JPEG or RAW, when/where/why

[J A C S]

JPEG (more precisely, exported from DPP with default settings)





[ATTACH alt="processed "to taste" "]media_4495677[/ATTACH]
processed "to taste"

 

[john isaacs]

You’ve obviously had cameras that made some pretty nasty jpegs. That isn’t the case for many who’ve posted here, including me.

The cameras you use produce terrible artifacts in JPEG, especially the D7100's noise reduction. Some people don't like that. Some people prefer to use far superior processing, to get the most out of their cameras.

This is a straight jpeg taken today with the Z 50 in Prog/Auto. I think it's a plenty good image. If you disagree, it's a free world.

I can walk down the street, there's no one there
Though the pavements are one huge crowd
I can drive down the road; my eyes don't see
Though my mind wants to cry out loud

I feel free
I feel free
I feel free

 

[Bob A L]

wow, I never realized that was how you shoot RAW. But have never tried it and doubt that I could figure all that out.

 

[Ysarex]

wow, I never realized that was how you shoot RAW. But have never tried it and doubt that I could figure all that out.

The sensor in your camera has a fixed data recording capacity. The best possible exposure that will produce the best possible image quality is the exposure that utilizes the sensor's full capacity. If you leave any amount of the sensor's recording capacity unused you drop the SNR for that image. If you can expose to make full use of the sensor you get the best possible IQ.

Circumstances like low light and no tripod can intervene and prohibit a best possible exposure. In that case we still want the photo so we do the best we can and expose as much as possible.

It's actually very simple and straightforward and makes taking photos easier than it's ever been -- way easier than shooting camera JPEGs. No matter what the subject and no matter what the lighting it's the same exposure -- place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click, or in low light with no tripod expose as much as possible.

 

[Michael Fryd]

wow, I never realized that was how you shoot RAW. But have never tried it and doubt that I could figure all that out.

The sensor in your camera has a fixed data recording capacity. The best possible exposure that will produce the best possible image quality is the exposure that utilizes the sensor's full capacity. If you leave any amount of the sensor's recording capacity unused you drop the SNR for that image. If you can expose to make full use of the sensor you get the best possible IQ.

Circumstances like low light and no tripod can intervene and prohibit a best possible exposure. In that case we still want the photo so we do the best we can and expose as much as possible.

It's actually very simple and straightforward and makes taking photos easier than it's ever been -- way easier than shooting camera JPEGs. No matter what the subject and no matter what the lighting it's the same exposure -- place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click, or in low light with no tripod expose as much as possible.

The question you have not addressed is "When is it important to squeeze every last bit of quality out of your camera?"

In various shooting situations, how far below the optimum exposure can you go before the unaided human eye can see a visible difference in the final image?

Obviously, there exist situations where it does make a visible difference, and situations where it doesn't. How common are each of these? If I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day, will anyone see a difference between an image exposed to yield a good looking in-camera JPEG, and an image exposed to absolutely maximize SNR?

In situations where the difference isn't visible, and I am happy with the in-camera JPEG, what's the advantage of shooting raw?

Note: Answers of the form "raw allows you to make a wider range of adjustments and salvage many images..." are not applicable to the situation where I am happy with the in-camera JPEG.

 

[Leonard Migliore]

Tastes better.

 

[Mackiesback]

None of my images matter. Nor do most of everybodies here. Do what makes you happy. If you like fiddling on computers looking for shadow detail, good for you. If you like shadows remaining as shadows, also good for you.

Its all good,

 

[A74Me]

looks good to me out of camera.

 

[RaysJ]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

You are aware that raw files contain an embedded JPEG?

Yes, and this changes nothing.

I keep RAW files, l don't process every RAW file, there are 1,000s. If l process a RAW file then l save it as a PSD with all the layers, there maybe several different versions, as there are so many different things you can do. I only save them as JPEG if l want to compare different versions, on my screen.

l don't use LR. If you can view Raw on LR, why do you need JPEG?

 

[GeoffRG]

Bringing this back to cameras, it's not a question of whether or not raw is "better". The question is whether the increase is enough to justify the increased overhead. The answer is going to depend on multiple factors, including the photographer's budget, his goals, and the abilities of his/her gear.

There is no much of an overhead with RAW. You need storage, which is cheap. You can generate JPEGs in batch mode if you do not want to process all the RAWs individually.

Yes, one can batch process raw files with the manufacturer's software and get JPEGs that are an exact match for camera produced JPEGs. Of course, if that is what you are doing, then you can save some steps by just shooting JPEG.

Er, not necessarily. I shoot with Nikon D5s in the years since the D5 was launched Nikon has improved the raw converter. It is entirely possible that the 2025 converter will do a better job than the version in the camera. That might also be true for the Z8 and Z9. Given that the conversion is achieved by an ASIC which can't be updated, only replaced, even a Z9 coming off the production line on Monday won't have the same raw converter as NX Studio 1.9.1.

Not every photographer considers technical perfection to be the major factor in judging an image.

If a photographer is happy with the JPEGs produced by his camera, why is it important that he go to extra effort to get a marginal improvement in quality? For many images the difference may be measurable, but not visible to the naked eye.

One can make a reasonable argument that if a change in workflow doesn't make a visible difference, then any quality improvement from that change is inconsequential.

This isn't a work flow I use so it is entirely possible that the images converted in the camera are indistinguishable from those converted with the latest software. However, it is also possible that there is a visible difference. I'm simply pointing out that using the software conversion might yield a better image. You will notice that I qualified my comment, as shown in bold above.

 

[MoreorLess]

Typically have the camera take both, if I'm doing any kind of serious editing and/or the shot is at higher ISO and I want to use noise reduction software it will be RAW which gets used which is probably about 80% of my use.

 

[GeoffRG]

I am of the opinion that one won't change the mind of a dedicated raw shooter to shoot JPEG nor that of a JPEG shooter to shoot raw. There are excellent arguments on both sides but unless one is prepared to accept the possibility that the counter to ones process may have merit it's just gum beating.

When I first got a digital camera I shot JPEG because it was easier than using Fuji's raw files. When I acquired a Nikon D2H I shot raw + JPEG but soon realised that I was filling up the memory card with JPEG files that I wasn't going to use because I could get more out of the raw file. That was 2006, much has changed since then but I remain unwilling to throw away data, which is what happens when a raw file is converted to JPEG.

 

[RaysJ]

I am of the opinion that one won't change the mind of a dedicated raw shooter to shoot JPEG nor that of a JPEG shooter to shoot raw. There are excellent arguments on both sides but unless one is prepared to accept the possibility that the counter to ones process may have merit it's just gum beating.

When I first got a digital camera I shot JPEG because it was easier than using Fuji's raw files. When I acquired a Nikon D2H I shot raw + JPEG but soon realised that I was filling up the memory card with JPEG files that I wasn't going to use because I could get more out of the raw file. That was 2006, much has changed since then but I remain unwilling to throw away data, which is what happens when a raw file is converted to JPEG.

Yes about 20 years ago, when l started doing digital, l used JPEG, because l did not know how to use Photoshop. Also memory cards in those days were quite expensive. It is something l now regret as some of those could be processed now with modern software. Of course in those days DSLRs were not that good, anything over 400 ISO was noisy.

l soon learnt how to use Photoshop and layers. There is quite a steep learning curve. It is easier now with so many tutorials and courses available. 20 years it was mostly learning from books, some were quite good. Photoshop then was fairly basic.

lf you don't do prints or digital projected images, then JPEG's maybe ok.

For me using JPEG only, is like throwing 80% of the image away.

 

[Ysarex]

wow, I never realized that was how you shoot RAW. But have never tried it and doubt that I could figure all that out.

The sensor in your camera has a fixed data recording capacity. The best possible exposure that will produce the best possible image quality is the exposure that utilizes the sensor's full capacity. If you leave any amount of the sensor's recording capacity unused you drop the SNR for that image. If you can expose to make full use of the sensor you get the best possible IQ.

Circumstances like low light and no tripod can intervene and prohibit a best possible exposure. In that case we still want the photo so we do the best we can and expose as much as possible.

It's actually very simple and straightforward and makes taking photos easier than it's ever been -- way easier than shooting camera JPEGs. No matter what the subject and no matter what the lighting it's the same exposure -- place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click, or in low light with no tripod expose as much as possible.

The question you have not addressed is "When is it important to squeeze every last bit of quality out of your camera?"

There's a real benefit to consistent practice. Apply consistent practice and you get good at it. I like to use small light cameras and most commonly walk with an MFT sensor camera -- all the more important to expose for maximum advantage. There's also an element of satisfaction that comes from doing the best job you can do -- I like that. There's something disturbingly wrong with the position that it's OK to cut corners because it won't show.

In various shooting situations, how far below the optimum exposure can you go before the unaided human eye can see a visible difference in the final image?

Obviously, there exist situations where it does make a visible difference, and situations where it doesn't. How common are each of these? If I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day, will anyone see a difference between an image exposed to yield a good looking in-camera JPEG, and an image exposed to absolutely maximize SNR?

In situations where the difference isn't visible, and I am happy with the in-camera JPEG, what's the advantage of shooting raw?

Note: Answers of the form "raw allows you to make a wider range of adjustments and salvage many images..." are not applicable to the situation where I am happy with the in-camera JPEG.

I am never happy with the in-camera JPEG -- it is always inferior and unacceptable to me. And sure no argument about wider range of adjustments or heaven forbid salvaging images. I save and process raw files and optimize exposure because it produces superior results that I can always see. I maintain a consistent best-possible practice and derive satisfaction from a job well done.

 

[Howard V]

I use and appreciate raw, to get to jpegs for sharing, projecting and printing. But to be honest, everything is just converted back to 8 bit jpeg for projection on large screens for our two photography clubs, and 8 bit jpeg to Mpix for my gallery size prints. I've dumped twenty years of raw and just kept the jpegs. It means 18,500 files adds up to only 262 GB, instead of probably a TB or more. Once I like my images, I move on. To each his own, I guess.

 

[Redhenry]

Michael Fryd wrote: I have a number of photographer friends who grew up shooting transparencies. Getting great in-camera JPEGs is second nature to them. On the other hand, they struggle with post processing raw files. They have trouble translating their decades of transparency experience to raw processor settings.

That observation describes me, but I hadn’t thought of it that way before. I went straight from Kodachrome to JPEGs and it made perfect sense to me. Thanks for that! RH

 

[RaysJ]

wow, I never realized that was how you shoot RAW. But have never tried it and doubt that I could figure all that out.

The sensor in your camera has a fixed data recording capacity. The best possible exposure that will produce the best possible image quality is the exposure that utilizes the sensor's full capacity. If you leave any amount of the sensor's recording capacity unused you drop the SNR for that image. If you can expose to make full use of the sensor you get the best possible IQ.

Circumstances like low light and no tripod can intervene and prohibit a best possible exposure. In that case we still want the photo so we do the best we can and expose as much as possible.

It's actually very simple and straightforward and makes taking photos easier than it's ever been -- way easier than shooting camera JPEGs. No matter what the subject and no matter what the lighting it's the same exposure -- place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click, or in low light with no tripod expose as much as possible.

The question you have not addressed is "When is it important to squeeze every last bit of quality out of your camera?"

There's a real benefit to consistent practice. Apply consistent practice and you get good at it. I like to use small light cameras and most commonly walk with an MFT sensor camera -- all the more important to expose for maximum advantage. There's also an element of satisfaction that comes from doing the best job you can do -- I like that. There's something disturbingly wrong with the position that it's OK to cut corners because it won't show.

In various shooting situations, how far below the optimum exposure can you go before the unaided human eye can see a visible difference in the final image?

Obviously, there exist situations where it does make a visible difference, and situations where it doesn't. How common are each of these? If I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day, will anyone see a difference between an image exposed to yield a good looking in-camera JPEG, and an image exposed to absolutely maximize SNR?

In situations where the difference isn't visible, and I am happy with the in-camera JPEG, what's the advantage of shooting raw?

Note: Answers of the form "raw allows you to make a wider range of adjustments and salvage many images..." are not applicable to the situation where I am happy with the in-camera JPEG.

I am never happy with the in-camera JPEG -- it is always inferior and unacceptable to me. And sure no argument about wider range of adjustments or heaven forbid salvaging images. I save and process raw files and optimize exposure because it produces superior results that I can always see. I maintain a consistent best-possible practice and derive satisfaction from a job well done.

With RAW you can use smart filters and luminously masking and all sorts of things. You can use different exposures for different areas of the image then blend together. Luminosity masks are a bit more advanced but some people use them a lot. Many JPEG's are lacking. If you expose for a bright sky, the foreground is going to be far too dark, unless you use ND grad filters.

 

[Howard V]

It really is very simple.

Shoot JPEG when the camera produced JPEGs meet your needs. Shoot RAW when additional processing is required in order to get the desired result. If you are not sure, shoot RAW+JPEG to hedge your bets.

.

People can argue all day about the additional options offered by raw. But that misses the fundamental point. Different photographers have different needs and goals.

For some photographers, in some situations, shooting JPEG is absolutely the right choice. For some photographers, in other situations, only raw will do.

The trick is knowing what situation you are in. Be wary of taking someone else's advice, as they may have different needs.

The camera produced JPEG may be the exact image one photographer wanted, yet it can be totally unacceptable to another.

.

The rule of thumb is that if you are happy with camera produced JPEGs, and they are meeting your needs, then you can shoot JPEG. If you are unhappy with camera JPEGs and you don't mind processing the images yourself, then shoot raw.

If you can't make up you mind, then shoot RAW+JPEG.

You may not know until after the image has been taken. So best to take both if you may use either. I'm glad l don't rely on JPEGs not being overexposured. I exposure to the right, so l want as much dynamic range as l can get. Most JPEG's are overexposed but most RAWs are not.

If that's something you worry about, then shoot raw.

However, if you are shooting JPEG, and don't run into that problem, then you are OK.

Now, one can argue that even if you are routinely happy with JPEG, you might run into a situation where you would benefit from having the raw file.

Part of that discussion should be a consideration of the consequences of not getting the shot. If you are shooting a one time, extraordinary event (such as a building being knocked down), then there is a significant downside to not getting the shot. If you are shooting a static subject in your studio, it may be trivial to change settings (or lighting) and reshoot.

In some situations the advantage of preventing an occasional missed shot does not warrant the additional overhead of shooting raw.

Again, if you happy with your results when shooting JPEG, then there is no need to change. Obviously, not everyone is happy with camera produced JPEGs.

.

By the way, some photographers prefer to fix things "in the camera" rather than in post processing.

For instance, suppose a shadow is too deep. Some photographers will shoot raw and lift the shadow in post processing. Other photographers may prefer to add additional light to the shadows before taking the shot. Of course, sometimes post processing isn't an option, and sometimes adding more light isn't an option.

There is no single workflow that is best for all situations. There are many reasonable workflows to choose from.

Nikon’s in-camera raw processing is another option to get it right in the field. The screen is small, and the process a bit clumsy, but it’s another option I’ve sometimes found useful. It’s also possible to use the in-camera editing with jpegs. On occasion I’ve found the D Lighting adjustment helpful for pulling up shadows.

 

[J A C S]

Actually, LR keeps the old processes as an option. Not that this is a consideration because, as I said, you can, and most likely will process your images shortly after the shootout.

It doesn't matter when you do the processing. If you only keep the raw, and not a JPEG or TIFF, then you need to maintain a working version of the software in order to get at the edited image.

I cannot imagine why someone would keep RAW files only. I know that some people do that, and use LR to view their photos, but I cannot understand the rationale for that. I process all my RAWs and have JPEGs for viewing.

You are aware that raw files contain an embedded JPEG?

Yes, and this changes nothing.

I keep RAW files, l don't process every RAW file, there are 1,000s. If l process a RAW file then l save it as a PSD with all the layers, there maybe several different versions, as there are so many different things you can do. I only save them as JPEG if l want to compare different versions, on my screen.

I guess you shoot RAW + JPEG then?

l don't use LR. If you can view Raw on LR, why do you need JPEG?

LR is a lousy viewer. Slow, it actually uses cached JPEGs in Edit mode, you need to have it installed on all devices, and then have the RAWs synchronized on them. When you want to share your photos, you still need to convert them.

 

[Michael Fryd]

wow, I never realized that was how you shoot RAW. But have never tried it and doubt that I could figure all that out.

The sensor in your camera has a fixed data recording capacity. The best possible exposure that will produce the best possible image quality is the exposure that utilizes the sensor's full capacity. If you leave any amount of the sensor's recording capacity unused you drop the SNR for that image. If you can expose to make full use of the sensor you get the best possible IQ.

Circumstances like low light and no tripod can intervene and prohibit a best possible exposure. In that case we still want the photo so we do the best we can and expose as much as possible.

It's actually very simple and straightforward and makes taking photos easier than it's ever been -- way easier than shooting camera JPEGs. No matter what the subject and no matter what the lighting it's the same exposure -- place the brightest diffuse highlight at the sensor saturation threshold and click, or in low light with no tripod expose as much as possible.

The question you have not addressed is "When is it important to squeeze every last bit of quality out of your camera?"

There's a real benefit to consistent practice. Apply consistent practice and you get good at it. I like to use small light cameras and most commonly walk with an MFT sensor camera -- all the more important to expose for maximum advantage. There's also an element of satisfaction that comes from doing the best job you can do -- I like that. There's something disturbingly wrong with the position that it's OK to cut corners because it won't show.

Yes, there is a benefit to consistent practice. However, it also makes sense to design the practice around the majority of images you will take, and not the few outliers.

For instance, a small percentage of my shots are very long exposure (tens of seconds). For those shots I use a tripod and a remote shutter release. Even though it would be "consistent practice", I do not regularly use that remote shutter release for most of my shooting.

The key is that one's consistent practice should cover their normal situations, not the extremes. This suggests that if one almost always uses the camera produced JPEG, it isn't necessary to always shoot raw.

If I lived somewhere where it rained most days, I probably would always carry an umbrella with me. If I lived somewhere where it hardly ever rained, I would likely only carry an umbrella when rain was predicted. The key is to have your habits match your normal needs.

.

It's not so much "cutting corners" as being practical. We all make decisions where we balance quality vs. resources. Many people shoot cameras with less than 30 megapixels when bodies are available with 45 or more megapixels. Is that "cutting corners", or is it a practical realization that an 8x10 print at 300ppi can't render more than 7.2 megapixels?

There is also the question as to whether incremental increases in image quality make the result "better". As a general rule, increasing image quality won't fix bad composition or a bad pose. With good composition and a good pose slight imperfections in image quality won't make a difference.

Today's entry level cameras produce better quality than 35mm film SLRs. I will suggest that many great images were created with those 35mm SLRs, even though the technical image quality can't hold a candle to that of a modern entry level interchangeable lens camera.

Now we are getting to opinions. In my opinion the ultimate test is how the final image looks. My position is that a difference that can't be seen with the naked eye is irrelevant.

In various shooting situations, how far below the optimum exposure can you go before the unaided human eye can see a visible difference in the final image?

Obviously, there exist situations where it does make a visible difference, and situations where it doesn't. How common are each of these? If I am shooting outdoors on a cloudy day, will anyone see a difference between an image exposed to yield a good looking in-camera JPEG, and an image exposed to absolutely maximize SNR?

In situations where the difference isn't visible, and I am happy with the in-camera JPEG, what's the advantage of shooting raw?

Note: Answers of the form "raw allows you to make a wider range of adjustments and salvage many images..." are not applicable to the situation where I am happy with the in-camera JPEG.

I am never happy with the in-camera JPEG -- it is always inferior and unacceptable to me. And sure no argument about wider range of adjustments or heaven forbid salvaging images. I save and process raw files and optimize exposure because it produces superior results that I can always see. I maintain a consistent best-possible practice and derive satisfaction from a job well done.

If you generally are not happy with in-camera JPEGs, then you absolutely should be shooting raw. "Why" you are unhappy isn't important.

My position is that there are a wide range of photographers in a wide range of situations with a wide range of needs. The workflow that is best for you, may not be the best workflow for everyone else.

Some photographers are very happy with in-camera JPEGs. Those JPEGs meet the needs of those photographers, and work in their shooting situations. My position is that those photographers don't need to change.