encountering major inconveniences because of that, despite the fact that I'm retired and live as simply and quietly as possible. When the rest of the world heartily embraces a technology (even one that operates under-the-radar against their best interests), it becomes almost impossible not to succumb.

I am OK with the tech. I work slinging code for ~20 years. I remember when the IBM PC appeared, then the PC-XT and then all the PC-XT clones and we were off to he races. I see it as a natural evolution. And like sharp objects, fire and guns, tech can be used for good or bad and the good techies can track down the bad techies.

My old employer credit union was just hit by ransomers. The credit union is operational, no one has lost or will lose money, bills will be paid and in case of credit rating damage the credit union will send letters explaining what happened. An outside security outfit is working on it. The ransomers and ransomer detectives all read the same manuals If the accounts have been encrypted that is another story. I'd guess they rebuild from backups, a tedious job. But let's be clear, this is an exception despite the press these events get. And, yes, safeguards will have to get a lot better.

But let's face it, cars, appliances, TV's. cameras and more all are run by computer. My beloved Instant Pot is just a computer with a pot and heating element. It was designed by a Ph D Computer Science guy. It's just like what Joe Louis said, "You can run but you can't hide."

 

[boojum]

My man, it’s never you who will unplug it. They will plug, or unplug.

Planes without pilots, shared cars without drivers. No more dollars, only digits, no more real currency backed my credit but only credit… we won’t be able to unplug nothing.
I’m way off topic…

You are sure of this, are you? If you are right you are the one person who can predict the future. I am suggesting that things will go on pretty much s they have albeit in a different form. I do not feel threatened. Every technological jump has had excitement, some positive, some negative.

 

[Retro-Grouch]

You are sure of this, are you? If you are right you are the one person who can predict the future. I am suggesting that things will go on pretty much s they have albeit in a different form. I do not feel threatened. Every technological jump has had excitement, some positive, some negative.

I hope you're right; I fear you're wrong.

 

[wlewisiii]

Meh. There are still wood block printed books. There are still oil paint and even egg tempura paints (see the wonderful work Andrew Wyeth did in that insanely difficult medium) despite the printing press and camera. AI is a fancy name for the same process that has been going on for centuries.

The current bubble will burst, soon I'm betting, and there will be a bunch of companies whining just like they did when the Lisp Machines died in the AI Winter of 1987-2000 The previous one of 1977-1980 is less well known and was ended by the commercialization of MIT's CADR Lisp Machine by LMI and Symbolics and both companies would die in the second winter. The third one is coming.

 

[boojum]

After all of this discussion and learned instruction on the subject it seems RAW is important for editing. If you are not going to edit it seems rather unnecessary to me. I'll await your responses in this little bomb shelter.

 

[wlewisiii]

Pretty much. When I first had my Oly EP-L1 I was satisfied with the SOC jpgs and couldn't create anything better.

I've found and learned different tools since then - mainly ART - and so I now use RAW and edit them to make what I want. But both my Leica M 240 and Nikon D810 create perfectly usable SOC jpgs that I could use if I chose to and, occasionally, I have.

 

[boojum]

Pretty much. When I first had my Oly EP-L1 I was satisfied with the SOC jpgs and couldn't create anything better.

I've found and learned different tools since then - mainly ART - and so I now use RAW and edit them to make what I want. But both my Leica M 240 and Nikon D810 create perfectly usable SOC jpgs that I could use if I chose to and, occasionally, I have.

Exactly. My cameras crank out pretty good JPG's. Whether or not my picture is a good one or not seldom rests on the construct of the image itself. Again, manipulation can make a good pic better but it cannot make a bad pic good.

 

[Yokosuka Mike]

Feed me! But don't feed me RAW JPEGS!​

Fujifilm X-H1 camera
Fujinon XF 56mm f1.2 lens
My back porch - Yokosuka, Japan
🙂​

 

[mapgraphs]

After all of this discussion and learned instruction on the subject it seems RAW is important for editing. If you are not going to edit it seems rather unnecessary to me. I'll await your responses in this little bomb shelter.

Dawn (I)


Dawn (II)

Top: OOC jpg. Bot: jpg lifted six stops, wb adjusted (+/-).

 

[mapgraphs]

View to the "Last Green Valley"

OOC jpg converted to monochrome.

 

[peterm1]

OK, I know that RAW can be up to a 16 bit image which means an awfully large color palette or great gradations in mono and that the 16 bit detail will be nice, too. And JPG is limited by design to 8 bit which obviously means smaller color palette and less gradation in mono. OK. And RAW edits are done just like JPG edits. So it seems best to shoot RAW for the better quality image. Great. But to print this better quality image it must be converted to 8 bit JPG. The same to display it on the internet. So other than viewing it on our monitors or sending it to others to view on their monitors what is the RAW advantage if it is going to be a JPG anyway??

What you are forgetting is the processing - the bit that comes before printing out the image (if this is what you intend doing). Shooting in RAW confers huge benefits if you are planning to post process for all of the reasons you mention and those benefits can be taken advantage of when you are processing the image on your PC. An obvious example is the way you can deal with highly contrasty images. For example I hate blown highlights with a passion but when shooting in RAW its simple matter to deliberately under expose the image by up to a stop to reduce the chance of blown highlights then if there are some lost high highlights still present, most if not all will be recoverable from the underlying RAW file data. And any under exposure in the shadow detail is virtually always correctable due to the extra data still available in the RAW files. In this way I can use RAW to fix an image that would otherwise be one to be thrown away.

This is but one example of how I use RAW files to my advantage. The other primary and more general advantage is that with JPG files I am pretty much stuck with how the camera has processed them. Apart from relatively minor tweaking of colors, contrast etc I have few options as to how the final image will look. If I have a RAW file on the other hand, it is up to me and my artistic skill to modify the image as much as I want. It will still end up as a JPG image but it will be my interpretation of the image not just some image churned out by the algorithm in a camera.

 

[boojum]

Peter, I have not forgotten anything. I know the RAW file has more that can be done to it. What you missed is that it is not important to me. It is important to you. So you edit RAW files. I will just limp along with SOOC. This image is SOOC and while it may not be good enough for you it is working fine for me. I don't try to save every photo. I ignore most of them.

B0000719 by West Phalia, on Flickr
​

I consider this a pretty well exposed image. I like how it looks. I do not want to change it. Yes, I do have the RAW file. I always shoot both when I can. OK? It is just my approach.

​

 

[peterm1]

Peter, I have not forgotten anything. I know the RAW file has more that can be done to it. What you missed is that it is not important to me. It is important to you. So you edit RAW files. I will just limp along with SOOC. This image is SOOC and while it may not be good enough for you it is working fine for me. I don't try to save every photo. I ignore most of them.

B0000719 by West Phalia, on Flickr

​

Well that is fine then Boojum. The chances are you are missing very little then. 🙂 I m certainly not being critical of you for this, if that is how you prefer to shoot and present your images.

 

[boojum]

Well that is fine then Boojum. The chances are you are missing very little then. 🙂 I m certainly not being critical of you for this, if that is how you prefer to shoot and present your images.

Exactly.

 

[shawn]

Dawn (I)


Dawn (II)

Top: OOC jpg. Bot: jpg lifted six stops, wb adjusted (+/-).

Try the same with RAW and you can have an image with *dramatically* less noise in the shadows, more detail and better overall color.

Daylight shot 5 stops underexposed in RAW+JPEG.





Both pushed 5 stops and using Enhanced NR (only works on RAW files). Raw is closer to what the scene actually looked like.

 

[shawn]

After all of this discussion and learned instruction on the subject it seems RAW is important for editing. If you are not going to edit it seems rather unnecessary to me. I'll await your responses in this little bomb shelter.

JPEG can be edited too esp. for simple things like cropping. The harder you push things like colors, contrast, exposure, WB the more artifacts you might see.

If you aren't editing then keep shooting JPEG and be happy.

The time to maybe consider Raw+JPEG is in tough lighting, large dynamic range in a scene, long exposure or at high ISO as in those cases the extra flexibility of RAW can be very helpful later on.

 

[JohnGellings]

After all of this discussion and learned instruction on the subject it seems RAW is important for editing. If you are not going to edit it seems rather unnecessary to me. I'll await your responses in this little bomb shelter.

Modern jpegs can be edited a lot. Shadow recovery is still there by stops, etc. If you guys just tried it, you’d know. Of course raw is better, but that does not mean jpegs cannot be edited.

 

[Dogman]

Try the same with RAW and you can have an image with *dramatically* less noise in the shadows, more detail and better overall color.

But, really, how much less noise and more detail do you need to make the mood?




.....................

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I shoot RAW, almost exclusively. I have tried editing the JPGs my cameras put out, and it is a lot of trouble. So I am happy with my choice. I wouldn't begrudge anyone else their workflow, though. You like JPGs? Great! Fire away.

 

[boojum]

JPEG can be edited too esp. for simple things like cropping. The harder you push things like colors, contrast, exposure, WB the more artifacts you might see.

If you aren't editing then keep shooting JPEG and be happy.

The time to maybe consider Raw+JPEG is in tough lighting, large dynamic range in a scene, long exposure or at high ISO as in those cases the extra flexibility of RAW can be very helpful later on.

This is a pretty wide dynamic range and difficult lighting image. Raw can be useful when needed. It is not always needed. I try not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The image is a bit better on Flickr.

B0000029 by West Phalia, on Flickr​