Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW vs JPEG for pros - what's your take?

Go to last post
AnewMAN said:
You took issue with Riddell saying Amateurs cant tell the
difference(he did not say bad photographers), but took no issue
with MrScary stating NERDS shoot RAW.

Wonder what you shoot? Read earlier posts
Wonder if you can tell the difference? No
Click to expand...
Riddell said
it is more a case of amateurs not being able to tell the difference.

Riddell stated the difference was obvious

A long time ago I and other "pro's" carried out tests us ing various cameras and with hand on heart could not look at a finished print a say it was produced using raw/jpg.

I have a friend who claims he knows all about Diamonds, why? because he spent $5000 on one and would never admit it could be flawed. Yet "expert" Diamond dealers are now using state of the art devices to examine stones, In the USA man made Diamonds are coded so dealers can identify them.
 
carl english said:
carl english said:
You took issue with Riddell saying Amateurs cant tell the
difference(he did not say bad photographers), but took no issue
with MrScary stating NERDS shoot RAW.

Wonder what you shoot? Read earlier posts
Wonder if you can tell the difference? No
Click to expand...
Riddell said
it is more a case of amateurs not being able to tell the difference.

Riddell stated the difference was obvious
A long time ago I and other "pro's" carried out tests us ing
various cameras and with hand on heart could not look at a finished
print a say it was produced using raw/jpg.
Click to expand...
That is funny cuz I could swear that even PHIL has stated in some reviews that out of camera JPEGS(on some cameras) were lacking and one could yield better results with RAW.

Point of my reply was not to argue the difference(where I DO see it some of my images, NOT ALL).

Point was that you took serious offence at one blanket statement by Riddell BUT IGNORED MrScary's comment.
 
riddell said:
riddell said:
--What did you shoot before RAW was invented ? !!
Click to expand...
Erm.. Film. Isn't that was most people shot?
Click to expand...
Film -- precisely right. And when I did, I accepted Kodak's or Fuji's or Agfa's version of color, and their grain, and their exposure latitude, and their acutance, and their halation, etc, etc. Much less trouble getting an excellent jpeg image (my experience).

In fact, JPEG camera images are very tolerant of post-processing compared to film, so raw is just another layer of icing on the cake IMO. I think too many raw advocates have simply bought into the raw religion and haven't spent all that much time doing jpeg pp -- if so, they'd recognize it's quite flexible and capable of superb results. And as far as technique goes, I hate the arguments that raw can make up for poor craftsmanship. I don't know any other art form that is proud of a garbage-in, treasure-out mentality.
riddell said:
As has been stated many times in this thread. the .jpg conversion
engine inside a camera cannot complete with that of a piece of
software running on a PC (or Mac) A desktop has so much more
processing power.
Click to expand...
What makes you think the algorithms needed for jpeg conversion and in-camera color/sharpness/saturation/contrast etc. require the processing power of a Mac (or PC)? Many of the algorithms can be implemented much more efficiently in-camera. Raw write times, on the other hand, can be painfully slow.

Bottom line for me is that jpeg and raw are just variations on the same basic function -- capturing an image for display. I worry less about the difference in raw and jpeg quality than the inherent inaccuracies we accept in printer dyes and inks, lens autofocus precision, and probably even the model-to-model differences between sensors. Once calibrated, I can work with either raw or jpeg.

--
Darrell
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/look/Gallery.html
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/Canon/Gallery.html
 
About the Olympus E-300

"it's clear from what we've managed to achieve with RAW files from the E-300 that it's capturing more than the in-camera CPU is capable of extracting in that second or two it has to do all its work."

About the Minolta 7d

"7D images from the camera have a nice "look" which doesn't appear over processed or affected by artifacting or over-sharpening. We got the best results shooting RAW and converting with Adobe Camera RAW..."

About the Olympus E1
"Best image quality only available by shooting RAW"
and

"I was particularly disappointed to see the jagged Bayer interpolation artifacts we discovered in JPEG / TIFF images straight from the camera"

About the Pentax DS

"Average resolution in JPEG mode, images can look over-processed, better to use RAW"
and

"very disappointed that such a good camera appears to be let down by an average image processor which is very clearly not extracting all that's being delivered to it by the sensor. The difference in detail rendition between JPEG and RAW is stark,"

Ok I am sure you can all guess where I got the quotes. And obviously some companies have better image processors(Canon, Nikon), but not even with those processors the difference is narrower but there may still be a difference.
 
Lack of time, storage or lack of willingness to take the time to get the best images from the RAW files.

Here are the unarguable, ie., incontravertable facts....

1. You can always, 100% of the time achieve the same shot that your camera would provide in jpeg format when you shoot RAW. Ie., you are losing no opportunity for achieving the look of a camera-processed jpeg when you shoot RAW.

2. When you shoot JPEG you ARE losing 4 stops of image data per color channel and you are also losing at LEAST 2 stops (often more) of useable image detail that will NEVER be recovered.

So, to me, it looks like the only real reasons that stand up to scrutiny for shooting jpegs are 1.) not enough time to convert the files, 2.) not enough willingness to convert the files (laziness) or 3.) lack of storage space while doing the initial capture.

There is a fourth reason and, based upon what some have posted here it is looking more and more likely, that being a lack of education of just how much can be sone with a RAW file.

--

'Truth is stranger than fiction for we have fashioned fiction to suit ourselves' - G.K. Chesterton
http://www.jimroofcreative.com
 
Darrell Spreen said:
....how things compared after doing a bit of post-processing on the
jpeg images? Raw needs pp -- so does jpeg.

Darrell
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/look/Gallery.html
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/Canon/Gallery.html
Click to expand...
No they didnt.

Maybe because they were not just simple levels issues and such, the differences were artifacts, over sharpening and lack of detail. I am sure there are many other example I just went straight to the ones that even USERS in the forums have been known to mention.

And no neither had any post processing done. Unless you consider the conversion to be Post-processing.

But if you were going to do any "post" processing, would it not be best(image quality wise) to start with as much data as possible?
 
Considering that the output from both the P2200 and the Pictography bath have much narrower color gamut than 8bit per color channel, not sure much would be missed from converting 12bit to 8 early on, so long as the exposure and color balancing is correct.

Regarding the alleged two-stops in detail, set you 1DsII to JPG level 10 for Fine in personal settings, then compare the capture JPG capture from your 1DsII and RAW from your 20D. The 1DsII capture would still contain more detail. Try it before you make that 2-stop allegation again. Heck, even my 1Ds gets more detail in JPG level 10 than my 1DII in RAW.

One reason you did not consider is post-capture data archiving. Not sure what you shoot for a living or how long you have had your 1DsII, but if you are getting 1000-2000 images per assignment, I'd very much like to know what system you have for backing up 30gig data per day/assignment, often three-days in a row.
 
From Canon's training page on RAW vs jpg:

"Image processing with a personal computer yields higher image quality than with the camera's internal processing."
 
OOC JPG is as bad as conversion with default settings and no user input.

What can be done with RAW should be compared to what can be done with JPG when your own time is put into adjusting it.
 
Almost every shoot I ever do. I have the camera set to write .jpg and RAW files.

I use the .jpgs for previews, and then convert the RAW files as required.

Just to confirm, that I do not use RAW as a crutch for poor photography.
I firmly follow the old school method of getting it right in the camera.
Aside from the minorest of tweaks they get converted as they are.

The difference between the camera created .jpg and the RAW convertor .jpgs are very noticable.

Better colours, more shadow detail a no noticable artifacts, sharper edge definition....

Considering that there numerous comparions on the web between different RAW convertors, and even those differences are visiable, as are the differences between .jpg and RAW.
 
I don't recall saying ALL amateurs, nor have I ever said ALL amateurs are bad photographers, or have bad eyesight.

Whats up, so bored you have to make up what you want to see?
 
8 bit or 16 bit has nothing to do with gamut, does it? I thought it only had to do with the number of steps of gradation found within the exact same color gamut but I could be wrong.

ALL serious editing should be done in 16 bits. ALL serious RAW imports should be in 16 bits too since shadows will have a strong tendancy to posterize when inported in only 8 bits, even if properly exposed.

My assignments usually are to produce 8-10 shots per day so storage is not an issue. Sometimes I only produce 4-5 shots when shooting interiors.

Of course, if storage is an issue then that falls into one of the reasonable rationales for shooting jpegs. For what I shoot jpegs would be lunacy.

--

'Truth is stranger than fiction for we have fashioned fiction to suit ourselves' - G.K. Chesterton
http://www.jimroofcreative.com
 
For your type of work, I'd be shooting RAW too. Literally handful of frames with subjects that are more or less defined by extreme highlight and deep shadow (the "drama" in architecture :-). The difference in professional priority should indeed decide whether one should work with RAW or JPG, or a mix of both.
 
BAK said:
I hope someday to see a print made from a RAW original thaty's
better than a print made from a JPEG original, of a reasonable
subject under reasonable conditions. i.e. a human in a studio, a
scene outdoors in the daytime, where both shots were properly
exposed.

So far, no luck.

RAW apparently is handy under weird lighting, and perhaps when
there are really harsh shadows the photogapher can't deal with.
Click to expand...
That's just the point: properly exposed under good lighting conditions, the camera will produce a good jpeg that will be difficult to improve upon, or at least it will be so good that it will need only minor tweaking in photoshop or another good editing program. A hi-res, low-compression jpeg will take modest tweaking without visible (or printable) quality loss. Given good software you can even tweak them a lot and end up with a very decent image.

But a RAW image will give you more dynamic range to play with, and more colour depth. Compared to film, a jpeg is like a slide, and a RAW is like a negative: the former may give you a beautiful image when exposed properly, but the latter has more latitude. Neither is a magic solution for everything that can go wrong during an exposure.

The better your image editing software, the less you need to fall back on RAW to 'save' pictures that were less than perfect. But it remains the format of choice for difficult lighting situations - say a bride in a white dress in harsh sunlight, snowy mountains in the far distance against a bright sky, and low-light shots with potentially murky shadows. And of course with raw a good converter can apply a set of corrections to a batch of similar images while you go out and prepare coffee, or dinner, or whatever.
 
I think BAK was recognizing that raw vs. jpeg differences are mostly lost in the process of converting an image to a print. I would also suggest that raw vs. jpeg issues are rarely going to be appreciated on the web due to browser differences in color management, calibration of monitors, etc.

I only disagree with your comments on minor points -- I find jpeg to be much more amenable to correction than film transparencies ever were (lots of painful hours with cibachrome printing), but your analogy is appropriate. And there are many batch processors available for jpeg too that are fast and effective.
--
Darrell
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/look/Gallery.html
http://members.aol.com/pixbydg/Canon/Gallery.html
 
Here's the real issue...

Every single shot you take is taken in RAW and then converted. No camera takes jpegs. Not a one. Nada. Zilch.

The issue is this... are you willing to let the onboard processor make your photographic and creative decisions for you or are you willing to control the process of obtaining the best image possible by converting the RAW file later?

Those of you who say that you 'shoot jpegs' are not shooting jpegs. You are shooting RAW files that get thrown away when your camera's onboard chip decides what 8 bits of the 12 bit data are imnportant. I just don't trust technology that much. I want all 12 bits per channel of data and I want to be the one who decides what detail needs to be kept and what can be spared.

--

'Truth is stranger than fiction for we have fashioned fiction to suit ourselves' - G.K. Chesterton
http://www.jimroofcreative.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
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