Reading mode: Light Dark

What is probably a stupid RAW/JPEG question

Go to last post
J

jamesbobo

Well-known member
Messages
198
Reaction score
1
Location
US
I'm not afraid to admit it, I ask dumb questions!

So I shoot JPEGS and go to a nearby photo store with a Kodak kiosk to upload photos for printing.

But so many people say RAW is so much better. But Kodak, or any other kiosk, won't take RAW files. So if I shoot RAW I would have to convert them to JPEG anyway.

So it dawns on me, would it be impossible to have a JPEG that's not compressed and is exactly like a RAW file? In other words, shoot RAW but have it encoded as a JPEG so that card readers would be "fooled" into thinking it isn't RAW.

Is that not possible?
 
William Curtindale said:
Most who shoot RAW do some post processing to enhance the file and
then save to pjg.

--
Portraits: http://wdcgraphic.com/portrait2.htm
http://wdcgraphic.com http://curtindale.blogspot.com
http://picasaweb.google.com/BillCurtindale
Click to expand...
Kodak kiosks allow for post processing, such as changing exposure and color hues. How much easier it would be to just do it there. And if you did it at home, wouldn't it be easier to not have to convert them to JPEG's?

By the way, I did shoot one RAW photo and my computer would not recognize for upload. Which means I would have to install some software to load it.
Again, so much easier to have RAW encoded as JPEG. If that's possible.
 
"JPEG that's not compressed and is exactly like a RAW file"

JPEG by definition is a compressed file. You can save the file as Tiff but that too would be a waste of time. Only some crazy nuts insist that they must shoot and save everything in raw. It's no better and in most cases it's a total waste of time.

Have a look: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
 
While the kiosks don't accept RAW, I do believe they accept .tiff files. So shoot in raw, PP, and save as tiff. That way you get an uncompressed file (more or less depending on the conversion program) to print.
--
Growing old is not an option.... acting young is.
 
The RAW file contains the data "exactly" as captured by the sensor - without any white balance adjustment, sharpening, DRO, noise reduction or compression. If your camera could give you a lossless (uncompressed) jpeg encoded version of the RAW data you might not be happy with the appearance and waste a lot of time at the kiosk altering the colour balance etc.

Your Sony camera came with software that takes an ARW format file and can perform some proceesing, converting it to a jpeg or tiff format. You would be wise to use this software at home and take the results to the kiosk for printing.

--
Warning: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!
 
Actually, raw format is A LOT better than jpeg. Whenever you compresss anything, you lose sharpness, whether is a photo or even a sound recording. The sharpness is not comparable. The more megapixels your camera is capable of, the bigger the difference in quality between raw and jpeg. I have the a350 and it astounded me what a difference raw makes (probably due to the 15 megapixels). And see if the kiosk accepts tiff, that's how i get my photos done. But be aware, a tiff file can actually be bigger than a raw photo. Lastly, how big do you usually make your prints? Anything better than a 5 x 7 would benefit greatly from being taken in raw format.
 
And Amirk, don't be vulgar and call professional photographers "crazy nuts", especially on a site about photography. It ends up making you sound stupid.
 
I don't shoot everything in RAW, but 95%. If you can't get better results out of using RAW than JPEG then you ain't doing it properly.

Ken Rockwell is entitled to his opinion, but the opinion of most people that I know is that Ken is talking out of where the sun don't shine.

Just one of the quotes he uses to back up his argument:

"the high quality JPEG images looked far superior to the raw files when both were opened directly"

Duh! Of course they do - RAWs need to be worked on to get what you want. The difference being that you and not the camera is in charge of the final output. Now, low-ISO JPEGs from the A700 are superb and may well be perfectly adequate for Ken and his followers. But that's not the point - good though the A700 JPEGs are, I can get better results (in my eye, and that's the only one that matters) via RAW. Ken should say he prefers JPEG and leave it at that. Like most of his other ramblings, his attempt to justify his own preferences by debunking the alternatives holds little water.
Amirk said:
"JPEG that's not compressed and is exactly like a RAW file"

JPEG by definition is a compressed file. You can save the file as
Tiff but that too would be a waste of time. Only some crazy nuts
insist that they must shoot and save everything in raw. It's no
better and in most cases it's a total waste of time.

Have a look: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Click to expand...
 
Think back to the old film days ... it was a two step process. First you developed the film getting the negatives, then printed from the negatives. Same goes for digital, the RAW file is your "film". You "develop" the RAW file using Sony's Image Data Converter, Adobe Camera RAW, etc and save it as TIFF (lossless) or JPG (compressed). You can then print from the TIFF or JPG. If you are set to save as JPG, this conversion process actually takes place in the camera's built-in processor.

Just like you can't print directly from film without developing it first, you can't print directly from a RAW file without processing it through a RAW converter first. Regardless of what you name the file, RAW data is still RAW data and must be converted.

--
Allen
 
Matter of opinion, not fact. There seems to be some misguided belief that a RAW file requires hours of work. With a proper workflow the time can be insignificant, far outweighed by the benefits. Like I say, if you can't see the benefits, you ain't doing it right.
Amirk said:
Well, 95% of people that I know agree with me that people who insist
shooting in raw are crazy time wasters. Overall, the time wasted far
outweighs any (if there ever is any) benifits: again the link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Click to expand...
 
Ken Rockwell is to digital cameras like Steve Gibson is to computer security. Both have lots to say and it makes sense if you put on your tinfoil hats.
--
Growing old is not an option.... acting young is.
 
You got to be kidding. If you think there is no time (and space too) waste difference between downloading, opening, and processsing hundreds of 30 MB files vs 2 MB files, then I am wasting time talking to you. The time wasted is huuuuuuuuuuge (hours and hours difference) ...
 
Kzoozoomer .. I don't care whether you agree with me. The link I posted, the author agrees with me. There are dozens of more pages on the topic and many agree with me.
 
Amirk said:
Well, 95% of people that I know agree with me that people who insist
shooting in raw are crazy time wasters. Overall, the time wasted far
outweighs any (if there ever is any) benifits: again the link:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Click to expand...
I am inclined to agree, although I have no time for Mr Rockwell !

RAW has its place as a format for digital negatives for really critical work. However, for the vast majority of shooters who are targetting, sRGB computer monitors, digital photo frames and high street processing labs, RAW gives absolutly no advantage over JPEG. It does have the disadvantage of including an additional level of complexity into the post-processing stage and it also precludes the use of some advanced and useful features of cameras such as the A700.

I spent some time comparing xfJPEG and RAW on my A700 when I first got it 18 months ago and came to the conclusion that RAW was really not worth the hassle. Others may disagree, however, as my conclusion was based upon personal experimentation, I am happy to ignore them ;-)
 
Why not shoot in RAW+JPEG? You get the JPEG file for your trip to the kiosk and those 5x4 prints and the RAW file if you want to process at home or just archive.

Memory cards are cheap. Hard disk storage is even cheaper.

From my own experience: I shoot JPEG only for family and social events - casual photos that I might want to share. For everything else I shoot RAW+JPEG. I use the JPEG file to give me the ability to quick review at 100% and, if the photo is good enough, I use the RAW for final processing - generally storing the result as TIFF. These I print myself at up to 8x10 or take to a lab for larger prints.

--
Warning: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!
 
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