Raw v. Jpeg

[bjmike]

With a JPEG: you can make changes, just not as much as with a RAW file.
I can and have, often.

BUT: you can't undo what you've done in the camera. You can't put color into a B&W shot. You can't unsharpen. You can't put in details that have been removed by NR processing.

But, with JPEG, you're not stuck with whatever file you get right out of the camera. You have choices, that's what a lot of those menus are about. You just have less. And you can't really go back and change some of the choices you've made (like sharpening, NR, etc.). You can sharpen more & reduce noise more, but you can't undo what the camera's processor has done. You can manipulate color (saturation, hue, etc.) quite a lot.

I'd be happier if my G10 had a choice to reduce NR, sharpening, etc. in-camera. I'm used to being able to do that on my dSLR's.

So, IMHO, its not a completely different thing, RAW & JPEG. And the original point, that the G11 (& G10) have pretty good JPEG processing in-camera is an interesting one.

On another note, thgis is one of the few threads I've read on this forum recently that hasn't deteriorated into a slugfest. Congrats!
--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

 

[John TF]

I agree. See my other posts. As for preserving file quality on Save/Save/Save, Lightroom changes everything because its edits are nondestructive to the original file, be it RAW or JPEG or TIFF.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. PS, DPP, PS Elements, etc. all allow you you to save a file without overwriting the original, allowing you to keep a "digital negative", whether you start with a RAW file or a JPEG file. I can remember only once losing an original because I was tinkering with it on my computer.
--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

I believe the issue that people always mention (as you know) involves the inherent losses that occur every time you compress a JPEG file. So if you save your work, exit, and then re-open it the next day or the next year, you lose a bit. If you do everything in one session then it is not a problem.

Since Lightroom never applies Develop settings until export, it becomes a non-issue. You can divide your work into as many sessions as you like without degrading the file.

--
John TF

 

[John TF]

With a JPEG: you can make changes, just not as much as with a RAW file.
I can and have, often.

BUT: you can't undo what you've done in the camera. You can't put color into a B&W shot. You can't unsharpen. You can't put in details that have been removed by NR processing.

But, with JPEG, you're not stuck with whatever file you get right out of the camera. You have choices, that's what a lot of those menus are about. You just have less. And you can't really go back and change some of the choices you've made (like sharpening, NR, etc.). You can sharpen more & reduce noise more, but you can't undo what the camera's processor has done. You can manipulate color (saturation, hue, etc.) quite a lot.

I agree.

For this to work, the JPEG's would have to be high quality and well-taken to start with, or there is no point attempting it. It's not like RAW where you can just bang away and pick up the pieces in PP.

Therefore I routinely do custom WB with a gray card (which I would do if I were headed towards PS or PSE as well). If the custom WB misses, I still have AWB as a backup in Lightroom. Plus, of course, the Temperature slider.

I never select in-camera B&W - Lightroom/PSE does it much better.

And I would be conservative with the G11 sharpening setting. This approach would probably work best at lower ISO's where NR is less of an issue. But I keep ISO as low as possible anyway - I'm not on the high ISO bandwagon. I believe the G11/S90's superior DR means less noise in general, especially at low ISO's, so the problem is minimized in a well-exposed image. I'm only suggesting this approach for the G11/S90, with their low noise and excellent in-camera processing - it might be less appropriate for earlier P&S models.

Because you can't undo choices you made when you take the JPEG shot, I make conservative choices, leaving the door open, as much as possible.

That's why I really admire Marco Nero - he commits big-time to his JPEG output - Vivid colors and all - and makes it works.

I'd be happier if my G10 had a choice to reduce NR, sharpening, etc. in-camera. I'm used to being able to do that on my dSLR's.

I thought it did allow reduced sharpening in My Colors | Custom | Sharpening. But I don't have a G10, so I am guessing.

So, IMHO, its not a completely different thing, RAW & JPEG. And the original point, that the G11 (& G10) have pretty good JPEG processing in-camera is an interesting one.

On another note, thgis is one of the few threads I've read on this forum recently that hasn't deteriorated into a slugfest. Congrats!
--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

--
John TF

 

[SDRebel]

Your point is well taken.

What has never been clear to me from the various discussions of this issue is just how much meaningful information is lost, if any, when you shoot jpg rather than RAW.

Given the difference in the size of the files, it would appear that RAW files have more information in them.

As you point out, that information may prove critical as processing software improves over the years.

 

[bjmike]

Are you saying that each time you open & then close a file you're losing data? I don't think that's true, beyond the first conversion from RAW or additional twiddling the file. If you save a file in JPEG, there's compression loss. If you open the file, look at it, close it again. Then reopen it again a week later (or whatever) its not suffered additional compression loss. You can look at the file everyday and close it everyday for a year & it shouldn't affect the original JPEG file.

Of course, OTOH, if you open the original (or first) JPEG, adjust it, then save the newest adjusted file, then reopen it again to tweek it some more, you'll theoretically lose some data when you save (and compress) it again. BUT: I think if you're saving in the largest, least compressed, method available in modern PP software, the compression loss is pretty minimal. Personally, if I have a shot worth working on, I compress the least I can or save the tweeked file as a TIFF file (which I think is considerably larger & less likely to have any loss at all). I may be wrong here, but I've been doing all of that since I switched to digital close to 12 years ago.
--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

 

[bjmike]

"I thought it did allow reduced sharpening in My Colors | Custom | Sharpening. But I don't have a G10, so I am guessing. "

I think its the same as the G11. Yes you can adjust all of that in My Colors, but its only for that one setting. If you go to any other choice on the color menu, you lose the sharpening setting (I think). And I haven't yet found any way to reduce NR at all. I could universally do that on my last dSLR and also on my Leica. The dSLR's all got sold in early October, to be replaced before YE 2010. Making do with the G10 & Leica 'til then.

My habit in the past has been to minimize sharpening & NR as much as possible & bump saturation down a notch when shooting JPEGs. With RAW, of course, its not necessary. Then, with JPEGs, shooting the largest (least compressed) files gave me a lot of data to work with. RAW is better for that, but not every JPEG file needed a lot of work, while every RAW file worth keeping has to be carefully worked with, IMHO.
--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

 

[Maximillan]

I have said many times that taking a good picture to start makes JPEG as good as you will ever need with any P&S.

Yes but this implies that you have to take a good picture 100% of the time. How many people can do that?

I like to think of RAW as insurance, just incase you get it all wrong and blow out highlights or get the white balance wrong, etc. Using the RAW file you can fix this quite easily, using the jpeg file, not so easy. Therefore I always shoot RAW+jpeg.

 

[john120588]

The more I use my S90, the more I'm impressed with it. I've used Raw and Jpeg to make 11X16 inch prints. But , although I'm experienced with Lightroom and Photoshop CS4, I seem to be getting better prints with Jpeg than with Raw. This in spite of editing the Raw files in Photoshop. I find the Jpeg files so good that I'm wondering if I should continue to shoot Raw.

if the camera get great reulst at the end, no overexposed, no super yellow/blue white balance, then raw is a waste of time, some people think that raw has more pixel then jpg from the same camera but they are wrong, both should be the same.

you can enlarge jpg as large as you like and the IQ should be the same, RAW is best for changing or correcting white balance, other then this everything is the same

 

[plumcrazy20]

The more I use my S90, the more I'm impressed with it. I've used Raw and Jpeg to make 11X16 inch prints. But , although I'm experienced with Lightroom and Photoshop CS4, I seem to be getting better prints with Jpeg than with Raw. This in spite of editing the Raw files in Photoshop. I find the Jpeg files so good that I'm wondering if I should continue to shoot Raw.

if the camera get great reulst at the end, no overexposed, no super yellow/blue white balance, then raw is a waste of time, some people think that raw has more pixel then jpg from the same camera but they are wrong, both should be the same.

you can enlarge jpg as large as you like and the IQ should be the same, RAW is best for changing or correcting white balance, other then this everything is the same

This last statement..." you can enlarge jpg as large as you like and the IQ should be the same, RAW is best for changing or correcting white balance, other then this everything is the same" is well....how can I say this.....WAY off! Although I agree with the white balance part of it...(which is no small thing, can be a picture saver) but to say other than that everything else is the same....WAY OFF! Far more PP can be done from a raw file as opposed to a jpeg. WB is only the begining of what one can do.

I find it a bit puzzeling sometimes how folks cant grasp the...once the camera compress the file into a jpeg all that tossed out info is lost forever. With the raw file it is all there for you to do with what you will...forever.

If you line up a Indy car with a Ford Focus for a race....it is not a fair comparison...all the good stuff has been taken away from the Focus by the mfg.

Raw has so much more data for the user to utilize than jpegs that like I said earlier...you are comparing apples to lemons, different thing.
As usual...ymmv

 

[bjmike]

I like to shoot RAW, but don't always. Some of what you're saying is true, but I think you're overstating the case for RAW. In the sense that all info that the sensor & lens can collect is held in the RAW file you're, of course, right. But JPEG's aren't necessarily overcompressed at the highest quality level and, altho there's some data loss, its not always (or even most of the time, in my experience) a critical loss. Sometimes it is and most of the time it isn't, again: in my experience.

If you're shooting something professionally & you can't take risks, shoot RAW. If you're shooting your kids, or the office Xmas party or (in my case, sometimes) your grandkids, I think RAW can be way overkill.

By all means, if it makes you happy: shoot RAW.

If the JPEG in-camera processing works for you: shoot JPEGs. Most of the time they're perfectly workable and tweekable in PP. You don't have to shoot in RAW to make adjustments after you've downloaded the results of your in-camera stuff.

The main problem, IMHO, is that the G11 (and the G10) don't allow any adjustment to NR in JPEG shooting. You're stuck with the occasionally over-aggressive NR that you get from the factory. If you're doing prints & are shooting at lower ISO's, it comes out in the wash.

--



http://s176.photobucket.com/albums/w177/mfurst_photos/Surmang%20and%20Yushu%202009/?albumview=slideshow

 

[gail]

From what I've read so far, this thread is a breath of fresh air!

said, jpeg (in camera) processing has become so good that it's very hard to improve on it. On top of that, most photo processing programs now have

improved features that allow you to do a lot with a jpeg file that couldn't be done a few years ago.

Exactly!!!!! Especially features such as Shadows/Highlight for high contrast scenes. And a Photo Filters adjustment layer for improving white balance.

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb

My Canon s90 BLOG: http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/canon-s90/canon-s90-first-impressions/

 

[DrSid]

With JPEG you loose some of the high definition detail. You loose control over noise reduction. You loose some of dynamic range, sometimes important parts of it (ie you can sometimes save badly exposed picture with RAW). You loose better control over WB (although WB can be fixed rather well even in JPEGs, RAW still gives you raw data to work with).

So generally if the JPEG engine is good (good detail, good control over noise) and the picture is exposed right, then RAW is useless. But even with good JPEG engine, RAW can occasionally save the picture.

 

[DrewS40]

The S70 had a nice feature - when shooting JPEG you could press the FUNC button while in review to also save it as RAW. Too bad the S90 didn't keep this.