Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW v JPG

  • Thread starter Thread starter Socialmediatrolls
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
S

Socialmediatrolls

Guest
OK, I am sure this thread has taken place a few times but I have tried RAW, yes it gives better flexibility but is it really as slow as I have seen... copy file, look at file fiddle with white stuff, convert file.. time time time.. and is this realy worth the hastle ?

Comments !
 
I (and others) think it's worth the hassle.

Other's don't.

The one thing we all agree on is this: Zoombrowser sucks!

I suggest Breezebrowser -- available at http://www.breezesys.com -- they've got a demo version to try out.

Very nice program -- worth the small cost.

You can also try a free program called Yarc (and the Windows GUI for it called YarcShell). I don't know the URL's for those off-hand, though.
Guy Churchward said:
OK, I am sure this thread has taken place a few times but I have
tried RAW, yes it gives better flexibility but is it really as slow
as I have seen... copy file, look at file fiddle with white stuff,
convert file.. time time time.. and is this realy worth the hastle ?

Comments !
Click to expand...
 
DavidP said:
I (and others) think it's worth the hassle.

Other's don't.
Click to expand...
I can't see any difference. I prefer JPG when shooting sports because I can get a sequence off before the buffer fills - shooting RAW and the buffer is full after just 2 or 3 frames.
DavidP #28649 said:
The one thing we all agree on is this: Zoombrowser sucks!
Click to expand...
You tell 'em Dave!
DavidP #28649 said:
I suggest Breezebrowser -- available at http://www.breezesys.com --
they've got a demo version to try out.

Very nice program -- worth the small cost.
Click to expand...
Amen - definately worth getting. Version 2 will have lots of useful feature on top of what's already offered.

Chris.
--
http://www.hockeyphotos.com/
 
The only real advantage I have experienced so far for RAW over JPEG is the amount of noise reduction you get when you start to increase the ISO value over 100. At 100 best I can tell everything is equal between the two settings, but once you get to 400 ISO and above, I shoot RAW everytime.....there is still some noise to clean up, but not as much as compared to JPEG, when you sharpena picture you can really tell.

good luck!!!

Herb
Guy Churchward said:
OK, I am sure this thread has taken place a few times but I have
tried RAW, yes it gives better flexibility but is it really as slow
as I have seen... copy file, look at file fiddle with white stuff,
convert file.. time time time.. and is this realy worth the hastle ?

Comments !
Click to expand...
 
I don't "fiddle" with RAW, I just use Zoom Browser to convert a batch of images at once. Yes, it takes some time. I go off and do other things (most often go to bed! ;-) OTOH, if I need to fix white balance, I have the opportunity when I convert a RAW file. I don't have that same opportunity if I shoot JPEG.

If you're planning on making large prints, or even moderate-sized prints with heavy cropping, you will very likely see JPEG artifacts unless you shoot in RAW. I have seen otherwise spectacular D30 prints that were pixellated because they were shot in large/fine JPEG.

Another advantage of shooting in RAW format is the amount of dynamic range that's captured. One can use that to advantage in Photoshop, and bring out details that would, in a JPEG image, be buried in the shadows.

Hope This Helps!

-- Jim
 
Jim Warthman said:
If you're planning on making large prints, or even moderate-sized
prints with heavy cropping, you will very likely see JPEG artifacts
unless you shoot in RAW. I have seen otherwise spectacular D30
prints that were pixellated because they were shot in large/fine
JPEG.
Click to expand...
I shoot jpeg 95% of the time and print 13X19 a lot. I have never seen any jpeg artifacs using large-fine.

Don L
 
I must confess, I havn't made large prints with my new D30, but I routinely go 13x19 using D1 files taken JPG Fine and never see artifacts. Of course, I convert them to TIFF after shooting and before any processing occurs, since I believe resaving as JPG does indeed, and quickly, introduce artifacts. The D1 only uses a 1:4 compression scheme. That's not very aggressive. Based on file sizes, the D30 must be somewhat similar.

M
Don L said:
Member said:
If you're planning on making large prints, or even moderate-sized
prints with heavy cropping, you will very likely see JPEG artifacts
unless you shoot in RAW. I have seen otherwise spectacular D30
prints that were pixellated because they were shot in large/fine
JPEG.
Click to expand...
I shoot jpeg 95% of the time and print 13X19 a lot. I have never
seen any jpeg artifacs using large-fine.

Don L
Click to expand...
 
I too make 13 x 19 inch prints from jpegs and have never seen artifacts even when the 13 x19 inch print is made from 25% of the original image.
 
Hi Mike,

As far as the original topic, I made the personal choice to shoot Raw 100%. At the worst, I'm using extra space and time; at best, I'm getting the most quality I can out of the D30. But that's not my reason for responding.

I was curious about your statement (and results). If you print from 25% of the original image, that would be a 1080x720 pixel image. That's not even a 1 megapixel image (777,600 to be exact).

Printed at let's say 18x12 (for round numbers) that would be only 60 dpi. Even if you upsample with Genuine Fractals or other interpolation scheme, that is still far below what most people would consider an acceptable level of detail and resolution.

I'm genuinely curious about your results here.

Any thoughts?

Don
http://www.dlcphotography.net
Mike said:
I too make 13 x 19 inch prints from jpegs and have never seen
artifacts even when the 13 x19 inch print is made from 25% of the
original image.
Click to expand...
 
First - I agree that for many many shots JPG is fine.

Second - the workflow issues can be addressed. It takes me three unattended steps to go from raws to high-quality JPG's for viewing and reviewing images

Fourth - You can largely avoid JPG artifacts by converting to Tiff first and doing all processing as a Tiff and converting to JPG only when you are all done.

But - there is no way to "opinion" oneself around the hugh dynamic range difference of 8 bit's verses 12 bits. That's 4 extra significant bits to define brightness levels with. That is why I always now shoot raws.

I shoot a lot of panoramic landscapes - many with high contrast sunlight issues. I shoot raw - extract to 16 bit tiff then do my level work in photoshop and anything else I can while the image is a 16 bit tiff. The dynamic range difference is extremely noticable. If you want to see this yourself, just take some shots outside with bright sun and shadows and work with large JPEG and Raw and covert the raw to 16bit Tiff and compare. Once you do this, if you are like me, you'll never shoot jpeg again.

Now, once again to reiterate, JPG may be fine for many shots. The problem I had shooting JPG is if I had shadows or blown highlights in a JPG there is no way to get the detail back. Typcially - shooting raw - the histogram will show the whole range of brightness and shadows with some room on one or both sides instead of the shot being "clipped". This makes for a shot that can be level adjusted to perfection - where a "clipped" histogram by definition is going to lose a lot of detail and one end of the spectrum or the other.

So, IMO, people are being a little to focused on the JPEG artifact issue when that isn't the main huge advantage of shooting RAW.

John Mason - Lafayette, IN
 
John Mason said:
First - I agree that for many many shots JPG is fine.

Second - the workflow issues can be addressed. It takes me three
unattended steps to go from raws to high-quality JPG's for viewing
and reviewing images

Fourth - You can largely avoid JPG artifacts by converting to Tiff
first and doing all processing as a Tiff and converting to JPG only
when you are all done.

But - there is no way to "opinion" oneself around the hugh dynamic
range difference of 8 bit's verses 12 bits. That's 4 extra
significant bits to define brightness levels with. That is why I
always now shoot raws.

I shoot a lot of panoramic landscapes - many with high contrast
sunlight issues. I shoot raw - extract to 16 bit tiff then do my
level work in photoshop and anything else I can while the image is
a 16 bit tiff. The dynamic range difference is extremely
noticable. If you want to see this yourself, just take some shots
outside with bright sun and shadows and work with large JPEG and
Raw and covert the raw to 16bit Tiff and compare. Once you do
this, if you are like me, you'll never shoot jpeg again.

Now, once again to reiterate, JPG may be fine for many shots. The
problem I had shooting JPG is if I had shadows or blown highlights
in a JPG there is no way to get the detail back. Typcially -
shooting raw - the histogram will show the whole range of
brightness and shadows with some room on one or both sides instead
of the shot being "clipped". This makes for a shot that can be
level adjusted to perfection - where a "clipped" histogram by
definition is going to lose a lot of detail and one end of the
spectrum or the other.

So, IMO, people are being a little to focused on the JPEG artifact
issue when that isn't the main huge advantage of shooting RAW.

John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
 
Don,

Since Mike hasn't responded yet, I'll jump in -- hopefully, not inappropriately -- and suggest that Mike wasn't referring to image resolution but rather image compression. At a compression ratio of 4 to 1, one could suggest that only 25% of the original data exists.

That, by the way, is roughly the same level of audio compression used in the ATRAC codec, which is the compression scheme used not only in Minidisc, but also SDTS digital audio used in movie theatres. Even "golden ears" in true blind testing admit that current incarnations of this codec can produce virtually indistinguishable copies of original digital source material.

I understand the concern over dynamic range. However, using the D1, I find the dynamic range difference more noticable with lab prints from digital files than with monitor display or inkjet prints. And I would use raw formats for portraits, but see little benefit for snapshots.

Like many things, there is no single answer. Raw format is a tool which has its use, just as JPG has its place. The trick is finding the right time and place to use each of them best.

M
DonCohen said:
As far as the original topic, I made the personal choice to shoot
Raw 100%. At the worst, I'm using extra space and time; at best,
I'm getting the most quality I can out of the D30. But that's not
my reason for responding.

I was curious about your statement (and results). If you print
from 25% of the original image, that would be a 1080x720 pixel
image. That's not even a 1 megapixel image (777,600 to be exact).

Printed at let's say 18x12 (for round numbers) that would be only
60 dpi. Even if you upsample with Genuine Fractals or other
interpolation scheme, that is still far below what most people
would consider an acceptable level of detail and resolution.

I'm genuinely curious about your results here.

Any thoughts?

Don
http://www.dlcphotography.net
Mike said:
I too make 13 x 19 inch prints from jpegs and have never seen
artifacts even when the 13 x19 inch print is made from 25% of the
original image.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Michael,
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
Since Mike hasn't responded yet, I'll jump in -- hopefully, not
inappropriately -- and suggest that Mike wasn't referring to image
resolution but rather image compression. At a compression ratio of
4 to 1, one could suggest that only 25% of the original data exists.
Click to expand...
Well that would certainly make a lot more sense than my initial interpretation of his comments!
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
That, by the way, is roughly the same level of audio compression
used in the ATRAC codec, which is the compression scheme used not
only in Minidisc, but also SDTS digital audio used in movie
theatres. Even "golden ears" in true blind testing admit that
current incarnations of this codec can produce virtually
indistinguishable copies of original digital source material.
Click to expand...
A decade or so ago, I was very much into the 'audiophile' area, with the analog vs CD, electronics vs tube, debate in full gear! The current film vs digital furor is quite interesting in that 'light' (sorry....).
Michael Thomas Mitchell said:
I understand the concern over dynamic range. However, using the D1,
I find the dynamic range difference more noticable with lab prints
from digital files than with monitor display or inkjet prints. And
I would use raw formats for portraits, but see little benefit for
snapshots.

Like many things, there is no single answer. Raw format is a tool
which has its use, just as JPG has its place. The trick is finding
the right time and place to use each of them best.
Click to expand...
A very reasoned and sensible approach, which I find no fault with.

Best regards, and thanks for the input.

Don
http://www.dlcphotography.net
 
Mike said:
John Mason said:
First - I agree that for many many shots JPG is fine.

Second - the workflow issues can be addressed. It takes me three
unattended steps to go from raws to high-quality JPG's for viewing
and reviewing images

Fourth - You can largely avoid JPG artifacts by converting to Tiff
first and doing all processing as a Tiff and converting to JPG only
when you are all done.

But - there is no way to "opinion" oneself around the hugh dynamic
range difference of 8 bit's verses 12 bits. That's 4 extra
significant bits to define brightness levels with. That is why I
always now shoot raws.

I shoot a lot of panoramic landscapes - many with high contrast
sunlight issues. I shoot raw - extract to 16 bit tiff then do my
level work in photoshop and anything else I can while the image is
a 16 bit tiff. The dynamic range difference is extremely
noticable. If you want to see this yourself, just take some shots
outside with bright sun and shadows and work with large JPEG and
Raw and covert the raw to 16bit Tiff and compare. Once you do
this, if you are like me, you'll never shoot jpeg again.

Now, once again to reiterate, JPG may be fine for many shots. The
problem I had shooting JPG is if I had shadows or blown highlights
in a JPG there is no way to get the detail back. Typcially -
shooting raw - the histogram will show the whole range of
brightness and shadows with some room on one or both sides instead
of the shot being "clipped". This makes for a shot that can be
level adjusted to perfection - where a "clipped" histogram by
definition is going to lose a lot of detail and one end of the
spectrum or the other.

So, IMO, people are being a little to focused on the JPEG artifact
issue when that isn't the main huge advantage of shooting RAW.

John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
John,
Click to expand...
I've asked this question before, with various answers & opinions. I also shoot raw and convert to tiff, but I use 8 bit. Do you see a significant difference in 16bit? Do you loose some of the functions of PS and is that a problem?
Dennis
 
So I answered my own question this weekend, I used a mix of Raw and Jpeg and took one of each situation, oh and the Jpeg was on Auto either sport of green square whatever that means !!.. lens was a new 24-80 Canon USM (brilliant).. anyway I threw away the majority of Jpegs due to high light content etc and most of the Raw images where great.. in fact, i have a Pelican picture that I was stunned with..!!

Guy
Dennis C. said:
Mike said:
John Mason said:
First - I agree that for many many shots JPG is fine.

Second - the workflow issues can be addressed. It takes me three
unattended steps to go from raws to high-quality JPG's for viewing
and reviewing images

Fourth - You can largely avoid JPG artifacts by converting to Tiff
first and doing all processing as a Tiff and converting to JPG only
when you are all done.

But - there is no way to "opinion" oneself around the hugh dynamic
range difference of 8 bit's verses 12 bits. That's 4 extra
significant bits to define brightness levels with. That is why I
always now shoot raws.

I shoot a lot of panoramic landscapes - many with high contrast
sunlight issues. I shoot raw - extract to 16 bit tiff then do my
level work in photoshop and anything else I can while the image is
a 16 bit tiff. The dynamic range difference is extremely
noticable. If you want to see this yourself, just take some shots
outside with bright sun and shadows and work with large JPEG and
Raw and covert the raw to 16bit Tiff and compare. Once you do
this, if you are like me, you'll never shoot jpeg again.

Now, once again to reiterate, JPG may be fine for many shots. The
problem I had shooting JPG is if I had shadows or blown highlights
in a JPG there is no way to get the detail back. Typcially -
shooting raw - the histogram will show the whole range of
brightness and shadows with some room on one or both sides instead
of the shot being "clipped". This makes for a shot that can be
level adjusted to perfection - where a "clipped" histogram by
definition is going to lose a lot of detail and one end of the
spectrum or the other.

So, IMO, people are being a little to focused on the JPEG artifact
issue when that isn't the main huge advantage of shooting RAW.

John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
John,
Click to expand...
I've asked this question before, with various answers & opinions.
I also shoot raw and convert to tiff, but I use 8 bit. Do you see
a significant difference in 16bit? Do you loose some of the
functions of PS and is that a problem?
Dennis
Click to expand...
 
Is there an equivalent of that magical green highlighter we can use to make our 1600-ISO images look like 50 ISO ? :)

(For those who don't get the joke, there were/are people who claim that a special green highlighter put on the edges of CD's will somehow eliminate all those digital artifacats they claim to hear.)
DonCohen said:
A decade or so ago, I was very much into the 'audiophile' area,
with the analog vs CD, electronics vs tube, debate in full gear!
The current film vs digital furor is quite interesting in that
'light' (sorry....).
Click to expand...
 
Guy I do not think it is fair to compare RAW with jpeg Auto. You should have tried it in P mode at the very least. Because i have MACs at work and home, I do most shooting on hikes, kids games etc in highest grade jpeg. If i am shooting something of artistic value then I do RAW as I get many images and can process only the few I really like. Mark
Guy Churchward said:
Guy
Dennis C. said:
Mike said:
John Mason said:
First - I agree that for many many shots JPG is fine.

Second - the workflow issues can be addressed. It takes me three
unattended steps to go from raws to high-quality JPG's for viewing
and reviewing images

Fourth - You can largely avoid JPG artifacts by converting to Tiff
first and doing all processing as a Tiff and converting to JPG only
when you are all done.

But - there is no way to "opinion" oneself around the hugh dynamic
range difference of 8 bit's verses 12 bits. That's 4 extra
significant bits to define brightness levels with. That is why I
always now shoot raws.

I shoot a lot of panoramic landscapes - many with high contrast
sunlight issues. I shoot raw - extract to 16 bit tiff then do my
level work in photoshop and anything else I can while the image is
a 16 bit tiff. The dynamic range difference is extremely
noticable. If you want to see this yourself, just take some shots
outside with bright sun and shadows and work with large JPEG and
Raw and covert the raw to 16bit Tiff and compare. Once you do
this, if you are like me, you'll never shoot jpeg again.

Now, once again to reiterate, JPG may be fine for many shots. The
problem I had shooting JPG is if I had shadows or blown highlights
in a JPG there is no way to get the detail back. Typcially -
shooting raw - the histogram will show the whole range of
brightness and shadows with some room on one or both sides instead
of the shot being "clipped". This makes for a shot that can be
level adjusted to perfection - where a "clipped" histogram by
definition is going to lose a lot of detail and one end of the
spectrum or the other.

So, IMO, people are being a little to focused on the JPEG artifact
issue when that isn't the main huge advantage of shooting RAW.

John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
John,
Click to expand...
I've asked this question before, with various answers & opinions.
I also shoot raw and convert to tiff, but I use 8 bit. Do you see
a significant difference in 16bit? Do you loose some of the
functions of PS and is that a problem?
Dennis
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
mark kay said:
Guy I do not think it is fair to compare RAW with jpeg Auto. You
should have tried it in P mode at the very least. Because i have
MACs at work and home, I do most shooting on hikes, kids games etc
in highest grade jpeg. If i am shooting something of artistic value
then I do RAW as I get many images and can process only the few I
really like. Mark
Click to expand...
Fair comments, I'd agree.. I will try P and report back.. oh.. hang on P is my Raw setting :o>
mark kay said:
Guy Churchward said:
Guy
Dennis C. said:
Mike said:
John Mason said:
First - I agree that for many many shots JPG is fine.

Second - the workflow issues can be addressed. It takes me three
unattended steps to go from raws to high-quality JPG's for viewing
and reviewing images

Fourth - You can largely avoid JPG artifacts by converting to Tiff
first and doing all processing as a Tiff and converting to JPG only
when you are all done.

But - there is no way to "opinion" oneself around the hugh dynamic
range difference of 8 bit's verses 12 bits. That's 4 extra
significant bits to define brightness levels with. That is why I
always now shoot raws.

I shoot a lot of panoramic landscapes - many with high contrast
sunlight issues. I shoot raw - extract to 16 bit tiff then do my
level work in photoshop and anything else I can while the image is
a 16 bit tiff. The dynamic range difference is extremely
noticable. If you want to see this yourself, just take some shots
outside with bright sun and shadows and work with large JPEG and
Raw and covert the raw to 16bit Tiff and compare. Once you do
this, if you are like me, you'll never shoot jpeg again.

Now, once again to reiterate, JPG may be fine for many shots. The
problem I had shooting JPG is if I had shadows or blown highlights
in a JPG there is no way to get the detail back. Typcially -
shooting raw - the histogram will show the whole range of
brightness and shadows with some room on one or both sides instead
of the shot being "clipped". This makes for a shot that can be
level adjusted to perfection - where a "clipped" histogram by
definition is going to lose a lot of detail and one end of the
spectrum or the other.

So, IMO, people are being a little to focused on the JPEG artifact
issue when that isn't the main huge advantage of shooting RAW.

John Mason - Lafayette, IN
Click to expand...
John,
Click to expand...
I've asked this question before, with various answers & opinions.
I also shoot raw and convert to tiff, but I use 8 bit. Do you see
a significant difference in 16bit? Do you loose some of the
functions of PS and is that a problem?
Dennis
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Well I guess I should respond to this issue. here is my website:

http://www.atlantic.net/~meckstein/D30%20Photo%20Site/

The shot of the Northern Flicker is approxamately 25% of the total image shot as a large jpeg. I have made 13 x19 prints of this which have amazed me in their quality. I get no artifacts from large jpegs when shot at ISO 100. I am currently shooting in RAW format...but to tell you the truth I don't know why...I can see virtually no difference between jpegs and raw images. If I take them up to about 300% in P/shop I can see a very slight gain in detail. I don't think this would show up in a 13 x 19 print.

PS All of the shots on my web site were from when I was shooting jpegs. I was happy as pig shooting jpegs until I started reading the some of the posts on this board and I keep wondering why I changed to RAW. Oh well I guess we're all trying to get the best quality possible and we all believe "L" lenses and raw are the way to achieve this!

Here is a shot of some prints on my wall the top center image is a print of the Northern Flicker...al these prints are from jpegs on 13 x 19 paper borders have been trimmed.

 
Try shooting at 1600 ISO. With JPGs you get very noticable color artifacts from the noise. The RAW mode images at high ISO are a lot better that JPG. At 100 to 400 ISO I just shoot JPGs.
Guy Churchward said:
OK, I am sure this thread has taken place a few times but I have
tried RAW, yes it gives better flexibility but is it really as slow
as I have seen... copy file, look at file fiddle with white stuff,
convert file.. time time time.. and is this realy worth the hastle ?

Comments !
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
n
Next
w
Next unread
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top