JPEG vs RAW

[Skipper494]

Shoot RAW, transfer the files to a folder of your creation in Windows Explorer (eg Fuji2016-March-RAW), use the camera manufacturer's converter to go to 16-bit tiff and save in another folder of your creation (eg Fuji2016-March), process those to suite in whatever program you like, even free FastStone, sometimes they may require no processing, but I usually sharpen a little, bring up the shadows maybe. After processing, save them in the same folder as the tiffs, as xxxxa.tif.

My folders look like this:

Fuji X-E2

2016

Feb-2016

Feb-RAW

 

[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.

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

Dave

Ha ha. Nice one.

And perhaps a clue here, and I shoudl have looked before, is that cookedraw is a newbie opens his mouth before thinking. Classic evidence of a re-spawned troll.

 

[cookedraw]

sorry. maybe I am stupid but what you suggest is that one should set the camera to raw and overexpose if the goal is to change direction of the light in photoshop.

This have very little to do with photography and for people shooting raw+jpeg portraits etc.

I think it is very bad advice to overexpose and edit like this in photoshop so how you can imagine that ETTR and remove shadows in photoshop is universal truth for raw+jpeg is beyond my understanding.

I can't be convinced either because contrast is first priority for me so no special overexposing mode for raw+jpeg for me. You can keep overexposing ofcourse. enjoy.

 

[stevo23]

sorry. maybe I am stupid but what you suggest is that one should set the camera to raw and overexpose if the goal is to change direction of the light in photoshop.

This have very little to do with photography and for people shooting raw+jpeg portraits etc.

I think it is very bad advice to overexpose and edit like this in photoshop so how you can imagine that ETTR and remove shadows in photoshop is universal truth for raw+jpeg is beyond my understanding.

I can't be convinced either because contrast is first priority for me so no special overexposing mode for raw+jpeg for me. You can keep overexposing ofcourse. enjoy.

In other words, you are unwilling to listen or learn.

But you are willing to hijack the thread of a person who seems willing to learn.

Who were you before you became "cookedraw"? I'm always curious what respawning does to people - or if people really don't change their stripes.

 

[cookedraw]

ok stevo I leave thread for your sake then.

I did not first post a boring photo without any contrast and then an even worse manipulation of the same photo to proove that raw files should be overexposed. You got sensordust in left upper corner btw.

I suggest people take good photos with best quality JPEG+raw and try to capture nature as it is.

like this in camera jpeg.

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

sorry. maybe I am stupid

You said it.

but what you suggest is that one should set the camera to raw and overexpose if the goal is to change direction of the light in photoshop.

What? ... "change direction of the light in photoshop" ? This is incomprehensible.

This have very little to do with photography and for people shooting raw+jpeg portraits etc.

As I said, people who know what they are doing usually shoot raw + JPEG (fine) to get a bigger JPEG to evaluate focus when chimping.

Sometimes beginners shoot raw + JPEG (fine) and use the raw as a back-up. In that case they would set the camera up for JPEG shooting.

Sometimes they use the JPEGs as confirmation.... not a very good idea .... because the OOC JPEG is often mis-exposed if the raw file is optimized.

I think it is very bad advice to overexpose and edit like this in photoshop so how you can imagine that ETTR and remove shadows in photoshop is universal truth for raw+jpeg is beyond my understanding.

All you have to do is read and listen. Then at least you wouldn't spread such gibberish on this forum where the OP is asking serious questions and expects competent answers. If you cannot give competent advice perhaps it would be better for you not to contribute until you learn a bit more.

I can't be convinced either because contrast is first priority for me so no special overexposing mode for raw+jpeg for me. You can keep overexposing ofcourse. enjoy.

Obviously you cannot be convinced of anything useful. When you are ready, read Exposure vs Brightening .

I hope that this will help you to give better advice to beginning photographers.

 

[stevo23]

ok stevo I leave thread for your sake then.

You're cooked.

 

[Aaron801]

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?

 

[Tatouzou]

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 employe ... so what is the likelyhood of getting better images from RAW compared to JPEG?

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

what is the likelyhood of better end result?

is a convert for dummies available?

any input is welcome

Happy Easter

sten

This is an endless debate.

The first reply by Gerry Winterbourned summed it up.

But as you are in a geeks forum, you will get endless replies.

I went 10 years ag through the same path that you do now.

I began shooting digital with a high end compact, next with a DSLR. I have been quite happy with JPEGs for years: 90% of the pictures on my Flickr account were shot in JPEG.

The JPEG engine in high end cameras produces most often good pictures, much better that what film cameras produced for the average shooter.

And you can easily improve them in post production in your computer, either by using the free software supplied by the manufacture or a free shareware.

What is generally nice when using the software bundled with your camera is that the commands use the same designation as the in-camera settings.

Pro and enthousiast shooters prefer using dedicated softwares, like Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Photoshop, Capture one or DXO, because they offer more sophisticated tools, such as lens correction profiles, the ability to develop custom user's profiles, batch processing, and advanced browsers. They also appreciate that these softwares operate the same way with any camera they use, whatever the brand, and many of them have at least two or more very different cameras.

That is the way I do now that I feel at ease with PP softwares, I use Lightroom, it took me months to master it, but it was worth it.

But you dont need to go this way to begin to enjoy your new camera, which, I understand, might be a Panasonic TZ100.

It is a high end 1" compact, which should produce excellent JPEGs up to ISO 1600, and is able to save your picture in JPEG+RAW.

Which means you can choose later which one you will use. That is what I do more often now, it allows me to use only the JPEG most of the time and only process the RAW when I am not happy with the JPEG.

I suggest you do the same or even begin by shooting JPEG only until you feel the need to go further than what you can do in JPEGs.

Shooting JPEG+RAW for what you feel will be important shots or difficult lighting conditions, you will still have the RAW available in a few years, once your skills will have improved. And when processing the RAW, having the JPEG at hand may help you to find your preferred settings.

You will also discover that the JPEG engine in your camera can be customized to your taste, and often allows you to choose different profiles adapted to different scenes (landscapes, portrait, bright or natural colours, soft or sharp contrast, and so on.

The most important improvements you can bring to your pictures in post production is the framing, and of course this is true for both JPEG and RAW.

JPEG also allow you to change the colour balance, contrast, highllights, shadows and sharpening. It works the same as in RAW, the only difference is that the possible changes will be more limited, but you will be impressed to see how much this can improve the final appeal of your pictures.

Enjoy your camera, it must be a pleasure, and remember that the most important is to choose the right scene to shoot, with the right angle of view, the right framing, and the right moment to press the shutter.

Modern camera do a lot by themselve, thus today's photography iis not about technics, it is about looking around and select what is worth a photo.

These videos will show you how skilled pro photographer can shoot interesting pictures even with toy cameras which, of course, cannot save in raw....

Loading…

www.youtube.com

 

[Joseph T Lewis III]

My perspective on this is that when shooting JPG one exposes for the visual, but shooting RAW one exposes for the sensor's best potential with intentions of developing the visual in post.

Bob

I understand conceptually what you mean in your above comment, but I'm having trouble translating it into specific actions to take with my camera beyond what I do today. When I shoot RAW with my E-M1 I always try to get the image well composed, properly exposed, shutter speed high enough to avoid hand shake, ISO low enough to avoid excessive noise, etc. What else should I be doing with my camera so as to create RAW files that take advantage of the sensor's potential? ETTR? Anything else?

Sorry if this is a naive question, but I am kind of drawing a blank on this one. I know that some of the JPG settings one makes in the camera either don't apply or can easily be redone when processing RAW files (e.g., WB or warm colors), but I really hadn't thought of specific actions to take / settings to use, to maximize the benefits of shooting RAW.

I did Google around before making this post, but all it resulted in were lots of posts about the benefits of RAW.

Thanks to you or anyone else who can help with this. I sincerely appreciate it.

 

[Tony Beach]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

 

[Charles McRobert]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

 

[Tony Beach]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

With proper white balance and exposure settings, why would it not be authentic to the original scene?

Levels of saturation, contrast, and color profiles play a role. Can you point to a film emulsion that was "authentic to the original scene?"

Besides that, there is no such thing as "authentic to the original scene." More importantly, "authentic to the original scene" is a recipe for boring photographs. Should we always photograph from a standing or sitting position? Should we only use "normal" lenses and not use telephoto, wide-angle, or macro lenses? Should we never use shutter speeds that are too fast or too slow? Should we not use shallow DOF?

 

[Aaron801]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

With proper white balance and exposure settings, why would it not be authentic to the original scene?

Levels of saturation, contrast, and color profiles play a role. Can you point to a film emulsion that was "authentic to the original scene?"

Besides that, there is no such thing as "authentic to the original scene." More importantly, "authentic to the original scene" is a recipe for boring photographs. Should we always photograph from a standing or sitting position? Should we only use "normal" lenses and not use telephoto, wide-angle, or macro lenses? Should we never use shutter speeds that are too fast or too slow? Should we not use shallow DOF?

I agree 100%. We can interpret the scene we photograph in all kinds of ways and the will still come across to the viewer as something that looks very plausible. It's much more interesting, I think to make the image look like our impression of it rather than attempting to make a literal copy of what we saw. Trying to do so is a fool's game anyway because we just don't see how a camera sees.

I do think there is a certain kind of photography that's got over-saturated, exaggerated colors, lacks shadows, etc that's a kind of cliche and that we recognize as a bit "fake," but we can interpret the image a great deal before it ends up having this kind of effect...

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

My perspective on this is that when shooting JPG one exposes for the visual, but shooting RAW one exposes for the sensor's best potential with intentions of developing the visual in post.

I understand conceptually what you mean in your above comment, but I'm having trouble translating it into specific actions to take with my camera beyond what I do today. When I shoot RAW with my E-M1 I always try to get the image well composed, properly exposed, shutter speed high enough to avoid hand shake, ISO low enough to avoid excessive noise, etc. What else should I be doing with my camera so as to create RAW files that take advantage of the sensor's potential? ETTR? Anything else?

You've hit it. The picture as a picture is the same however you shoot it. The significant thing about ETTR is that it yields the last possible noise in the image while preserving highlights.

If the DR of the scene is wider than your camera's JPG conversion ETTR will give a basic image that's darker than what you'd normally expect; if the DR is narrow the basic image will look lighter.

It's this fundamental difference in the philosophy of exposure that makes me advise against shooting RAW+JPG except as a very early learning tool.

I wrote at length about "correct" exposure here, but it really says little more than my brief summary above http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56560644

 

[Gerry Winterbourne]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

With proper white balance and exposure settings, why would it not be authentic to the original scene?

The sensor splits the broad spectrum of light into three bands by use of filters. This inevitably reduces the accuracy of "colours" captured. The three sets of values are then recombined through a set of algorithms that try to make the best of the inaccuracies.

Every maker uses slightly different algorithms (and even different algorithms for different models, depending on the sensor used). DPR used to include comparisons in its reviews, where you can compare such variations http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/27

No photo is ever truly "authentic"; that's true whether shot as raw or JPG. The aim of either is to get a result the photographer wants, not perfect accuracy.

 

[mahidoes]

If you want to edit i recommend shooting in RAW even though you don't know much post processing. You can use the auto and export it immediately.

 

[cookedraw]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

With proper white balance and exposure settings, why would it not be authentic to the original scene?

Levels of saturation, contrast, and color profiles play a role. Can you point to a film emulsion that was "authentic to the original scene?"

kodachrome ... but it depends on the scene ofcourse.

Besides that, there is no such thing as "authentic to the original scene." More importantly, "authentic to the original scene" is a recipe for boring photographs. Should we always photograph from a standing or sitting position? Should we only use "normal" lenses and not use telephoto, wide-angle, or macro lenses? Should we never use shutter speeds that are too fast or too slow? Should we not use shallow DOF?

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

Ofcourse the "authenticity" is limited to settings like color and contrast that are related to JPEG.

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

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Levels of saturation, contrast, and color profiles play a role. Can you point to a film emulsion that was "authentic to the original scene?"

kodachrome ... but it depends on the scene ofcourse.

Well, it is known for its luscious reds, but as it is a partially subtractive process during development, bright saturated colors quickly become muddy in midtones and shadows due to subtractive color mixing. It is rather high contrast and required careful exposure. The film is distinctive, and can lead to beautiful images, but is hardly authentic.

Actually, colorimetrically accurate digital camera profiles tend to look rather tepid, and camera makers almost inevitably saturate colors 10-15% over their 'authentic' measured values, simply because unsaturated images look inauthentic!

Besides that, there is no such thing as "authentic to the original scene." More importantly, "authentic to the original scene" is a recipe for boring photographs. Should we always photograph from a standing or sitting position? Should we only use "normal" lenses and not use telephoto, wide-angle, or macro lenses? Should we never use shutter speeds that are too fast or too slow? Should we not use shallow DOF?

Ofcourse the "authenticity" is limited to settings like color and contrast that are related to JPEG.

Calls for 'authenticity' in photography almost always come from young but somewhat advanced beginners. Also, authenticity was an important principle in the rather flawed philosophy of Existentialism. I've heard calls for the abandonment of monochrome photography because it is only relevant historically and of course is inauthentic.

Some artifice is always called for, and is ultimately inevitable, even when producing realistic documentary images. For example, capturing a realistic impression of natural tonality in a digital image sometimes calls for a severe application of local contrast enhancement, artificially altering the tonality of the highlights and shadows. Of course, application of these tools is a matter of degree and judgement: applying too much is indeed 'inauthentic' but perhaps not applying them is inauthentic also.

--
http://therefractedlight.blogspot.com

 

[GeorgianBay1939]

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.

What makes you think JPEG is "authentic to the original scene?"

With proper white balance and exposure settings, why would it not be authentic to the original scene?

The sensor splits the broad spectrum of light into three bands by use of filters. This inevitably reduces the accuracy of "colours" captured. The three sets of values are then recombined through a set of algorithms that try to make the best of the inaccuracies.

Every maker uses slightly different algorithms (and even different algorithms for different models, depending on the sensor used). DPR used to include comparisons in its reviews, where you can compare such variations http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5dmarkii/27

That is a useful link. Thanks for it.

Although 7 years old it give an interesting comparisons of cameras of that (2009) vintage. Have you (or anyone else) come across a more up-to-date set of comparisons? It clearly gives the reasons for such comments as "Olympus colours are better than Panasonic colours." etc.

This is a later (2012) expansion of the original article: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/6647569988/getting-great-colour-from-canon-picture-styles

No photo is ever truly "authentic"; that's true whether shot as raw or JPG. The aim of either is to get a result the photographer wants, not perfect accuracy.

Yes, as you and many others know, perceived images are highly dependent on the life history of the viewer as well as the physiology of human eyesight. No film or digital device can replicate the scene to give the same ("accurate") perception. So most photographers produce images ranging from "snapshots" to highly considered works of "art" to communicate visual information to the viewer. "Authenticity" is a relative term at best.