RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

G Sciorio · Nov 21, 2012

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

exdeejjjaaaa · Nov 21, 2012

G Sciorio said:
G Sciorio wrote:

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

what is right today might not be right tomorrow... what do you think ? or rather do you think at all ? use raw+jpg when in doubt.

dko22 · Nov 21, 2012

first of all, you can't really see if you get it right in camera unless a 3" screen shows you all you need to know.

For me the answer is very simple. If you are concerned enough about image quality to consider that you might ever want to post process (other than cropping and the like) then you must shoot RAW to give the maximum flexibility for so doing

If only speed is important and you just have to get the shots such as in some sport or photojouralism work, then by all means shoot JPEG. But then you'd probably have a Canikon FF.

Any camera I have ever tried gives much better results in RAW. I have never seen any camera review which claims you get better results shooting JPEG assuming you're willing to spend about 5 mins. creating a sensible preset for your camera. Theoretically if the camera has a non- standard sensor which means that the leading RAW developers are unable to produce satisfactory results or don't even support it, then things could be more difficult. But even the Sigma Foveon in the new Merrill cameras give far better results from their own developer than the JPEGS according to the reviews.

But if you happen to like the look, say the Oly colours or whatever and don't care about white balance, DR, sharpness and various other things then feel free to shoot JPEG. Personally I have briefly tried JPEG in all my m43 cameras. The E-M5 can give nice (if less accurate) results but even with this, I would never for a minute give up all my processing options before taking the picture.

David

bobn2 · Nov 21, 2012

G Sciorio said:
G Sciorio wrote:

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

Getting it 'right in camera' may well be not as right as it could be. That is, if you take the all information that the camera captures, subject it to more sophisticated processing than available in the camera, and drive that processing with a smidgeon of human intelligence and acquired experience, it is very, very likely that you can produce an image closer to the way that you, as a photographer, visualised the outcome than you would if you just snapped away and let the camera 'get it right'.

JPEG and raw workflow users get to have completely different ideas about the art of photography as they adapt their practice to the potential of the workflow. In particular, the practice of the JPEG workflow leads you to try to use exposure to adjust image brightness, which in turn leads to you getting noisier images, and thus lower IQ than you might have had.

xMichaelx · Nov 21, 2012

dko22 said:
dko22 wrote:

If you are concerned enough about image quality to consider that you might ever want to post process (other than cropping and the like) then you must shoot RAW to give the maximum flexibility for so doing

Agreed. If I actually care about what I'm shooting, I go RAW. If I'm just shooting snapshots for Facebook or whatever, I go JPG.

I also shoot RAW when I'm shooting handheld in very low light because that way I can underexpose a little, and then pull up the brightness & highlights in post a lot better than JPG does.

rambler35 · Nov 21, 2012

Saw you being interviewed on one of Will's videos.

Of course, I understand you're a highly skilled professional photographer and will usually be working in carefully controlled studio conditions with the best equipment and lighting set-ups. And you'll maybe have time constraints, which can make jpegs the best proposition.

As an amateur hobbyist, I shoot mainly in raw partly because the files can be more successfully adjusted in post-processing when I've messed up the exposure etc, and also because I enjoy manipulating the photos (sometimes to extremes) as part of the hobby, and can afford to spend the time doing it.

I also have the (rather hopeful) thought that one day I might take the perfect picture that I'll want to lovingly process and greatly enlarge for framing, so having a raw file might help me to make the very best of it. And of course the raw file can be archived, waiting for the day when available conversion and pp-ing software is even better than it is today.

-- Richard --

dcassat · Nov 21, 2012

I don't shoot .JPG anymore unless I need the files to give to someone and I'm away from home.

But then I prefer to make my own pancake batter as I want to control the RAW ingredients rather than someone else's interpretation of how pancakes should taste.

It really comes down to how much control you want in your final product. .JPEG shooting is somewhat like polaroid shooting in this regard as the film is not available and you get what you get from the exposure and situations that are set and presented. Some like the simplicity, while others feel constrained.

It's great that we have a choice.

chasfox · Nov 21, 2012

To get the best results from the GH2 especially accurate colours and DR, I always shoot RAW through LR4. With my G3 however I am happy to shoot JPEG for casual use as the later VENUS engine in the G3 and GX1 is much better than the GH2 one.

Also you can do much more effective PP from RAW e.g. LR4 gives great B&W conversion options from RAW files.

So to an extent it depends on the camera but also what you want to achieve.

Kim Letkeman · Nov 21, 2012

G Sciorio said:
G Sciorio wrote:

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

I think you are wrong. There is no such thing as "getting it right in the camera" ... it is in some ways doomed to failure because at the moment of the capture, you are also casting the final result in stone (as far as bruising the pixels is concerned) and compressing the result. This has two consequences:

Any JPEG setting that is not exactly right for this specific image introduces anomalies that you may or may not be able to fix in post -- and can we really take the time to adjust every setting for every capture?
Any error you make has much more likelihood for being fatal to the image because of the major difference in latitude during post -- can we really pretend that we don't make errors?

There are actually lots of other reasons and this has been beaten quite literally to death so many times that it seems surprising to have it come up again.

And note: I am not arguing with an individual's choice to use JPEG. I am arguing that the inevitable compromises must be understood ...

DavidHH · Nov 21, 2012

Isn't the answer to the question really about what do you want to do with the pictures and are you happy with the result.

Example, if you are taking Vacation Photos for you and your families enjoyment, and the results of the JPEG does that for you, why not?

Example 2, if you value your time, and you would really rather be out shooting photos than being behind a computer screen adjusting the shots you have taken, why not use JPEG?

Just my two cents.

mpgxsvcd · Nov 21, 2012

Really there is a simple answer to this.

All shooting JPG does is post process the image in camera. It is still shooting a RAW image it is just that you are then throwing away that RAW image in favor of letting the camera process the image for you.

If you plan to edit the image….EVER, then you must shoot at least RAW. If you need to share or post the image before you process it then you will probably have to shoot RAW+JPG. If you are ok with never processing the image then by all means shoot JPG.

The only thing you should never do it shoot jpg and then post process it. Shooting RAW only in that situation is ALWAYS a better option.

mpgxsvcd · Nov 21, 2012

I love how Jared(AKA: FroKnows) just simply shakes his head in Agony when everyone tries to explain why shooting JPG only is better than shooting RAW. That guy tells it like it is.

Jeremy_T · Nov 21, 2012

Depends a lot.

If you have a camera with good AWB (or if you set WB manually properly), a good JPEG engine, and good light... well, JPEG is pretty great. The E-M5 makes really nice JPEGs, and if I have good light I almost always use JPEG with that camera.

For bad light, or any situation when you plan to substantially mess with the tone curves, RAW is clearly superior - assuming you have the software and time to work with it.

Now, I am a Linux user, and that means I mostly use open source tools to process images. And those tools, while very powerful, can be very time consuming to learn to use properly (and tend to have other limitations). As good as Darktable and the GIMP are, the workflow is pretty cumbersome.

So, in my case, even though I know that I would be able to do better, I shoot RAW only in very demanding situations where I already know that JPEG would be a problem (and even then, I almost always use R+J). In fact, I have really come to appreciate the shadow/highlight tone curve adjustment on the E-M5 (FN2 by default) since it allows me to "fix" some shots in advance where JPEG would normally not work well.

If you have a lot of hard drive space, a Windows PC, and the more advanced commercial software... well I imagine RAW would be a lot more attractive!

Ulric · Nov 21, 2012

Jeremy_T said:
Jeremy_T wrote:

Depends a lot.

If you have a camera with good AWB (or if you set WB manually properly), a good JPEG engine, and good light... well, JPEG is pretty great. The E-M5 makes really nice JPEGs, and if I have good light I almost always use JPEG with that camera.

For bad light, or any situation when you plan to substantially mess with the tone curves, RAW is clearly superior - assuming you have the software and time to work with it.

Now, I am a Linux user, and that means I mostly use open source tools to process images. And those tools, while very powerful, can be very time consuming to learn to use properly (and tend to have other limitations). As good as Darktable and the GIMP are, the workflow is pretty cumbersome.

So, in my case, even though I know that I would be able to do better, I shoot RAW only in very demanding situations where I already know that JPEG would be a problem (and even then, I almost always use R+J). In fact, I have really come to appreciate the shadow/highlight tone curve adjustment on the E-M5 (FN2 by default) since it allows me to "fix" some shots in advance where JPEG would normally not work well.

If you have a lot of hard drive space, a Windows PC, and the more advanced commercial software... well I imagine RAW would be a lot more attractive!

Aftershot Pro!

Elemental Photography · Nov 21, 2012

I agree: raw always. If you are using any sort of modern digital asset management workflow (Lightroom, Aperture, etc.) there is no significant advantage to .jpeg and many significant advantages to raw.

If you are not using a modern workflow, you probably should be.

OniMirage · Nov 21, 2012

G Sciorio said:
G Sciorio wrote:

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

I am completely with you. If your technique is good and your careful of your shot there is no real reason to shoot RAW. The times I mentally require myself to do so are only for critical work where I know for a fact I am going to want to post process the images but this is typically only for paid work. For almost everything else I shoot super fine large jpeg and in the OMD's case it seems the difference between super fine and fine are much more pronounced than they used to be. For social pics I shoot fine large.

For my claim of Super Fine vs Fine I noticed jpeg artifacts and smearing when taking pictures of my dogs when using the fine option and taking casual pictures. Switching over to super fine resolved the issue. I have ample storage space as well so large files are a non issue for me.

bobn2 · Nov 21, 2012

mpgxsvcd said:
mpgxsvcd wrote:

Really there is a simple answer to this.

All shooting JPG does is post process the image in camera.

It processes it, not post processes it. Processing or development is the mechanism by which you convert the latent digital image in the raw file to a viewable image. Post processing is when you take such an image and manipulate it to make a different image. Typically if I intend to do a lot of post processing work I will process the raw file quite differently, depending on what I'm intending in the PP, from if I was just going to use the processed image direct.

OniMirage · Nov 21, 2012

bobn2 said:
bobn2 wrote:

bobn2 said:

G Sciorio wrote:

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

Click to expand...

In particular, the practice of the JPEG workflow leads you to try to use exposure to adjust image brightness, which in turn leads to you getting noisier images, and thus lower IQ than you might have had.

OniMirage · Nov 21, 2012

Kim Letkeman said:
Kim Letkeman wrote:

Kim Letkeman said:

G Sciorio wrote:

Hey everyone I was on a Hybrid Hangout with Will Crockett, Jared Polin and others talking about JPEG vs RAW

HH: RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

I feel that if you get it right in camera you don't need to shoot in raw. What do you think?

Click to expand...

I think you are wrong. There is no such thing as "getting it right in the camera" ... it is in some ways doomed to failure because at the moment of the capture, you are also casting the final result in stone (as far as bruising the pixels is concerned) and compressing the result. This has two consequences:

Any JPEG setting that is not exactly right for this specific image introduces anomalies that you may or may not be able to fix in post -- and can we really take the time to adjust every setting for every capture?

Any error you make has much more likelihood for being fatal to the image because of the major difference in latitude during post -- can we really pretend that we don't make errors?

There are actually lots of other reasons and this has been beaten quite literally to death so many times that it seems surprising to have it come up again.

And note: I am not arguing with an individual's choice to use JPEG. I am arguing that the inevitable compromises must be understood ...

jcharding · Nov 21, 2012

Sometimes there is a need to work with a RAW file due to the image conditions - be it WB, dynamic range, whatever.

Sometimes there is a need to just work with jpegs - wedding photographer in a hurry, outstanding in-camera jpeg engine, whatever.

The solution is simply to take both and then use whatever file is more appropriate for that instance.

RAW or JPEG? Which one when?

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts