JPEG vs RAW

[chipmaster]

Google and the search function are your friends. There are numerous threads here and articles on the WEB on that, but since you asked in a gear forum.

The measurabators and peepers will tell you only real and serious photographers shoot RAW and amateurs shoot jpg

I was shooting an event and made the friendship of a nice young out of HS photographer. He asked me what I shot, told him JPG, he was like "NO RAW IS SO MUCH BETTER" given his toy equipment it is no wonder he needed raw, LOL.

Shoot what works for you, not good enough then adjust. JPG does throw away lots of detail and information, if that is important then shoot RAW with the slight overhead in storage and processing.

--
" Today's Pictures Are Tomorrow's Memories "

 

[cookedraw]

I started out shooting JPEG, thinking it was good enough. As I became more serious I moved to Raw. The thing is, I had taken a couple of once-in-a-lifetime shots in JPEG, and now I regret it. Point is, it's hard to predict the future but you have to live with the decisions you made in the past.

Most cameras shoot that shoot Raw can shoot Raw+JPEG, I think that would be a good place to start.

--
http://imageevent.com/tonybeach/twelveimages

Yes . Raw + best quality JPEG. problem solved.

Storage are cheap nowadays so no need to choose one or the other anymore. Buy a 4TB harddrive and you have storage space for 200'000 raw files or similar.

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[stevo23]

RAW will also add a step during image import

That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave

It is an extra step. First Lightroom disregards parts of the raw data so you have a boring image.

What?

The JPEG settings saved to the raw file by the camera.

This part of the raw file contains information about whitebalance, saturation, contrast , sharpness etc.

Well, not white balance. As for saturation/contrast/sharpness - I'm not sure why one wants to retain that or how it's retained. But do we care?

If you're shooting for maximum sensor performance, all of those parameters should be disregarded anyhow and dealt with in post. My best quality captures look pretty flat and ugly in and out of the camera. It's only after post that I get the image I wanted.

 

[Charles McRobert]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

 

[Aaron801]

... if you're the type of person who really likes working on images and likes the idea of "getting under the hood." If you just want to produce images that look decent and to not spend any time later in dealing with them, you can get great results in shooting JPEGs with just about any camera available these days. If you want the very best results than you still need to learn how to tweak those JPEGs in camera to the best effect for the kind of photography you do... but at least you won't be spending time manipulating stuff later on the computer, which based on your question about automating the RAW process sounds like something that you're not really interested in doing.

I like shooting RAW because I like that extra level of customization I can do with my images and I like the process of reviewing and making decisions later about photos that I've taken. Still, I'd say that JPEG can deliver great results in most situations. There are some difficult lighting/exposure situations where shooting in RAW and then making various adjustments are going to be more useful, but for the most part JPEG can give you really high quality. Shoot with JPEG first maybe and then see how that works for you. Post images that you have issues with here on the forum and folks will be able to tell you if you could do them better as JPEGs or if for the kinds of things you're doing you'd be better served by learning how to process RAW.

--
my flickr:
www.flickr.com/photos/128435329@N08/

 

[stevo23]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

 

[cookedraw]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

Or better yet, understand the difference between shooting for RAW and shooting for JPG and why the above advice isn't helpful.

Or understand the differences yourself.

The advice to use jpeg for reference is a good one . Like it or not.

the question should be:

Jpeg presets in camera vs Jpeg presets in post vs Jpeg sliders in Lightroom.

 

[stevo23]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

Or better yet, understand the difference between shooting for RAW and shooting for JPG and why the above advice isn't helpful.

Or understand the differences yourself.

The advice to use jpeg for reference is a good one . Like it or not.

If you shoot for jpg, raw will suffer. if you shoot for raw, jpg will suffer. Shooting for both does little to nothing for you.

Example:



Bad/boring image? Raw or jpg?

 

[cookedraw]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

Or better yet, understand the difference between shooting for RAW and shooting for JPG and why the above advice isn't helpful.

Or understand the differences yourself.

The advice to use jpeg for reference is a good one . Like it or not.

If you shoot for jpg, raw will suffer. if you shoot for raw, jpg will suffer. Shooting for both does little to nothing for you.

Example:



Bad/boring image? Raw or jpg?

BOTH !

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[davidedric]

RAW will also add a step during image import

That depends on the software use are using. I use mostly Lightroom, and there is no explicit extra step.

When you open a photo in Lightroom, the interface is exactly the same whether the image RAW or jpeg. However, the RAW image will look a lot "flatter" than the jpeg, which will be more vibrant and contrasty. This is because Adobe chose to offer that neutral starting point for your own ideas and skills. I'm happy with that, others are less so. A RAW image opened in the manufacturer's software will look much more like a jpeg.

There is a lot more that could be said about software, presets etc, but the reason for the post was just to respond to the extra step statement.

Dave

It is an extra step. First Lightroom disregards parts of the raw data so you have a boring image.

What?

The JPEG settings saved to the raw file by the camera.

This part of the raw file contains information about whitebalance, saturation, contrast , sharpness etc.

Well, not white balance. As for saturation/contrast/sharpness - I'm not sure why one wants to retain that or how it's retained. But do we care?

If you're shooting for maximum sensor performance, all of those parameters should be disregarded anyhow and dealt with in post. My best quality captures look pretty flat and ugly in and out of the camera. It's only after post that I get the image I wanted.

And that is exactly the point that "cookedraw" was and is missing Hey, my spell checker just corrected "cookedraw" to "corkscrew"

Dave

 

[stevo23]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

Or better yet, understand the difference between shooting for RAW and shooting for JPG and why the above advice isn't helpful.

Or understand the differences yourself.

The advice to use jpeg for reference is a good one . Like it or not.

If you shoot for jpg, raw will suffer. if you shoot for raw, jpg will suffer. Shooting for both does little to nothing for you.

Example:



Bad/boring image? Raw or jpg?

BOTH !

Agreed! But it was intentional. If I had shot for jpg/appearance - it would look much better. But since I was shooting for maximum sensor performance (I think I actually could have pushed more to the right), I was willing to let the initial capture look flat and boring.

End result:



Nothing was blown, nothing was blocked. If jpg, I would have had to underexpose by about 1.5 stops to avoid blowing the bright parts of the sky and would have blocked my shadows and ended up with more noise.

This second image is from the same file after some post processing. Admittedly, I applied a bi-color filter. Sorry, I don't have a version without right now. But other than that bi-color filter, this is pretty much the look of the original scene. I nearly go struck by lightning before I got back to my car.

The point? I didn't shoot for jpg which would have looked more like the second image. I shot for maximum performance of my sensor knowing what I could do with it later. If you shoot for jpg, you get something more like the second image but it will be more noisy and lack the latitude for pushing/pulling etc. Shoot for RAW and you will have the cleanest image possible and the headroom to make a whole lot more adjustment.

So you can make one exposure even if shooting jpg +RAW - which one will it be? Maximize your sensor's abilities? Get a compromised but good looking OOC image? Can't do both in one shot.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

Hi All

pardon but I have a couple of questions as most 'experts' recommend RAW to JPEG.

I am not skilled and I would not trust myself to become better at converting formats than the experts that ie Panasonic employee ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?

This question is more complicated than it seems. The first thing to understand is that all cameras capture the light in an unprocessed (raw) state. The raw data are typically in 12-bit or more - that is, there are at least 4096 gradations of colour and tone.

For viewing the output is typically JPG, which is 8-bit - 256 gradations. If you shoot "JPG" what you are doing is letting the camera (or that employee) decide which data to use and which to throw away. And, as you see, a lot is thrown away. The main reason for shooting raw is to hang on to all the raw data as long as possible.

You are right, up to a point, to think that an experienced person can do the basic conversion better than a beginner. But with appropriate software that becomes irrelevant - if you use the software provided with your camera it does the raw-to-JPG development exactly the same way as the maker's employee.

Obviously, all that does is get us to square one: exactly the same processes have been carried out, it's just that they've happened in different places. At this point, therefore, you are no more likely to get better photos from raw than from JPG.

However, you have one advantage over that employee - you were there and saw the scene; and you know how you want your photos to look. If the employee's one-size-fits-all development happens to give you exactly what you want that's the end of the story. But if you want to make any adjustments of any kind you have a lot more scope to make them from raw than from JPG.

RAW will also add a step during image import - Can this be automated?

It depends on the software you use but it should be possible.

what is the likelihood of better end result?

That depends on your skill level. As I've said, there's no initial difference. It's important to know that whatever you do to a raw file you can never destroy the original data (unless you delete the file, which you shouldn't do). So if you make a mess you just go back to the start and try again.

is a convert for dummies available?

There should be a user guide, user manual or help facility with your software.

 

[cookedraw]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

Or better yet, understand the difference between shooting for RAW and shooting for JPG and why the above advice isn't helpful.

Or understand the differences yourself.

The advice to use jpeg for reference is a good one . Like it or not.

If you shoot for jpg, raw will suffer. if you shoot for raw, jpg will suffer. Shooting for both does little to nothing for you.

Example:



Bad/boring image? Raw or jpg?

BOTH !

Agreed! But it was intentional. If I had shot for jpg/appearance - it would look much better. But since I was shooting for maximum sensor performance (I think I actually could have pushed more to the right), I was willing to let the initial capture look flat and boring.

End result:



Nothing was blown, nothing was blocked. If jpg, I would have had to underexpose by about 1.5 stops to avoid blowing the bright parts of the sky and would have blocked my shadows and ended up with more noise.

This second image is from the same file after some post processing. Admittedly, I applied a bi-color filter. Sorry, I don't have a version without right now. But other than that bi-color filter, this is pretty much the look of the original scene. I nearly go struck by lightning before I got back to my car.

The point? I didn't shoot for jpg which would have looked more like the second image. I shot for maximum performance of my sensor knowing what I could do with it later. If you shoot for jpg, you get something more like the second image but it will be more noisy and lack the latitude for pushing/pulling etc. Shoot for RAW and you will have the cleanest image possible and the headroom to make a whole lot more adjustment.

So you can make one exposure even if shooting jpg +RAW - which one will it be? Maximize your sensor's abilities? Get a compromised but good looking OOC image? Can't do both in one shot.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

and all of this to protect some details in highlights that makes the image look more unnatural than if they are blown by purpose like this for example ? I don't understand what this have to do with expose for RAW. you mean overexpose is the same as expose for raw ?











--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

<<Snip>>

So you can make one exposure even if shooting jpg +RAW - which one will it be? Maximize your sensor's abilities? Get a compromised but good looking OOC image? Can't do both in one shot.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

and all of this to protect some details in highlights that makes the image look more unnatural than if they are blown by purpose like this for example ? I don't understand what this have to do with expose for RAW. you mean overexpose is the same as expose for raw ?



--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

You might want to read Exposure Vs Brightening to learn why exposure settings for raw files are usually different than exposure settings for OOC JPEG images. The big advantage to shooting RAW + JPEG(Fine) is the higher quality JPEG to chimp focus accuracy on the playback. In that case the raw shooter will set the camera for maximum raw file data, usually giving an "overexposed" look in the playback (and on the default conversion image). That is why you use different settings to get a good OOC JPEG vs a good raw file.

--
Tom
The best part of growing old is having the opportunity to do so.

Brtthome's Blog

photos, prose, prattle and possibilities

brtthome.wordpress.com

 

[Mark S Abeln]

All raw converters, as far as I know, will read the white balance settings of the camera.

Only the manufacturer's own converters will honor the saturation, contrast, and sharpness settings. So View NX2 will read those settings from my Nikon cameras but Adobe software will not.

Not true.

Dcraw do use the Jpeg settings so if using a photomanager like digikam that is based on dcraw the procedure will be as easy as to import a jpeg. No additional settings need to be made.

For editors based on dcraw they can choose to ignore the jpeg settings ofcourse. That is the whole point of a raw editor.

I took a look at the dcraw.c source code, and it doesn't appear to use much of the metadata at all, at least for Nikon cameras. Certainly not stuff like sharpness and saturation.

 

[cookedraw]

stevo23, post: 57482664, member: 1136758"]

<<Snip>>

So you can make one exposure even if shooting jpg +RAW - which one will it be? Maximize your sensor's abilities? Get a compromised but good looking OOC image? Can't do both in one shot.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

and all of this to protect some details in highlights that makes the image look more unnatural than if they are blown by purpose like this for example ? I don't understand what this have to do with expose for RAW. you mean overexpose is the same as expose for raw ?



--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

You might want to read Exposure Vs Brightening to learn why exposure settings for raw files are usually different than exposure settings for OOC JPEG images. The big advantage to shooting RAW + JPEG(Fine) is the higher quality JPEG to chimp focus accuracy on the playback. In that case the raw shooter will set the camera for maximum raw file data, usually giving an "overexposed" look in the playback (and on the default conversion image). That is why you use different settings to get a good OOC JPEG vs a good raw file.

--
Tom
The best part of growing old is having the opportunity to do so.
https://brtthome.wordpress.com/

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

[/QUOTE]

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

<<Snip>>

So you can make one exposure even if shooting jpg +RAW - which one will it be? Maximize your sensor's abilities? Get a compromised but good looking OOC image? Can't do both in one shot.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

and all of this to protect some details in highlights that makes the image look more unnatural than if they are blown by purpose like this for example ? I don't understand what this have to do with expose for RAW. you mean overexpose is the same as expose for raw ?



--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

You might want to read Exposure Vs Brightening to learn why exposure settings for raw files are usually different than exposure settings for OOC JPEG images. The big advantage to shooting RAW + JPEG(Fine) is the higher quality JPEG to chimp focus accuracy on the playback. In that case the raw shooter will set the camera for maximum raw file data, usually giving an "overexposed" look in the playback (and on the default conversion image). That is why you use different settings to get a good OOC JPEG vs a good raw file.

--
Tom
The best part of growing old is having the opportunity to do so.
https://brtthome.wordpress.com/

PS to Cookedraw: I just came across Richard Butler's post explaining that DPR changed their exposure protocol when shooting raw compared to when shooting JPEG.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57482508

"We changed the system we use for exposure some years ago. Older cameras will have Raw files shot with whatever exposure was required to give the correct JPEG brightness. More recent ones are shot at standardized settings (with the illumination level dropped when the shutter can't operate fast enough to cope with the full 10EV setting).

"Looking at it, it appears the Df was one of the last cameras to be shot under the old system, so the exposure was darker at the point of capture than the D4S."

--
Tom
The best part of growing old is having the opportunity to do so.

Brtthome's Blog

photos, prose, prattle and possibilities

brtthome.wordpress.com

 

[stevo23]

any good answers last time you asked the exact same thing here (some 10 months or so ago)? Is there something about the word "search" that causes anxiety?

--
http://mike.bing-photography.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/newmikey/
http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/johnmichael-bing.html

Maybe the OP is engaged in some sort of wishful thinking.

Here is some free advice. FREE!! Should you choose to make a RAW file of a photograph that you take, do yourself a favour and at the same time, have the camera encode a JPEG image, too.

You can refer to the JPEG image to ensure that the finished image that you 'process' is at least authentic to the original scene, which you can rely upon the in-camera JPEG to verify.

Or, take LSD and have fun! But, if your photograph looks like it came out of a candy store, remember to call it 'art.'

Or better yet, understand the difference between shooting for RAW and shooting for JPG and why the above advice isn't helpful.

Or understand the differences yourself.

The advice to use jpeg for reference is a good one . Like it or not.

If you shoot for jpg, raw will suffer. if you shoot for raw, jpg will suffer. Shooting for both does little to nothing for you.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

and all of this to protect some details in highlights that makes the image look more unnatural than if they are blown by purpose like this for example ?

How do you know? You weren't there!

I don't understand what this have to do with expose for RAW. you mean overexpose is the same as expose for raw ?

So I'm not preaching to the choir. You don't know.

Is there really such a thing as overexpose or underexpose any more?

If we can't get past that, there's no hope for you.

 

[stevo23]

I don't know if all of this hold up very good really. You can do plenty of unnatural stuff with JPEG.

This is not even full res or more than half assed try.

Also you did raise the shadows so much so light shines from ground towards the sky yet you say that this was how it looked like.

The bottoms of the cars were not in shadow. I raised them to look like they did in the shot.

I would like to know how a not overexposed photo of the scene would have looked like before I make any conclusions.

You're proving that you're clueless. But worse than that, not willing to learn. Clueless and unwilling to learn is a bad combination.

The point isn't about "not overexposed" vs "overexposed".

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

stevo23, post: 57482690, member: 1595507"]

<<Snip>>

So you can make one exposure even if shooting jpg +RAW - which one will it be? Maximize your sensor's abilities? Get a compromised but good looking OOC image? Can't do both in one shot.

Am I preaching to the choir? Surely you know this.

and all of this to protect some details in highlights that makes the image look more unnatural than if they are blown by purpose like this for example ? I don't understand what this have to do with expose for RAW. you mean overexpose is the same as expose for raw ?



--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

You might want to read Exposure Vs Brightening to learn why exposure settings for raw files are usually different than exposure settings for OOC JPEG images. The big advantage to shooting RAW + JPEG(Fine) is the higher quality JPEG to chimp focus accuracy on the playback. In that case the raw shooter will set the camera for maximum raw file data, usually giving an "overexposed" look in the playback (and on the default conversion image). That is why you use different settings to get a good OOC JPEG vs a good raw file.

--
Tom
The best part of growing old is having the opportunity to do so.
https://brtthome.wordpress.com/

--
" Use the shutter button on the headset cord " - Leonardo Da Vinci

--
Tom
The best part of growing old is having the opportunity to do so.

Brtthome's Blog

photos, prose, prattle and possibilities

brtthome.wordpress.com