Reading mode: Light Dark

RAW vs JPG - End of discussion

Go to last post
"...try RAW and in a week's time you'll wonder why you resisted so long."

That's what I'm hoping. Thanks.
 
quadrox said:
Given the right software and skills, any RAW file can in theory be processed to be at least equally good as the OOC JPEG.

Without the right software and/or skillls processed RAW files can easily look worse than OOC JPEG.

In some cases the RAW file can be processed to look even better than the OOC JPEG file - but this depends on having the software, skills and a very subjective definition of better.

Neither approach is wrong. It depends on your preferences and skills. If you like to shoot RAW then do that. If you don't, then just use the OOC JPEG files.
Click to expand...
END of DISCUSSION? For whom? Your 'bread and butter' wisdom displayed here does not even begin to cover the intricacies of RAW processing and the decision making process involved. Tell us something we don't know already.
 
My camera gear is very modest, relatively, compared to the gear that most people on these forums use. This is because of financial reasons, personal preferences and shooting style. I shoot in RAW with every one of my cameras that offer it, except for one, because I simply like to get the best quality out of my shots, regardless of what camera I'm using.

The idea that RAW processing should only be linked to higher end gear makes absolutely no sense to me. If anything it would be the other way around. JPEGs produced from larger sensors have far less IQ issues than JPEGs from small P&S cameras which, to me, need all the help they can get. The benefits of using RAW can be equally applied to any type of camera.

The one camera that I have that has RAW but that I use only JPEG with is the Casio ZR850. This is because the RAW mode is crippled and prevents shooting at the wide angle or in burst modes so the camera's usefulness is severely limited. Shooting in JPEG with the little Casio allows for all the cool image stacking features, HDR and other high speed shooting modes.

In-camera JPEGs are getting better with the faster processing that newer cameras offer. Many of my JPEGs from my Panny LX7 and FZ1000 are perfectly adequate for how I'm going to use them but with other shots I want to take the IQ as far as I can so I shoot in RAW. My current solution is to shoot in RAW+JPEG and I get most of the benefits from each format. The main downside is it will take longer to clear the buffer after a long shooting burst but with my shooting style that is rarely an issue.

So I suggest shooting in RAW+JPEG, at least for awhile, and do your own comparisons to find out what works best for you.

-Tim
 
Brad Bohland said:
That's what I'm hoping. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Did you find a guide or tutorial to assist ?
You don't need to re-invent the wheel.

There are only two major things to get a handle on.
1. Work up (or select) a basic profile you will be happy with
as a starting point for all your shots.
2. Learn how to use it on a batch of photos.
These will do a ton of work for you at the touch of a button,
you can even squeeze in a coldie as the computer
actually does some real work.
After that, PP as usual for the finishing touches.

--
Ron.
Volunteer, what could possibly go wrong ?
 
Last edited:
More Keepers said:
Brad Bohland said:
"You are going to want to pay for decent software that will handle lens corrections for you."
Click to expand...
The bottom line is that you get what you pay for. If you want cheap stuff for nothing don't expect the same results.
Member said:
That doesn't sound good. But thanks for the DXO recommendation.

I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. But I'm beginning to see a trend in these two recent inquiries of mine. Want better IQ? Get a better camera with primes and shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
This is a total misconception. You don't need primes to have benefit from RAW.
Member said:
RAW with a camera like the FZ1000, or any smaller sensor camera, seems like a mismatch. If you're going to go RAW, why not go FF ILC and primes, too? Why go half way?
Click to expand...
No way do you need FF ILC and primes to be worth raw conversions. Raw conversion is a great value to my OMD cameras.
Member said:
(I see one question coming--if RAW and the FZ1000 are mismatched, why does the FZ1000 have RAW? I don't know, to make you want a better camera when the RAW files disappoint? I don't know, really, I'm just trying to figure it out, and I'll probably have to try it.)
Click to expand...
I don't own an FZ1000 but I've heard people say good things about the camera. If you don't want to try something for free evaluation, then it's probably best you just forget the idea.
Click to expand...
I concur... there's no reason to think that you need the best of the best in gear to experiment with RAW. In my humble opinion it isn't so much the idea of better IQ (though in many circumstances this is possible as well) but the idea of more control over the process that makes using RAW so attractive. If you shoot your photos mostly in really even light, are happy with what you get already and don't really desire to have additional control over what your images look like, then there's no reason to even bother with RAW. If you said "yes" to any of that, then it's worth checking out, no matter what kind of gear that you're using (as long as it supports RAW). In fact, if I were given the choice of a very high end camera that I could only shoot very high quality JPEGs or a lesser camera that I could shoot RAW with, I'd pick the lesser quality camera every time; working with the RAW is much more important to what I do than any small increase in IQ (and despite what folks say IQ between most cameras in most circumstances are pretty subtle distinctions).

Let's put it this way, before I bought either one of the cameras I use now I was using a very old (before I retired it) Canon P&S type camera that shot only JPEGs. I did a lot of processing on the files from that camera but if I could have shot RAW I certainly would have done that. Having used cameras that can shoot RAW for a few years now I realize just what the benefit is (if you're going to do processing).

As far as you're camera... I understand that it's a really good one. For that class of camera what you have is one of the best, I think... state of the art tech. No reason to think that it's somehow not worth shooting RAW with.

As far as RAW converters go, it might be worth trying out whatever Panasonic software came with that camera. Otherwise, there are free options available and free doesn't necessarily mean poor quality either. I've been using something called LightZone which I really like and is surprisingly streamlined (easy to use) and yet very capable. I downloaded another free one called Raw Therapee that is much more complex but has many more features. I'm less inclined to use that one though because on one thing: I don't like that certain adjustments don't preview unless you're at 100% magnification (but that might not bother other folks). Either way, do some research to make sure that there is a profile in whatever software you're thinking about using for your particular camera...
 
Boomanbb said:
I shoot jpg with a picture style I've been tweaking for months to minimize any post processing. Would I get better results shooting raw? Sure but when is the last time you processed 3000 raw files and had them online in a couple hours?

Ben

--
Click to expand...
Which is exactly what you would do in RAW.


Select it, apply it to all of them in one hit, drink beer.
This initial stage will vary with file size and computer speed.
Mine will knock over 400 or so 36mp files in about 2-3 minutes,
it's 2 generations old. YMMV.

You are then all set for final edit, and if you can do 3000 final edits
in a couple of hours, you are a way better operator than most of us;
JPEG or RAW notwithstanding.
 
With the same exposure JPEG may be clipped, while raw is not. That allows to expose hotter for raw, and capture wider dynamic range, or to have less noise and to keep more details in shadows - or not to sacrifice highlights in favour of keeping shadows.

Red flowers or skies or many other scenes may benefit from raw - just because of exposure and, consequently, wider dynamic range.
 
quadrox said:
Neither approach is wrong. It depends on your preferences and skills.
Click to expand...
I think that covers pretty much all the discussions/arguments here :-)
 
Boomanbb said:
I'm sitting at a cheer competition about to start, when it ends I'll go home with around 3000 images and I sure as heck don't want to be processing raw files when I need to get them uploaded later tonight. Sometimes it's about getting as many good shots of as many potential customers as you can in the allotted time. I shoot jpg with a picture style I've been tweaking for months to minimize any post processing. Would I get better results shooting raw? Sure but when is the last time you processed 3000 raw files and had them online in a couple hours?

Ben
Click to expand...
Raw files have embedded JPEGs, you can extract them in several minutes.

3000 shots and all keepers?
 
From what I see, "Skill" is the big word in this discussion. I have not kept records to be able to quote numbers, but my gut feeling is that I have probably seen just as many RAW processed images that were worse than good OOC jpegs as I have seen that were better than good OOC jpegs based on only my personal preferences. Someone that isn't skilled in processing raw images can make a terrinble mess of a great shot for sure.
 
greenmanphoto said:
One learns with what they have, as much as they want to learn. If they stop learning at the basics of taking a photo and either using the OOC JPG files, or using something rather basic to do minimal adjustments of their images, then they're most certainly NOT going to be termed a pro.
Click to expand...
"Termed a pro"?

If one is employed to produce photography or if he is selling his photographic product on the open market and survives doing it, he is a professional, otherwise he is not. As simple as that!

A professional must justify the time spent on computer processing and will be less likely to engage in it if it either doesn't increase the market value of the product proportionally to the time invested, or if the fact that the image has been manipulated on the computer is considered undesirable by whoever is paying for the photograph.

A professional must satisfy the customer with the resources he has at hand and at the same time keep the volume of product sufficient to make the operation profitable. An amateur typically doesn't care about the volume of his output, and is using his resources to please himself and his peers while enjoying the activity, whether in the field or at the computer key-board.

Amateurs will engage in computer manipulation of their images if they find the process interesting and enjoyable, professionals will do it if it makes them money.

Arne
 
Brad Bohland said:
"You are going to want to pay for decent software that will handle lens corrections for you."

That doesn't sound good. But thanks for the DXO recommendation.
Click to expand...
Another possibility, if you're on a Mac, is a new program called Affinity Photo, and it's getting some pretty good reviews. It's also cheaper than Photoshop OR Lightroom, and possibly DxO, but I'm not positive of that. I'm sure there's room for improvement, since it''s a new program. But still, something to consider, provided you have a Mac.
Brad Bohland said:
I haven't made up my mind about anything yet. But I'm beginning to see a trend in these two recent inquiries of mine. Want better IQ? Get a better camera with primes and shoot RAW.
Click to expand...
Again, primes are not necessarily the way to better images. A quality camera and a quality glass, whether a zoom or primes, sure. But don't rule out good-quality zoom lenses, either. It's up to you how much you want to spend, how often you want to change lenses, what your subject matter will be, who your audience is, and if and how you print, among other things.
Brad Bohland said:
RAW with a camera like the FZ1000, or any smaller sensor camera, seems like a mismatch. If you're going to go RAW, why not go FF ILC and primes, too? Why go half way?
Click to expand...
Because there are times when a point and shoot like the FZ1000 is the best way to go. It has an excellent range, fairly decent IQ, all things considered, and is small and lightweight, making it easy to travel with it. If it provides you with the results you want, then what's the problem? Are you going to try to sell your work? You can still do so with that camera, provided you work within its limitations, as with pretty much any other camera.
Brad Bohland said:
(I see one question coming--if RAW and the FZ1000 are mismatched, why does the FZ1000 have RAW? I don't know, to make you want a better camera when the RAW files disappoint? I don't know, really, I'm just trying to figure it out, and I'll probably have to try it.)
Click to expand...
No one says that RAW files and the FZ1000 are mismatched. See above.

Good luck,

Sam
 
Boomanbb said:
I'm sitting at a cheer competition about to start, when it ends I'll go home with around 3000 images and I sure as heck don't want to be processing raw files when I need to get them uploaded later tonight. Sometimes it's about getting as many good shots of as many potential customers as you can in the allotted time. I shoot jpg with a picture style I've been tweaking for months to minimize any post processing. Would I get better results shooting raw? Sure but when is the last time you processed 3000 raw files and had them online in a couple hours?

Ben
Click to expand...
 
Arne,

As I stated in response to a similar post, I am aware of and agree with what you're saying. I was simplifying, basically, to keep it more in context with the OPs post about a pro. If one makes the majority of their income from photography, then they're generally considered just that: a pro.

Sam
 
Brad Bohland said:
If you're really going to be an advanced photographer, in my opinion, you're going to get an ILC with premium prime lenses, you're going to shoot RAW, and you're going to post process in PS. It's expensive and it's hard, but that's the only way you're going to get the very best results.
Click to expand...
have not used PS in years .no longer needed it as a crutch to "correct" images. and i have no need for the tools of the graphic artist .

light room is more than sufficient as a replacement for the traditional wet darkroom . if i had come across http://lightzoneproject.org/ ( free raw editor) a bit sooner i might not have bothered with adobe but now am tied into the management system with LR which LZ is lacking .

don't get hung up on the expensive gear and software . there are those photographers with the bare minimum of basic kit that will still rung rings around those with all the gear money can buy.
 
Last edited:
eyespy said:
The OP must be craving attention to have posted such banal statements.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming you missed the other thread . And also that you got out of bed on the wrong side this morning. If there's one thing that's pointless, it's adding snark to a discussion when you have nothing to say.

On topic: I shoot raw, and enjoy it. For me, saying processing raw is pointless is the like saying photography is pointless. On a certain level, it's true - there are already a lot of superb images in the world, and most of mine are not their equal. But I relish the technical and artistic challenges of trying to create something that I can look at with satisfaction, and which perhaps incorporates a little of my own perspective which is not there in other shots. For me, post-processing is part of this process.

For some shots, it adds little over the SOOC JPEG. For others, it can rescue them. For thing like astro or HDR, it's necessary. For landscape, it is usually beneficial in my experience, unless you like playing with ND grads. It depends what you're shooting.

Regards,

Chris.
 
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