Reading mode: Light Dark

Using JPEG files as The Digital Negative

  • Thread starter Thread starter Niklas
  • Start date Start date
Go to last post
N

Niklas

Guest
(Please excuse me for my bad english spelling, grammar....)

I have used Canon 300D, 350D, 400D and now for a few weeks, the 40D. Almost always I find myself using JPEG, but sometimes I do some experiments with RAW.

I have never found RAW to have better picture quality to my eyes, I've followed these forums and seen endless examples of JPEG and RAW pictures. Good photos always look good regardless of format to my eyes (considering proper exposure, good sharpening tecnique, good post processing in general. Even in 100% view.

Sadly I'm a so called pixel peeper, and I am very interested in the absolute in quality. A slightly miscalibrated lens, overexposure, underexposure, oversharpened images is something I don't like at all ;)

But even my latest experiments for a few hours today, just wanting to start shooting in RAW, makes me NOT wanting to do that. I took several shots with my perfectly calibrated EF-S 60mm today, shot in RAW+JPEG Fine. Converted with CPP directly as 16bit TIFF to Photoshop CS3. And side by side comparing the JPEG and the RAW-TIFF file, zooming in 100%, 200% and so on. I can se some slight difference and some slight JPEG artifacts in 200% but not in 100%. But it is so minimal, so extremely minimal .

I played around with curves, levels, but do not see much of a difference, not at all. I've used a calibrated, decent, Sony TFT and a Samsung CRT. But the JPEG's out of my Canon cameras look so incredible good and the RAW too ;) Even whitebalance is so easy to fix in Photoshop, and very often not needed (for me anyway).

The last year I shoot Large JPEG Fine with sharpness set to 0, saturation to default, contrast -2. For me that is the digital negative. Please tell me what I'm missing, I read about the big RAW advantage all the time but I just can't see the difference nor understand it. Please prove me wrong. I want to see the magic of RAW! ;-)

Besides, JPEG is so much smaller, so much faster to work with and display. Always readable with almost all computers and standard software.

Niklas
 
For the most part I agree with you. I shot jpeg 98% of the time up until about 2-3 months ago. Jpeg got me to 98% of where I wanted to be. Where raw kicks in (apart from being a crutch for fixing things like white balance and exposure compensation) is with shadows and highlights and the control you have over them. I now shoot almost entirely RAW to get that last 2% of IQ I wasn't getting with jpeg. Plus jpegs still required post processing and with Adobe Camera Raw, I really like the RAW processing power/workflow there to the point that over 90% of my post processing gets done in the raw conversion now.
Niklas said:
(Please excuse me for my bad english spelling, grammar....)

I have used Canon 300D, 350D, 400D and now for a few weeks, the 40D.
Almost always I find myself using JPEG, but sometimes I do some
experiments with RAW.

I have never found RAW to have better picture quality to my eyes,
I've followed these forums and seen endless examples of JPEG and RAW
pictures. Good photos always look good regardless of format to my
eyes (considering proper exposure, good sharpening tecnique, good
post processing in general. Even in 100% view.

Sadly I'm a so called pixel peeper, and I am very interested in the
absolute in quality. A slightly miscalibrated lens, overexposure,
underexposure, oversharpened images is something I don't like at all
;)

But even my latest experiments for a few hours today, just wanting to
start shooting in RAW, makes me NOT wanting to do that. I took
several shots with my perfectly calibrated EF-S 60mm today, shot in
RAW+JPEG Fine. Converted with CPP directly as 16bit TIFF to Photoshop
CS3. And side by side comparing the JPEG and the RAW-TIFF file,
zooming in 100%, 200% and so on. I can se some slight difference and
some slight JPEG artifacts in 200% but not in 100%. But it is so
minimal, so extremely minimal .

I played around with curves, levels, but do not see much of a
difference, not at all. I've used a calibrated, decent, Sony TFT and
a Samsung CRT. But the JPEG's out of my Canon cameras look so
incredible good and the RAW too ;) Even whitebalance is so easy to
fix in Photoshop, and very often not needed (for me anyway).

The last year I shoot Large JPEG Fine with sharpness set to 0,
saturation to default, contrast -2. For me that is the digital
negative. Please tell me what I'm missing, I read about the big RAW
advantage all the time but I just can't see the difference nor
understand it. Please prove me wrong. I want to see the magic of RAW!
;-)

Besides, JPEG is so much smaller, so much faster to work with and
display. Always readable with almost all computers and standard
software.

Niklas
Click to expand...
--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.
 
Basically, with a proper exposure, you can manipulate the image with much more latitude than you can with JPG. That's because with RAW YOU are the processor; with JPG, you rely on the camera to process (in-camera processing options are nice to accomodate the personality behind the viewfinder).

Exposing properly means exposing for the sensor capability, not one's eye or a final output.

I've processed JPGs for a few years, pushing the limits. With RAW, the control offered was much more rewarding. Yet, after 2-3 years of this, I picked up Bruce Frasier's "Real World Adobe Camera RAW with PS2", which opened my eyes to the whole bag that is RAW, from Sensor Capture to why you'd want to adjust an exposure one way, and not the other (even though it might seem like both approaches are equal).

Why bother, you might ask. That depends on what you intend to do with your images. Not everyone aspires to be the next legendary artist, and not everyone will be printing larger than 8x10 (if printing at all). And not everyone is as discerning, or anal, as others might be.

It's simply an option to choose or ignore.

--
...Bob, NYC

http://www.pbase.com/btullis

You'll have to ignore the gallery's collection of bad compositions, improper exposures, and amateurish post processing. ;)

 
Thank you, interesting page! Have not read that, will read it now.

I've read alot about the technical working of CCD's CMOS, RAW, JPEG. And I usually check the major review sites. Always read about RAW in Phil's great reviews nad I know about 1 stop of extra dynamic range with RAW, but I would love to see an example of the RAW advantage. Preferably same shot, JPEG Fine + RAW and Post processed to the best ability, and then to see some difference in favor to RAW. That would be so great to discover! :)

Niklas
 
iMac therefore iAm said:
For the most part I agree with you. I shot jpeg 98% of the time up
until about 2-3 months ago. Jpeg got me to 98% of where I wanted to
be. Where raw kicks in (apart from being a crutch for fixing things
like white balance and exposure compensation) is with shadows and
highlights and the control you have over them.
Click to expand...
Ok, great, as I said just one minute ago in another reply, I would be very grateful for some example, post processed, comparing a difficult shot, over or underexposed, maybe even with wrong white balance set, and preferably shot with JPEG Fine + RAW. And to see the final post processed example of the difference! :)
iMac therefore iAm said:
I now shoot almost
entirely RAW to get that last 2% of IQ I wasn't getting with jpeg.
Plus jpegs still required post processing and with Adobe Camera Raw,
I really like the RAW processing power/workflow there to the point
that over 90% of my post processing gets done in the raw conversion
now.
Click to expand...
Ok, the workflow, there you have a point I really understand, I'm so used to Photoshop, used it for 10years+ and I find it so fast and easy to fix my pictures there. I've tested and used ACR or Ligthroom for RAW to, but do not see any quality advantage to speak about compared to my JPEG files. I have a decent computer with both XP and Vista, Core2Duo@3,2GHz, 4GB fast RAM, but still the RAW files is so much slower to handle and much bigger to store. But that is an issue now and not in 10 years, so I could easily live with that now if I found the golden quality advantage I want to discover ;-)

Thanks for the fast reply!
iMac therefore iAm said:
Niklas said:
(Please excuse me for my bad english spelling, grammar....)

I have used Canon 300D, 350D, 400D and now for a few weeks, the 40D.
Almost always I find myself using JPEG, but sometimes I do some
experiments with RAW.

I have never found RAW to have better picture quality to my eyes,
I've followed these forums and seen endless examples of JPEG and RAW
pictures. Good photos always look good regardless of format to my
eyes (considering proper exposure, good sharpening tecnique, good
post processing in general. Even in 100% view.

Sadly I'm a so called pixel peeper, and I am very interested in the
absolute in quality. A slightly miscalibrated lens, overexposure,
underexposure, oversharpened images is something I don't like at all
;)

But even my latest experiments for a few hours today, just wanting to
start shooting in RAW, makes me NOT wanting to do that. I took
several shots with my perfectly calibrated EF-S 60mm today, shot in
RAW+JPEG Fine. Converted with CPP directly as 16bit TIFF to Photoshop
CS3. And side by side comparing the JPEG and the RAW-TIFF file,
zooming in 100%, 200% and so on. I can se some slight difference and
some slight JPEG artifacts in 200% but not in 100%. But it is so
minimal, so extremely minimal .

I played around with curves, levels, but do not see much of a
difference, not at all. I've used a calibrated, decent, Sony TFT and
a Samsung CRT. But the JPEG's out of my Canon cameras look so
incredible good and the RAW too ;) Even whitebalance is so easy to
fix in Photoshop, and very often not needed (for me anyway).

The last year I shoot Large JPEG Fine with sharpness set to 0,
saturation to default, contrast -2. For me that is the digital
negative. Please tell me what I'm missing, I read about the big RAW
advantage all the time but I just can't see the difference nor
understand it. Please prove me wrong. I want to see the magic of RAW!
;-)

Besides, JPEG is so much smaller, so much faster to work with and
display. Always readable with almost all computers and standard
software.

Niklas
Click to expand...
--
Some cool cats that can use your help
http://www.wildlife-sanctuary.org

Even if you can't donate, please help spread the word.
Click to expand...
--
http://nikn.com/
 
Hello there,

I have done a very nice trip to Quebec, and shot in JPEG, medium quality, because of limited storage (it was two years ago, I only had 2x1Gb... :( )

But then I tried RAW because I was tired of
1) awful white balance when indoors and set to "Auto"...
2) having to always underexpose -1 or more to avoid burnt skies.

and everyday I regret I did not shot RAW during this wonderful trip... so many photos I could have saved... !!

For me the main advantage is not really sharpness, or color, or ease to reduce chromatic aberration, but really dynamic range !

The old way for me was to severly underexpose, and then post process to bring the photo back to life. But I lost detail, and had much more noise in the shadows. All this is history now that I shoot RAW.
 
Bobo Hodls said:
Basically, with a proper exposure, you can manipulate the image with
much more latitude than you can with JPG. That's because with RAW
YOU are the processor; with JPG, you rely on the camera to process
(in-camera processing options are nice to accomodate the personality
behind the viewfinder).
Click to expand...
Hi!, Exactly, I know that very well since years back, started testing with RAW with my Canon S40 and G3 compacts, yes they had RAW :). Continued with my DSLR's. I always post process to adjust my bad exposures, to sharpen and level and curve up, and of course to compose, I'm really bad at composing a shot through the viewfinder.

So knowing all this and being pretty experienced with Photoshop (10y+) I hate not to seeing the final post processed advantage of my 12/14bit RAW files compared to the small, lossy compressed 8bit JPEG's. Both in print and on TFT and CRT at 100% view. What is my major problem. Something must be wrong! ;)
Bobo Hodls said:
Exposing properly means exposing for the sensor capability, not one's
eye or a final output.
Click to expand...
That is very thoughtful and correct.
Bobo Hodls said:
I've processed JPGs for a few years, pushing the limits. With RAW,
the control offered was much more rewarding. Yet, after 2-3 years
of this, I picked up Bruce Frasier's "Real World Adobe Camera RAW
with PS2", which opened my eyes to the whole bag that is RAW, from
Sensor Capture to why you'd want to adjust an exposure one way, and
not the other (even though it might seem like both approaches are
equal).

Why bother, you might ask. That depends on what you intend to do
with your images. Not everyone aspires to be the next legendary
artist, and not everyone will be printing larger than 8x10 (if
printing at all). And not everyone is as discerning, or anal, as
others might be.

It's simply an option to choose or ignore.
Click to expand...
Good stuff! Would like my eyes opened towards RAW with just some final post processed JPEG compared to RAW. With someone who knows post processing decently. Is there any such examples out there? I'm pixel peeping all my shots, trying to get away from it is hard, I just love the best possible in quality, I buy double lenses sometimes just to pick the best and sell the other, I calibrate them when needed at Canon where they have the state of the art equipement for that... I hope I see the RAW advantage with my eyes, the technical stuff don't convince me at all. I want to see it in big print or 100% viewed on screen. I almost always shoot in ISO100 but occasionaly up to 1600 to. Love the NR JPEGS from my 40D, even if the camera gets even slower with JPEG than 14bit RAW!

Thanks for replying!!
 
Cedric Simon said:
I have done a very nice trip to Quebec, and shot in JPEG, medium
quality, because of limited storage (it was two years ago, I only
had 2x1Gb... :( )

But then I tried RAW because I was tired of
1) awful white balance when indoors and set to "Auto"...
2) having to always underexpose -1 or more to avoid burnt skies.

and everyday I regret I did not shot RAW during this wonderful
trip... so many photos I could have saved... !!

For me the main advantage is not really sharpness, or color, or ease
to reduce chromatic aberration, but really dynamic range !

The old way for me was to severly underexpose, and then post process
to bring the photo back to life. But I lost detail, and had much more
noise in the shadows. All this is history now that I shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
Hi! Thanks for replying, nice to hear you like RAW! :) Hope I will to someday. Do you have, or know of somewhere I can see a final post processed image, taken in RAW + JPEG Fine and then post processed to the best ability, and then compared in detail! Maybe you have something shot that way? I't would be so great to see, because of all my bad underexposed, overexposed shots, where I've compared RAW vs JPEG, I can't see the final post processed RAW advantage! Help me! :)

Niklas
 
Niklas said:
Ok, great, as I said just one minute ago in another reply, I would be
very grateful for some example, post processed, comparing a difficult
shot, over or underexposed, maybe even with wrong white balance set,
and preferably shot with JPEG Fine + RAW. And to see the final post
processed example of the difference! :)
Click to expand...
Someone else will have to help with that. I don't have any such samples that I saved.
Member said:
Member said:
I now shoot almost
entirely RAW to get that last 2% of IQ I wasn't getting with jpeg.
Plus jpegs still required post processing and with Adobe Camera Raw,
I really like the RAW processing power/workflow there to the point
that over 90% of my post processing gets done in the raw conversion
now.
Click to expand...
Ok, the workflow, there you have a point I really understand, I'm so
used to Photoshop, used it for 10years+ and I find it so fast and
easy to fix my pictures there. I've tested and used ACR or Ligthroom
for RAW to, but do not see any quality advantage to speak about
compared to my JPEG files. I have a decent computer with both XP and
Vista, Core2Duo@3,2GHz, 4GB fast RAM, but still the RAW files is so
much slower to handle and much bigger to store. But that is an issue
now and not in 10 years, so I could easily live with that now if I
found the golden quality advantage I want to discover ;-)
Click to expand...
Here's an advantage. When you're postprocessing in jpeg, each adjustment you make locks in the previous adjustment. OK, I know you can 'undo' back quite aways, but that undoes other steps you may not want to undo if you only want to undo one step you did early in the post processing.

When doing raw conversion your adjustments don't lock in previous adjustments. So if I adjust exposure, then adjust the highlight recovery, then saturate some reds, alter the hue on the blues, and apply some sharpening - I can go back and undue (or fine tune) that first exposure adjustment without undoing all the other adjustments I made.
 
I don't shoot RAW + JPEG because it eats so much space !!

On my 350D, if I shoot RAW + JPEG then the embedded "preview" in the RAW is the size of the JPEG, that is... large !!

So the total size is 1RAW + 1 large JPEG for RAW preview + 1 large JPEG.

Since the day where I discovered that Microsoft has a powertoy called RAW Thumbnail or something like that, and that you can see your thumbnails in the explorer, and that Irfanview shows you instantly the RAW small preview (1536x1024), I now shoot RAW only. (instead of RAW + JPEG)

I tried to find an example, I found this, it is not the best one... the quality of the photo is not really good (blurry) and I only post the reduced size (I don't have the original JPEG, I only have the small embedded one).

On the left, it is the JPEG as shot.

In the middle, I simply tried to "recover" what I could in the highlights, using a "multiply" layer, and I also tried to get some more light in the shadows. As you see, some of the clouds are still totally white, and in the shadows, on the trees, I got noise very quickly when trying to "push" them.

And on the right, it is the RAW file, I simply pushed a "highlight recovery" slider, and a "dark" slider.

Hope this helps...


Member said:
Hi! Thanks for replying, nice to hear you like RAW! :) Hope I will to
someday. Do you have, or know of somewhere I can see a final post
processed image, taken in RAW + JPEG Fine and then post processed to
the best ability, and then compared in detail! Maybe you have
something shot that way? I't would be so great to see, because of all
my bad underexposed, overexposed shots, where I've compared RAW vs
JPEG, I can't see the final post processed RAW advantage! Help me! :)

Niklas
Click to expand...
 
iMac therefore iAm said:
Here's an advantage. When you're postprocessing in jpeg, each
adjustment you make locks in the previous adjustment. OK, I know you
can 'undo' back quite aways, but that undoes other steps you may not
want to undo if you only want to undo one step you did early in the
post processing.

When doing raw conversion your adjustments don't lock in previous
adjustments. So if I adjust exposure, then adjust the highlight
recovery, then saturate some reds, alter the hue on the blues, and
apply some sharpening - I can go back and undue (or fine tune) that
first exposure adjustment without undoing all the other adjustments I
made.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that is some very interesting points! And valid too. Would just like to see some RAW-JPEG comparison, in print or on screen that shows an visible advantage, even slight! And that is after post processing, 100% view.

Niklas
 
Cedric Simon said:
In the middle, I simply tried to "recover" what I could in the
highlights, using a "multiply" layer, and I also tried to get some
more light in the shadows. As you see, some of the clouds are still
totally white, and in the shadows, on the trees, I got noise very
quickly when trying to "push" them.

And on the right, it is the RAW file, I simply pushed a "highlight
recovery" slider, and a "dark" slider.

Hope this helps...
Click to expand...
Thank you. Very good examples, extreme difference. Just what I wanted to see. Maybe it is that I mostly shot ISO 100 that the difference I see myself in my own test are so small. What ISO did you have on these examples?
 
If yuo can always expose perfectly, and don't take shots where the dynamic range exceeds the limits of the 8-bit JPG format, there really is no need for RAW. The advantage of RAW is where you don't have perfect exposure - either because you/the camera was fooled by some aspect of the scene or because of the wide dynamic range in the shot. In these conditions, RAW can help substantially but only if you use curves/levels appropriately in post-processing before converting the 14-bit (or 12-bit on 30D/20D) to 8-bit.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.
http://www.pbase.com/jeffp25
http://www.jeffp25.smugmug.com

 
If you're happy with JPG and you can't see the advantage of RAW for yourself, why worry?

When it comes to the act of pressing the shutter, the 40D also has basic zones, even a full auto mode, that some people use and if it works for them kudos to them. A further level of control comes from using the advanced zones, another further level comes from shooting in M mode as I do for flash photos.

Processing the image is no different and follows the same logic. Some people are happy with a Canon pre-set picture style and use that. Others tweak the style to suit themselves (as you do with your -2 contrast) and yet others want to control the whole process and shoot RAW. (Actually there is an interesting tid-bit in the 40D white paper about some extra processing that is done to JPGs shot in basic zones... see the section on "Auto Brightness and Contrast" at the top of page 9... http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2007/White%20Paper/40D/EOS_40D_WhitePaper_070817.pdf )

I shoot RAW because I like to have full post processing control and, more importantly, because I believe my raw conversions are better than in-camera JPGs. If Canon's JPGs were doing a better job of it, I'd switch. It's not just a matter of rescuing difficult images and setting WB...setting the black and white points and using a more or less contrasty tone curve to do the initial conversion are all part of the extra control.

Some of this you can also do to a JPG in PS of course, but not all (once white and black points are set for example, anything below or above that is discarded) and not to the same extent.

Having said that, I'm very impressed with the much better JPGs out of a 40D (I've been shooting RAW + Large/fine to check it out) as well as it's high ISO noise reduction which seems to preserve detail remarkably well. Looks like DIGIC III has made some improvements to the in-body raw-conversion engine.

Bottom line...shoot and be happy.
--
http://www.pbase.com/j_trujillo

 
Jeff Peterman said:
If yuo can always expose perfectly, and don't take shots where the
dynamic range exceeds the limits of the 8-bit JPG format, there
really is no need for RAW. The advantage of RAW is where you don't
have perfect exposure - either because you/the camera was fooled by
some aspect of the scene or because of the wide dynamic range in the
shot. In these conditions, RAW can help substantially but only if you
use curves/levels appropriately in post-processing before converting
the 14-bit (or 12-bit on 30D/20D) to 8-bit.
Click to expand...
I'm very bad at getting the exposure right and to compose good. Therefore I always process my photos in Photoshop, have done so for over 10 years, can't imagine printing or putting a photo on the web without adjusting colors, contrast/levels/curves. That's what I like about Canon DSLR JPEGs, they have so much room to adjust and get a final result looking really good. I even hate lossless, always save in PNG for web and 8bit tiff for printing/archiving. I just love extreme quality. RAW should be perfect for me, but in my own pixel peeping tests I just can't see the difference RAW/JPEG. Maybe it's because i mostly shoot ISO 100 (because of the smooth and good quality). I always have sharpness set to zero in my cameras, just to get the best sharpness - Yes .! Anyway, thanks for your great reply!

Niklas
 
Julio said:
If you're happy with JPG and you can't see the advantage of RAW for
yourself, why worry?
Click to expand...
Good question. I generally hate lossy picture formats, always dreamed about RAW when I didn't have it. But seeing so many good photographers "convert" to RAW shooting I'm starting to get even more interested. But doing heavy testing on my own cameras I just can't se the final output after processing beeing any better, other pixel structure is visible due to JPEG aritfacts, but not seen in 100% view, maybe in 200% or more.
Julio said:
When it comes to the act of pressing the shutter, the 40D also has
basic zones, even a full auto mode, that some people use and if it
works for them kudos to them. A further level of control comes from
using the advanced zones, another further level comes from shooting
in M mode as I do for flash photos.
Click to expand...
Yes, always use M or Av,Tv and sometimes P.
Julio said:
Processing the image is no different and follows the same logic. Some
people are happy with a Canon pre-set picture style and use that.
Others tweak the style to suit themselves (as you do with your -2
contrast) and yet others want to control the whole process and shoot
RAW. (Actually there is an interesting tid-bit in the 40D white paper
about some extra processing that is done to JPGs shot in basic
zones... see the section on "Auto Brightness and Contrast" at the top
of page 9...

http://www.usa.canon.com/uploadedimages/FCK/Image/2007/White%20Paper/40D/EOS_40D_WhitePaper_070817.pdf )
Click to expand...
Interesting. Just love my NR JPEGS with sharpness=0 and contrast -2 and color default, and of course neutral picture style, (sometimes use faithful). But the NR activated makes the camera slower with 8bit JPEG than 14bit RAW. But thats ok! ;)
Julio said:
I shoot RAW because I like to have full post processing control and,
more importantly, because I believe my raw conversions are better
than in-camera JPGs. If Canon's JPGs were doing a better job of it,
I'd switch. It's not just a matter of rescuing difficult images and
setting WB...setting the black and white points and using a more or
less contrasty tone curve to do the initial conversion are all part
of the extra control.
Click to expand...
Have you tried using Sharpness=0 and lower contrast, that makes all the difference. Post processing is a must. Of course. I always post process and save lossless even for web, using PNG, or TIF for printing/archiving. I care about quality so much. But still can't see the RAW advantage for my shooting. What is wrong with me ;)? hehe. Btw, thank you all who has replied to this thread, I've seen some new things and l'm looking a little bit different at RAW now.
Julio said:
Bottom line...shoot and be happy.
Click to expand...
Well, maybe it's just as good not to shoot and instead, discuss technical pixel peeping aspects, just make sure you stay happy. ;)
 
I too have recently started shooting raw. It was not an easy decision, as I too could see very little or no quality difference, depending on the image. I figured that just having the extra potential for the added adjustibility (especially if I messed up an important shot) was worth the little bit of extra storage space a raw takes up.

But my problem is deciding whether to save the file after processing as a tiff or jpg. That is where there really is a big difference in storage space. And if you've done all your processing in the best manner you can, you should have a fine image file for printing or whatever.

I know that you can't go back and re-do any processing without losing some quality, but I really rarely have ever done that.

"Everyone" says to save as a tiff for maximum quality, especially for printing, and I have so far been doing that, but I'm still not 100% sure it's needed.
 
iMac therefore iAm said:
iMac therefore iAm said:
If you're happy with JPG and you can't see the advantage of RAW for
yourself, why worry?
Click to expand...
That's the bottom line right there.
Click to expand...
Well, I've wanted to post these questions for years, now It's done, and I'm overwhelmed at all good replies, in this short time! Looking abit different at RAW already. But still believe for my shooting , for the future; The 14bit NR -> 8bit JPEG in camera Canon (Neutral, sharpness=0, contrast low, color normal) maybe a very good digital negative for me and alot of others.

The JPEG have some major advantages today and in the next 10 years, but after that, RAW is of course the right way to go. Then it's just as convenient as JPEG in handling and storage and maybe even compability.

RAW gives better dynamic range, more adjustment possibilities and better quality in all aspects. But from I've learned now and what I can see now the JPEGs of today in 99% of my cases is better in total perspective. Even though Quality is absolutely nr1 for me. Confusing? Yes. For me too. But I am right. And so are most of you.

Niklas
 
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