It's not that RAW makes better pictures than jpeg but...

This is a line from another post on this forum

"JPEG IQ is fantastic, no much need for RAW anymore"

I just don't get this. I was always led to believe that a primary reason for using RAW was to provide much more scope for editing not that raw pictures in themselves were better than the jpegs.

If you take a very good jpeg then that doesn't mean that you won't want to enhance it and make an already good picture better. If you are going to do that then going back to my original premise you are theoretically better off having a RAW original rather than a jpeg. In which case I believe the quote becomes "RAW is such a good canvas, not much need for jpegs anymore".

When we say jpegs have improved that doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you are going to edit, you will normally (not always) find that you are less likely to damage a RAW file than a jpeg.

Is my logic wrong?

Not wrong, but for many the jpg is "good enough". Same as with better lenses, better sensors, etc.

Jpgs can still be improved/edited. Not quite as much leeway but still possible.

Would be interesting to see how many of the Challenge winners are from Raw vs Jpg.

Trevor Carpenter said:

Is my logic wrong?

Click to expand...

I think the simple explanation is that people who make these comments either don't like or know how to edit photos. We live in an age where people want to click a button and have it spit out a fantastic result. In camera JPEG makes all the assumptions in advance, so the user doesn't have to.

I completely agree that using JPEG all the time eliminates a fair bit of creative leverage during the post production process, but most people don't want to bother with that or understand what the benefits could be.

I always shoot RAW + JPEG. The majority of the time, a simple adjustment to the JPEG on my iPad Pro and I am done. If there is an image I particularly like or needs more specific adjustments then I will edit the RAW, usually in LR.

Trevor Carpenter said:

This is a line from another post on this forum

"JPEG IQ is fantastic, no much need for RAW anymore"

I just don't get this. I was always led to believe that a primary reason for using RAW was to provide much more scope for editing not that raw pictures in themselves were better than the jpegs.

If you take a very good jpeg then that doesn't mean that you won't want to enhance it and make an already good picture better. If you are going to do that then going back to my original premise you are theoretically better off having a RAW original rather than a jpeg. In which case I believe the quote becomes "RAW is such a good canvas, not much need for jpegs anymore".

When we say jpegs have improved that doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you are going to edit, you will normally (not always) find that you are less likely to damage a RAW file than a jpeg.

Is my logic wrong?

Click to expand...

Raw lets you do the processing yourself, which means that you don't have to stick with the manufacturer's standard processing. As you suggest, the output might not be any better, but when a file is processed information is discarded which can't be got back. If your special processing wanted to use that information, then you've blown it.

Against that, there are so many built-in processing and 'creative' modes, that for some, having the freedom to do their own might seem superfluous.

The idea that it's about 'editing' is lightly misleading. One thing that you can do in a raw workflow is process for editing, but processing itself isn't editing.

bobn2 said:

The idea that it's about 'editing' is lightly misleading. One thing that you can do in a raw workflow is process for editing, but processing itself isn't editing.

Click to expand...

When we talk post processing aren't we usually referring to editing?

mbike999 said:

Bobby V said:

Is my logic wrong?

Click to expand...

I think the simple explanation is that people who make these comments either don't like or know how to edit photos. We live in an age where people want to click a button and have it spit out a fantastic result. In camera JPEG makes all the assumptions in advance, so the user doesn't have to.

I completely agree that using JPEG all the time eliminates a fair bit of creative leverage during the post production process, but most people don't want to bother with that or understand what the benefits could be.

Click to expand...

it may also depend on the end purpose for the image created.

When I shoot for the wind and kite surfers off our local beach I can be creating 4 - 6 k images from which to select sequences for up to 60 riders, to be posted that evening

The purpose it to record the moves they make so that they can use the images to improve technique, use as images on their Instagram or other accounts etc. As such, we need detail but not ultimate IQ so, in this case, its best resolution jpg files ideally with no adjustment apart from a quick crop that I want

On the other hand, if I am shooting a commission, maybe a pet portrait, product shoot for a local craftsmen or simply producing an image with the intent to sell, I need the highest IQ possible and the ability to post process in different ways, depending on the final product, which may be a large print, a DVD show, an exhibition flyer and so on

I guess what I am saying is that there is no one answer, its down to the photographer to make the decision and it may not be ignorance or laziness that ends up with them shooting in JPG

--
So much to learn, so little time left to do it!

Trevor Carpenter said:

When we talk post processing aren't we usually referring to editing?

Click to expand...

That apparently depends on how pedantic we want to be.

Trevor Carpenter said:

This is a line from another post on this forum

"JPEG IQ is fantastic, no much need for RAW anymore"

I just don't get this. I was always led to believe that a primary reason for using RAW was to provide much more scope for editing not that raw pictures in themselves were better than the jpegs.

If you take a very good jpeg then that doesn't mean that you won't want to enhance it and make an already good picture better. If you are going to do that then going back to my original premise you are theoretically better off having a RAW original rather than a jpeg. In which case I believe the quote becomes "RAW is such a good canvas, not much need for jpegs anymore".

When we say jpegs have improved that doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you are going to edit, you will normally (not always) find that you are less likely to damage a RAW file than a jpeg.

Is my logic wrong?

Click to expand...

JPEG is to RAW what a Fotomat* was to a home darkroom.

Personally, I'm too timid to shoot JPEG, afraid of a bad exposure needing too much exposure adjustment or a WB gone wild that needs too much correction.

* def. archaic. film develop and print kiosks c. 1980s

Not everyone wants to spend hours and hours editing photos they have taken , say on a vacation or to a family gathering.

To the vast majority of people, just viewing the photo is good enough.

Try this experiment...if you have a group of people (say at lunch in the workplace) or similar, ask them how many even know what a RAW photo means. It will be very few. Then ask who uses lightroom. You won't see many hands go up.

brentbrent said:

Trevor Carpenter said:

When we talk post processing aren't we usually referring to editing?

Click to expand...

That apparently depends on how pedantic we want to be.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's just pedantry. The operations going on when something is being 'processed' and 'edited' are different. Modern tools make them look similar on the surface, but if you want an understanding of how to optimise a raw workflow, you do need to understand the difference, and using different terms helps that.

Trevor Carpenter said:

This is a line from another post on this forum

"JPEG IQ is fantastic, no much need for RAW anymore"

I just don't get this. I was always led to believe that a primary reason for using RAW was to provide much more scope for editing not that raw pictures in themselves were better than the jpegs.

If you take a very good jpeg then that doesn't mean that you won't want to enhance it and make an already good picture better. If you are going to do that then going back to my original premise you are theoretically better off having a RAW original rather than a jpeg. In which case I believe the quote becomes "RAW is such a good canvas, not much need for jpegs anymore".

When we say jpegs have improved that doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you are going to edit, you will normally (not always) find that you are less likely to damage a RAW file than a jpeg.

Is my logic wrong?

Click to expand...

It comes down to a personal choice but you need to understand the pros and cons.

If you are following a typical workflow of loading images on to a computer, browsing them to pick some keepers, making minor adjustments like tweaking exposure, levelling, cropping etc. then you might as well shoot raw. Unless as Brian Wadie says you only need an image for a transient / lnstagram type use.

With a raw processor like DXO-PL 2 you get a jpg from the default processing which is usually technically better than the ooc jpg. Noise is less (high ISO's become more usable), sharpness is improved, you have recovered highlights etc. with no effort.

The advantages of raw are that when you buy a new camera and rave about the great new in camera processing / colour science you already had this before and when the raw converter improves you have the option to back date these improvements.

Then there is the fact that with many modern wide angle lenses designed for computer lens correction in camera jpg does a poor job because of restricted time and computer power. DXO-PL 2 actually upgrades your lens or more correctly simply removes the constraints of in camera processing. The images below illustrates this for the Oly 12-100mm F4 Pro lens. The Adobe process uses the jpg correction while the DXO-PL 2 process shows noticeably more image area:




Adobe Process




DXO-PL 2 Process

Personal choice, but these days with the right choice of raw converter there are many advantages to shooting raw unless you have a specific use case like Brian's.

Ian

bobn2 said:

brentbrent said:

Trevor Carpenter said:

When we talk post processing aren't we usually referring to editing?

Click to expand...

That apparently depends on how pedantic we want to be.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's just pedantry. The operations going on when something is being 'processed' and 'edited' are different. Modern tools make them look similar on the surface, but if you want an understanding of how to optimise a raw workflow, you do need to understand the difference, and using different terms helps that.

Click to expand...

So when I crop, adjust contrast, and remove a pimple in DxO it is "processing".

And when I crop, adjust contrast, and remove a pimple in Photoshop it is "editing".

Alright. Need to go optimize my raw workflow...

Maikeru C said:

Not everyone wants to spend hours and hours editing photos they have taken , say on a vacation or to a family gathering.

To the vast majority of people, just viewing the photo is good enough.

Try this experiment...if you have a group of people (say at lunch in the workplace) or similar, ask them how many even know what a RAW photo means. It will be very few. Then ask who uses lightroom. You won't see many hands go up.

Click to expand...

Doesn't matter who or how many ppl know what Raw is (or APS-C, or bokeh, lightroom etc).

This may sound egoistic but I think what matters if I (you) like the results... Obviously if one doesn't know what Raw is one won't use it. If you like SOOC JPG then great!

At your lunchroom experiment, ask how many are so fanatic that they spend a lot of time on DPR.

Lichtspiel said:

bobn2 said:

brentbrent said:

Trevor Carpenter said:

When we talk post processing aren't we usually referring to editing?

Click to expand...

That apparently depends on how pedantic we want to be.

Click to expand...

I don't think it's just pedantry. The operations going on when something is being 'processed' and 'edited' are different. Modern tools make them look similar on the surface, but if you want an understanding of how to optimise a raw workflow, you do need to understand the difference, and using different terms helps that.

Click to expand...

So when I crop, adjust contrast, and remove a pimple in DxO it is "processing".

And when I crop, adjust contrast, and remove a pimple in Photoshop it is "editing".

Alright. Need to go optimize my raw workflow...

Click to expand...

Both tools allow 'processing' and 'editing'. The are hybrids, as most are now. No-one says you are not allowed to understand it any way you like, just that conceptually separating the two operations allows you better to understand what's going on. Many people get by perfectly satisfactory without understanding what is going on.

The key point is that a raw file has no colour, no lightness until you process it. When you do process it, you through away the information in the file which was not needed fro your chosen rendering. If you subsequently decide on a different rendering, you would be better achieving that by reprocessing from the raw than by 'editing' an already processed image.

For post-processing purposes, a 12-bit RAW file is a lot nicer to work with than an 8-bit JPEG.

Gary Martin said:

For post-processing purposes, a 12-bit RAW file is a lot nicer to work with than an 8-bit JPEG.

Click to expand...

For post-processing purposes a floating-point TIFF processed from the 12 bit raw is better than either. 'Post-processing' is what happens after 'processing', hence the word 'post'.

Not doing too bad keeping on topic but can I emphasise that my intention was not to start another RAW vs jpeg post. My OP was looking for comment on

"JPEG IQ is fantastic, no much need for RAW anymore"

which I think is untrue because it doesn't matter how brilliant jpegs you are getting it doesn't take away the benefits of RAW.

Trevor Carpenter said:

This is a line from another post on this forum

"JPEG IQ is fantastic, no much need for RAW anymore"

Click to expand...

Hi Trevor!

I was the one who wrote it and I will explain what I meant.

With my GX8 there are many times, that colors, contrast, exposure, noise and especially AWB are not exactly what I like. If I leave it to JPEG I simply sometimes don't have much space to correct the above, especially the exposure and the shadows/highlights. By leaving the GX8 at RAW, I then apply my own presets which work much better with the RAW than the JPEG and adjust accordingly.

What Fuji does better than my GX8 in terms of JPEG are:

- AWB

- Colors and especially the Chroma and Provia film simulations that I like the most

- noise (the JPEG IQ at ISO 6400 is really good)

I don't have so much experience with the Fuji (only a couple of months), but the time I spent of retouching a Fuji photo vs a GX8 one is usually quite a bit less.

Of course as I wrote in this post, there are other things that GX8 does much better, so I hope that this post will not change to a Fuji vs m43 thread.

Trevor Carpenter said:

I just don't get this. I was always led to believe that a primary reason for using RAW was to provide much more scope for editing not that raw pictures in themselves were better than the jpegs.

If you take a very good jpeg then that doesn't mean that you won't want to enhance it and make an already good picture better. If you are going to do that then going back to my original premise you are theoretically better off having a RAW original rather than a jpeg. In which case I believe the quote becomes "RAW is such a good canvas, not much need for jpegs anymore".

When we say jpegs have improved that doesn't make any difference to the fact that if you are going to edit, you will normally (not always) find that you are less likely to damage a RAW file than a jpeg.

Is my logic wrong?

Click to expand...

I shoot both, then if I can't get the result I want from the Jpeg, I have the raw file to fall back on. So, for me, Jpeg is not good enough to abandon raw. I can also transfer the jpeg file to my phone and send it to someone in a hurry when needed. So, I won't be abandoning Jpeg either. End use and time available pretty much sets which one I use first.

Joe