x100 - RAW or JPEG?

[wgerrard]

This is an oddly religious debate, in that RAW adherents have faith that the camera really is giving them *all* the data, and that their photo editing software isn't shucking off data as they edit.

And, on top of everything else, is the assumption that data are the most important component of a photo, i.e., the more data, the better.

Whatever works for you. There are many roads to a good photo, grasshopper.

 

[gavinlg]

Jeez you can make presets to process the RAW files that will get as close to the JPGs as a starting point and then have the freedom and potential to do so much more.... I can't believe anyone would seriously only shoot jpgs - that's nuts.

Get a modern computer/software and cheap TB hard drives if all those RAW files are slowing you down... if you can't match the X100 jpg engine then work harder, turn off all the bull**** film and scene settings, filters, plug-ins, and all that voodoo crap and start with a clean file.

This is the thing - I have tried shooting exactly the same scene on JPEG with dynamic range on auto, and then shooting the same scene in RAW.

The Jpeg file has deeper shadows, nicer colors, but most importantly seems to retain highlights in contrasty scenes far better than the RAW files do. I think the camera is actually exposing for the highlights (underexposing) and then pushing the rest of the mid and shadow tones upwards in a very very natural way to get the most DR out of the camera. Even with a similar exposure in the mid tones, the JPEGS retain detail in the sky when the RAWs don't, and I can't recover that detail with ACR highlight recovery! Despite the cameras neat 'expose for the sky and push up the shadows' trick, the JPEG files are no noisier in the shadows than the RAW. In fact they're less noisy, and resolution seems to be almost exactly the same

Similarly, if I shoot RAW at ISO 3200 at night, and then convert to black and white through ACR, it's significantly more grainy with LESS detail than if I just shoot b&w mode JPEG instead - and once again the JPEG files seem to hold detail better than the RAW files anyway.

So once again I repeat, I'm a fan of RAW shooting, but specifically for the x100 I seem to be getting better output from the JPEGs - and it's directly because of the film and scene settings and exposure trickery!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Gavin,
Thanks for posting this thread; much appreciated. Up until now I've been using RAW for all my X100 exposures. Since I usually edit down the number of 'keepers' to a manageable few before doing any processing in Aperture, the burden of processing the RAW files is minimal. HOWEVER, what you say here has tweaked my interest in using in-camera processing. So, I've got a couple of questions:

First, other than image size and 'fineness', is auto dynamic range the only other processing you do to get the jpeg results you like? And second, regarding using in-camera b&w mode: do you therefore find you don't need any other post processing in SilverEfexPro? Or do you still apply SEP to the b&w jpegs?

Thanks again for posting the thread.

 

[FranZ]

Gavin,
To answer your original question instead of fueling the RAW/JPEG controversy (if that really exists)
Because of the incredible JPEG quality I mainly shoot JPEG Fine, switching to RAW + JPEG in critical circumstances. I bought the X100 (already 2nd hand) for 1 main purpose: indoor available light people photography (with a non-intimidating camera) and, IMHO, the X100 performs really well in this field.
I shoot in silent mode with the following settings:
ISO standard to 200
ISO AUTO with 1/100 sec to 3200 ISO
Dynamic Range Auto
Color space SRGB
Film simulation STD
Highlight tone & shadow tone standard.
Noise reduction standard
I will start experimenting with RAW + JPEG with the Film simulation on one of the blacks, to see how the X100 works

 

[willie_901]

The purpose of jpeg compression is to eliminate information humans can not use. The people who designed the compression algorithms knew they faced a huge problem. How do you know what information is unimportant for every possible image that you will never see? All they could do is assume the recorded RAW data was the best possible data since there was no way to know how to compensate for all the possible and unknown deficiencies.

When exposure and white balance is perfect, RAW files are redundant. Otherwise, the additional information in the RAW data is useful.

This is not a matter of faith, this is fact. The camera company may modify the RAW data but for a given system, the RAW data always contains more information than the compressed jpeg data. Again, this statement does not depend on faith whatsoever.

When an in-camera jpeg appears to be as good as a jpeg rendered by post-acquisition RAW editing, this means either the photographer or the camera system used optimum parameters to record the image. Anyone who decides RAW files are redundant is doing an adequate job of parameter selection before the photograph is recorded. It is also possible that Fuji applies some level of AI that evaluates the RAW data to automatically optimize (process) the image before it's compressed.

If the X100 jpegs always look as good as those rendered by out-of-camera software, then the X100 in-camera compression algorithms and the photographer are doing a great job.

 

[NickTrop]

Ken Rocwell - whose site produces inexplicable angry reactions (because he's opinionated), but remains one of the most informative sites on the intertubes and one I enjoy... has a nice comprehensive article on raw vs. jpeg that I happen to agree with. In fact, I was kinda surprised when I stumbled on this article a while back because I recon'd Rockwell for a raw shooter:


JPG vs Raw:
Get it Right the First Time
© 2009 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Using raw files obviously takes a lot more time and patience...since you could have had all that processing done right in the camera for free...Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future.

I cherry-picked his criticisms of RAW, actually he doesn't diss raw completely. He says, basically, if you don't shoot a lot and like to play around with images for fun and enjoy doing this, knock yourself out. Shoot raw, be my guest. But on the whole it's a waste of time and doesn't result in better looking pics for all you wasted time/effort when printed/viewed at a normal viewing distance - only maybe if you magnify your images to the relative size of a billboard when you pixel peep. Raw is also good for if you completely screw up exposure but any digital camera - even cheap ones, pretty much nail exposure... so the only way you're really going to screw this up if you shoot in manual mode because - ya, know, that sophisticated technology and processing power in your camera that's orders of magnitude greater than what was used to get a manned rocket back and forth to the moon, is incapable of accurate exposure...

I agree with Rockwell in full. His opinion is spot on.

 

[David_Manning]

Uh oh...now you've done it...introduced KR into the mix 😉

 

[NickTrop]

@David - LOL. Pot stirred, carry on 🙂

 

[mod2001]

Uh oh...now you've done it...introduced KR into the mix 😉

2 compare with KR is not fair because Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]

here are more reasons: http://blog.bahneman.com/content/ken-rockwell-facts

Yogi

 

[wgerrard]

Rockwell doesn't try to hide the fact that he likes big, bold, bright, colorful and saturated photos, something that is the antithesis of the b&w street school of photography. He sets his cameras up to get the results he wants, and he's sharp enough to know when to tweak the camera's readings to get what he wants.

I agree fully with his attitude toward digital technology: Use it. It's almost always going to do a better job than I am, and maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll catch the few times it isn't.

 

[claacct]

I agree with Rockwell in full. His opinion is spot on.

This is a question of taste and not absolute facts. Rockwell has a certain taste in photos which is not shared by a lot of other photographers, and that is putting it mildly.

If photography was to be compared with food selling joints, Ken Rockwell would be the hotdog seller who knows about everything under the sun, apparently, and yet for some strange reason still sells hotdogs.

 

[NickTrop]

This is a question of taste and not absolute facts. Rockwell has a certain taste in photos which is not shared by a lot of other photographers, and that is putting it mildly.

If photography was to be compared with food selling joints, Ken Rockwell would be the hotdog seller who knows about everything under the sun, apparently, and yet for some strange reason still sells hotdogs.

It's funny to read the dissing of Ken Rockwell. - He's intellectually honest, experienced, puts a lot of effort into his site. Asking for donations is a bit weird, but if he makes some lunch money with - why not, I guess? I don't know for a fact, but he has no sponsors and only has affiliate links. Some of those other sites I kinda question. He is opinionated - as is every person pro/hobbyist, about gear. He has fun with this... That said, he states what he thinks and states clear reasons why. A common theme is - what do the prints look like? Pixel peeping, gear, film/digital - whatever, doesn't matter and is silly. RAW falls into this category. Yet, photography falls somewhere between religion and politics in terms of raising peoples blood pressure and get them to act irrationally... a prime hunting ground for those who have that provocateur gene. As a guy (Rockwell) who likes the oversaturated Velvia slide look, one might think he might be into pixel peeping tedious raw tweaking... he's not. He uses film for this kind of thing - digital is small format, and small isn't really the tool to use for landscape... again "Ansel Adams"-style phography... it's "HCB".

Yes - back to the X100. Users seem to like its processor's output for jpeg. Therefore - jpeg. Jpeg, jpeg, jpeg, jpeg, jpeg.

 

[wgerrard]

This is a question of taste and not absolute facts. Rockwell has a certain taste in photos which is not shared by a lot of other photographers, and that is putting it mildly.

If photography was to be compared with food selling joints, Ken Rockwell would be the hotdog seller who knows about everything under the sun, apparently, and yet for some strange reason still sells hotdogs.

Whether someone prefers to use RAW or JPEG is not a matter of taste, and has little, if anything, to do with the kind of photos he or she likes. Digital images require processing, just like film images. It's a choice between doing it all yourself, or letting the camera do some or all of it.

Personally, I wish reviews would spend more time assessing in-camera processing and less time comparing gigantic enlargements of one-millimeter slices of some images. I don't print and I'm more interested in what my images look like on LCD's, from phones to over-wide flatscreen TV's.

If you actually read Rockwell, you'll find that he's open and out front about his tastes. Better to know what you like and why you like it than be swayed by other people who go out of their way to tell you what you're supposed to like.

 

[celluloidprop]

I have a difficult time getting color images processed to my satisfaction in LR3, but I think that has more to do with me than the camera's RAW engine. I demo'ed Nik's Color Efex Pro and that seemed to be a solid tool.

 

[David_Manning]

ColorEfex Pro is a great tool. The nice thing is, you can emulate a film stock but dial the grain to zero, so you end up with a particular film's S-curve, but no faux film look (although there's nothing wrong with that...totally subjective).

Unfortunately, it's labor-intensive to import every image into CEP or SEP (for b&w), which is why I use those software packages for selects, and which is why I have no problem primarily shooting jpegs for color with the X100 (only).

 

[Mrbessar4a]

The jury was done on RAW in 2006. JPEG is a distribution format, RAW is a capture format. Don't waste your camera and shoot JPEG. It's not archival, it's not full quality, it's not maleable, it's mostly stupid. JPEG is for ebay sales and iPhone cameras.

 

[Mrbessar4a]

Oh and Lightroom made RAW processing both as quick as JPEG and as intuitive as an enlarger. So the arguemtn that raw files take more work is also bunk. I usually just adjust contrast or saturation and boom, done. No endless tweaking or pixel peeping. It's not more work, it's nothing at all.

 

[wgerrard]

The jury was done on RAW in 2006. JPEG is a distribution format, RAW is a capture format. Don't waste your camera and shoot JPEG. It's not archival, it's not full quality, it's not maleable, it's mostly stupid. JPEG is for ebay sales and iPhone cameras.

What happened in 2006?

Both RAW and JPEG, and every other way of creating a photo -- including the chemical ways -- are representations of data. Technically, RAW is lossless, meaning redundant data is not tossed aside as in JPEG or other approaches.

But, every method of creating a photo is transformational and representative. IMHO, the differences in vision among people looking at my photos, and the device on which they see them, and the local lighting, are much more significant than any changes introduced by using JEPG instead of RAW, or vice versa.

 

[gavinlg]

Oh and Lightroom made RAW processing both as quick as JPEG and as intuitive as an enlarger. So the arguemtn that raw files take more work is also bunk. I usually just adjust contrast or saturation and boom, done. No endless tweaking or pixel peeping. It's not more work, it's nothing at all.

This needs to be quoted. Everyone who's saying that RAW is more work is crazy. I use the same workflow for raws or JPEGS - import into lightroom, tweak color/contrast, export as JPEG.

 

[gavinlg]

Update: I shot a 'Zombie walk' through melbourne city yesterday with the x100. I shot b&w JPEG, and upon reviewing the results have made my decision to shoot raw from now on. Generally I was able to get good results after applying contrast curves and sharpening to the out of camera JPEGS, but with the amount of adjustment I was applying, RAW files would have yielded better results.

I still think the x100 does color particularly well in JPEG mode, but the lack of flexibility with the JPEG files in comparison to the RAW files means that you can really miss out if the camera misses exposure (i shot it aperture priority), and the RAW files are no more effort to actually process than the JPEGS.