Raw v. Jpeg

[Susan S.]

Thanks for sharing your experience. I agree that there is no point using JPEG's if you don't get the white balance correct at the outset - which is why I too use custom white balance on nearly all shots unless AWB will clearly suffice.

I try to bypass the noise reduction issue by staying at the lowest possible ISO's. Do you find the G11's noise reduction detail loss at low ISO's objectionable?

Your NR workflow sets an admirably high standard, but for me (just my opinion) falls into the category of time I would rather spend taking photos, so I compromise.

text snipped

John TF

I'm still trying to decide whether I can live with the noise reduction at ISO 80 and 100 in jpegs. I'd just shoot RAW plus jpeg until I worked it out, but if you do that you can no longer reduce the sharpening and contrast in the jpegs and the default level of sharpening is way too high for my tastes.

The other thing that DPP does better (and it does very much better) than the jpeg processor in camera is chromatic aberration and purple fringing correction. The way that DPP deals with it is nothing short of miraculous. I was shooting jacaranda blossom against a grey sky this morning (in the rain!) and the jpegs had purple fringing from hell along the branches (it was a real torture test for the camera) and noticeble red/cyan chromatic aberration along the picket fence. The DPP processed RAWs had virtually none. While it's possible to remove the purple fringing from the jpegs it's a bit tiresometo have to do it. (the red/cyan CA is much easier with the photoshop lens distort filter)
--
Some of the least worse of my photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/susans/

 

[plumcrazy20]

Come on folks...all the power is in Raw....anyone can make any Raw pic look exactly like any jpeg out of the camera....but you can NOT make the Jpeg pic do what you can with the Raw....you have FAR more latitude with the Raw.

As a generalization for DSLR's, I agree. But for G11, maybe not. (See my previous post in this thread for the argument).

To me it's like comparing apples to oranges...not even the same thing.
George

I did compare them for the G11 and they are both apples.

--
John TF

I do not own the G11 but....it does not matter if it is the G22....in camera Jpegs tosses out what the mfg opts to get rid of and leaves in what they want to leave in....Raw leaves that up to the user!!!! Why would you not want total control? If you like what the Jpeg looks like you can do that from Raw but...if you want a different look than the Jpeg you might not be able to do that because the in camera processing tossed out some of the pic info you need.
No way Raw and Jpeg is apples to apples no matter what camera you use.
As usual...ymmv
George

 

[SDRebel]

If I am reading the manual correctly, the S90 RAW files run about 12megs each. That's in fact my experience.

I don't shoot using jpg, but the manual says that the jpg files run about 3megs each.

The jpg compression formula is pretty fantastic. That's why the format is so popular. Nevertheless, I like the idea of having all 12megs of the data the camera recorded.

I happen to process initially in Lightroom. This program for the sake of processing doesn't distinguish between RAW and jpg unlike, say, Photoshop where every RAW file has to be opened individually.

To me the other reason I like RAW is that I don't have to think about white balance because I can't get it wrong in RAW.

Quite obviously shooting in jpg can produce photographs as good as those shot in RAW.

But, given my work flow -- I just came back from Indian country with several thousand photos taken at various pueblos and other sites -- and the use of Lightroom, I can't imagine any advantage for me to shoot in jpg. However, I often encounter situations in which I enjoy using the full latitude of processing choices availiable in RAW files.

In fact I bought the S90 because it offered RAW and I've found that it is a fabulous companion to my 1Ds3; athough, it is no substitute.

 

[plumcrazy20]

If I am reading the manual correctly, the S90 RAW files run about 12megs each. That's in fact my experience.

I don't shoot using jpg, but the manual says that the jpg files run about 3megs each.

The jpg compression formula is pretty fantastic. That's why the format is so popular. Nevertheless, I like the idea of having all 12megs of the data the camera recorded.

I happen to process initially in Lightroom. This program for the sake of processing doesn't distinguish between RAW and jpg unlike, say, Photoshop where every RAW file has to be opened individually.

To me the other reason I like RAW is that I don't have to think about white balance because I can't get it wrong in RAW.

Quite obviously shooting in jpg can produce photographs as good as those shot in RAW.

But, given my work flow -- I just came back from Indian country with several thousand photos taken at various pueblos and other sites -- and the use of Lightroom, I can't imagine any advantage for me to shoot in jpg. However, I often encounter situations in which I enjoy using the full latitude of processing choices availiable in RAW files.

In fact I bought the S90 because it offered RAW and I've found that it is a fabulous companion to my 1Ds3; athough, it is no substitute.

Exactly...comparing Raw and Jpeg is really no comparison. Once one learns what can be done to Raw files as opposed to Jpegs...they more often than not will never use Jpeg mode again. Jpeg is FAR more limiting than Raw.
George

 

[John TF]

Come on folks...all the power is in Raw....anyone can make any Raw pic look exactly like any jpeg out of the camera....but you can NOT make the Jpeg pic do what you can with the Raw....you have FAR more latitude with the Raw.

As a generalization for DSLR's, I agree. But for G11, maybe not. (See my previous post in this thread for the argument).

To me it's like comparing apples to oranges...not even the same thing.
George

I did compare them for the G11 and they are both apples.

--
John TF

I do not own the G11 but....it does not matter if it is the G22....in camera Jpegs tosses out what the mfg opts to get rid of and leaves in what they want to leave in....Raw leaves that up to the user!!!! Why would you not want total control?

Because, as Digart points out, the mfg knows his camera inside and out. If he chooses well, and in our interest, we may not be able to improve on it. That has been the experience of several with the G11. A lot of time and effort for little gain.

If you like what the Jpeg looks like you can do that from Raw

(possibly - see above)

but...if you want a different look than the Jpeg you might not be able to do that because the in camera processing tossed out some of the pic info you need.

I would have agreed with you before I started using software that supports powerful modifications of JPEG files, the same modifications you would be making on RAW files.

The pic info being discarded (I am guessing here): 16-bit -> 8-bit (which may not matter for a real-world, well-exposed image), and color resolution due to binning in the interest of compression. In a high-quality JPEG, this loss of color resolution is not visible (in my experience at least). My ignorance - I don't know what additional info that is being thrown out to generate a JPEG from a RAW. Can you help?

No way Raw and Jpeg is apples to apples no matter what camera you use.
As usual...ymmv
George

--
John TF

 

[John TF]

If I am reading the manual correctly, the S90 RAW files run about 12megs each. That's in fact my experience.

I don't shoot using jpg, but the manual says that the jpg files run about 3megs each.

The jpg compression formula is pretty fantastic. That's why the format is so popular. Nevertheless, I like the idea of having all 12megs of the data the camera recorded.

Size doesn't equate with quality. To illustrate this point, consider an extreme situation - an image where every pixel is 128, 128, 128. The RAW file would be its usual size. The JPEG would be tiny, yet both would contain exactly the same information. On conversion they would be visually indistinguishable. Less extreme situation - a high quality JPEG can be nearly lossless, and whatever it does give up is not visible.

I happen to process initially in Lightroom. This program for the sake of processing doesn't distinguish between RAW and jpg unlike, say, Photoshop where every RAW file has to be opened individually.

To me the other reason I like RAW is that I don't have to think about white balance because I can't get it wrong in RAW.

Use Lightroom to adjust JPEG WB Temperature/Tint, just as you would with RAW. That way, you can't get it wrong in JPEG either, unless you want to use the camera's specific presets (Tungsten, etc). (Am I out to lunch here? I've just started using Lightroom, so cut me some slack).

Quite obviously shooting in jpg can produce photographs as good as those shot in RAW.

But, given my work flow -- I just came back from Indian country with several thousand photos taken at various pueblos and other sites -- and the use of Lightroom, I can't imagine any advantage for me to shoot in jpg. However, I often encounter situations in which I enjoy using the full latitude of processing choices availiable in RAW files.

I don't understand. Why is it easier to import a bunch of RAW files than a bunch of JPEG files? What Lightroom latitude do you get with RAW that you wouldn't get with JPEG?

In fact I bought the S90 because it offered RAW and I've found that it is a fabulous companion to my 1Ds3; athough, it is no substitute.

Thanks for your input.
--
John TF

 

[plumcrazy20]

Come on folks...all the power is in Raw....anyone can make any Raw pic look exactly like any jpeg out of the camera....but you can NOT make the Jpeg pic do what you can with the Raw....you have FAR more latitude with the Raw.

As a generalization for DSLR's, I agree. But for G11, maybe not. (See my previous post in this thread for the argument).

To me it's like comparing apples to oranges...not even the same thing.
George

I did compare them for the G11 and they are both apples.

--
John TF

I do not own the G11 but....it does not matter if it is the G22....in camera Jpegs tosses out what the mfg opts to get rid of and leaves in what they want to leave in....Raw leaves that up to the user!!!! Why would you not want total control?

Because, as Digart points out, the mfg knows his camera inside and out. If he chooses well, and in our interest, we may not be able to improve on it. That has been the experience of several with the G11. A lot of time and effort for little gain.

If you like what the Jpeg looks like you can do that from Raw

(possibly - see above)

but...if you want a different look than the Jpeg you might not be able to do that because the in camera processing tossed out some of the pic info you need.

I would have agreed with you before I started using software that supports powerful modifications of JPEG files, the same modifications you would be making on RAW files.

The pic info being discarded (I am guessing here): 16-bit -> 8-bit (which may not matter for a real-world, well-exposed image), and color resolution due to binning in the interest of compression. In a high-quality JPEG, this loss of color resolution is not visible (in my experience at least). My ignorance - I don't know what additional info that is being thrown out to generate a JPEG from a RAW. Can you help?

No way Raw and Jpeg is apples to apples no matter what camera you use.
As usual...ymmv
George

--
John TF

Your quote....."Because, as Digart points out, the mfg knows his camera inside and out. If he chooses well, and in our interest, we may not be able to improve on it. That has been the experience of several with the G11. A lot of time and effort for little gain."

Again...you are letting the mfg make the choices for you...in your words..."If he chooses well"....what if "he" chooses different than you would? Raw will let "YOU" make all the choices...not the mfg. As far as your..."we may not be able to improve on it."......in the THOUSANDS of pics I have taken, I could improve most all of them over the mfg.

Bottom line...why not take ALL the pp out of the mfg hands and put it in the hands of the photographer that took the pic? I would not let YOU decide how MY pic is supposed to look any more than the person who made my camera.
George

 

[SDRebel]

Using Lightroom importing jpg or RAW is equally simple. With some other programs, importing RAW files requires additional time and effort. With those programs, batch importing jpg files is much easier.

Again, with Lightroom the format is irrelevant.

As for processing, as you point out, the differences in options don't appear to be substantial as most processing options appear to be the same. However, the scale used and the presets for white balance are quite difference. Is the difference substantive? I don't know.

If you make a dramatice mistake setting white balance for a jpg, can you recover in the course of processing? I don't know because since I shoot RAW it is never a problem for me.

The bottom line is that I haven't come across any reason for me to shoot jpgs as opposed to RAW. But then I'm not shooting sports and don't otherwise need to minimize my file size to maximize my burst speed.

So I shoot RAW and that is what I suggest to others -- depending on their post processing software.

 

[p3p]

You have to wonder also, what makes the best picture, it depends on the various interpretations you can give to a picture, and I would say that RAW gives you a wider margin to get e better on adjustments. I find myslf somtimes doing various versions of pictures I like, including, B&W, etc.

I prefer RAW most of the time, unless I have to deliver the pictures on the run for printing, etc. Sometimes also you can shoot JPG+Raw, and If JPG is good enough, ok, otherwise process the raw version.

 

[rennie12]

actually learn about it. Probably dpreview has a good description of RAW and its purpose; Luminous-Landscape.com certainly does.

Its not worth going into detail but the basic reason for shooting in RAW is that ANY processing done in the camera is done and can never be undone. RAW is like a negative, it is always there and can be reworked over and over to make those 10 special images a year sing - where you want more than jpg gave you.

I have the G11; I dont know if the S90 does this - but the G11 can take a RAW image WITH a full size JPG at the same time. (Of course at the same time - since ALL jpgs are extracted from a RAW image; many cheap cameras just throw the RAW image out at that point. But it was there or there could be no jpg). . .

The only handicap I can see is that it is slightly slower with the G11 - plenty fast enough for me, though.

BTW, in todays world if you can't afford a large card or a computer with enough hard disk space to use the RAW plus JPG option, you are kidding yourself and can't really afford the S90 or G11. . . IMHO.
--
Bill Wilson

 

[Schnake]

Canon engineers & their marketing department are reading this and will opt to leave RAW out on their next range of high end compacts as you're all giving JPEG's such a good rap and feel RAW is not worth it.

So in 12 months time don't complain about lack of RAW.

 

[John TF]

Using Lightroom importing jpg or RAW is equally simple. With some other programs, importing RAW files requires additional time and effort. With those programs, batch importing jpg files is much easier.

Again, with Lightroom the format is irrelevant.

As for processing, as you point out, the differences in options don't appear to be substantial as most processing options appear to be the same. However, the scale used and the presets for white balance are quite difference. Is the difference substantive? I don't know.

I think that is the key issue. We simply don't know at the outset whether the decisions and compromises inherent in any particular JPEG file will make a substantive difference, and so it is safer to go with RAW. Not necessarily better, but safer. Some images would undoubtedly do fine as JPEG, especially if you intend minimal PP (see Marco Nero's JPEG's). Others maybe not.

In my experience (very limited to date) the major difference boils down to the "look" Canon chooses to give the JPEG image vs. the "look" that Lightroom gives the RAW image at import. As others have pointed out, there is no such thing as an absolute method to translate numbers to color - it necessarily involves subjective judgment. So unless you are hooked on the Canon color scheme, why lock into Canon's JPEG color? (Although you aren't really locked in at all).

If you make a dramatic mistake setting white balance for a jpg, can you recover in the course of processing? I don't know because since I shoot RAW it is never a problem for me.

Apparently you can revert to some version of AWB, but that is all (at least in Lightroom). Of course you can reset the Temperature/Tint to your heart's delight.

The bottom line is that I haven't come across any reason for me to shoot jpgs as opposed to RAW. But then I'm not shooting sports and don't otherwise need to minimize my file size to maximize my burst speed.

So I shoot RAW and that is what I suggest to others -- depending on their post processing software.

Others have argued that Canon knows the camera better than you or I do, so the quality of the JPEG rendition may be hard to equal or surpass using RAW. And that the JPEG requires less potenially futile fussing. So use JPEG and get the optimum at the outset.

But that means buying into Canon JPEG colors, at least as a starting point. As for time and effort, Lightroom has changed the equation, as you point out - importing RAW is as easy as opening JPEG. And there is that nagging uncertainty/fear that the JPEG file MIGHT prove limiting in a critical way. So use RAW and leave your options open.

Lightroom 2.6 RC G11 default colors on RAW conversion please me - they don't appear to be particularly Canon-centric. So that may leave me without any reason to favor G11 JPEG.

Please note that I am beginning to switch sides here and am arguing for RAW(!).

But that's OK. Thanks for a very helpful thread.

--
John TF

 

[John TF]

I looked up some of the details of what happens when a JPEG is generated from a parent RAW image. The transformation of the numbers is considerably more extensive and subtle than I realized. So you really are moving away from the RAW data, not just cleverly summarizing it. In a high quality JPEG these changes are barely visible. But they MIGHT be critically limiting in some PP operation.

As I said elsewhere, I think this is the key issue - the uncertainty (or fear) that any particular JPEG might not be up to snuff -> gotcha. Even though in most instances the JPEG might be fine, you never know. So use RAW and be safe.

--
John TF

 

[John TF]

Canon engineers & their marketing department are reading this and will opt to leave RAW out on their next range of high end compacts as you're all giving JPEG's such a good rap and feel RAW is not worth it.

So in 12 months time don't complain about lack of RAW.

Fortunately (?) Canon claims not to read DPR.

In any case RAW has a substantial mystique, and will sell cameras regardless of the JPEG IQ. Look at the MP race as a similar example. So have no fear, Canon will implement RAW.

--
John TF

 

[DianeR]

I'm sure anyone who shot with film remembers what happened to that "gorgeous sunset" with the dark sky, light falling just right on the clouds, etc. turned out when sent to your run-of-the-mill lab. Not AT ALL what you saw because the equipment was set to expose the roll of film at an "average" exposure which was applied to ALL of the prints. So much for that "special" shot. The only way around this result was to send to custom labs or set up your own darkroom and do it yourself. Bingo, you got what you saw. That explains, to my mind, exactly what the difference is between jpeg and raw only now, I don't have to mess with chemicals and a dark room for hours on end. Easy decision for me to use raw/jpeg selection in my G-11 so that "custom processing" is always available. Likewise always use raw in DSLR. Adobe has just made available an updated (beta I think) ACR that works with the G-11 raws so if you've been comparing DPP with the "old" ACR conversion software, maybe DPP is not "better". Interesting thread.

Bottom line...why not take ALL the pp out of the mfg hands and put it in the hands of the photographer that took the pic? I would not let YOU decide how MY pic is supposed to look any more than the person who made my camera.
George

--
DianeR
http://www.pbase.com/ramseyd

 

[John TF]

I'm sure anyone who shot with film remembers what happened to that "gorgeous sunset" with the dark sky, light falling just right on the clouds, etc. turned out when sent to your run-of-the-mill lab. Not AT ALL what you saw because the equipment was set to expose the roll of film at an "average" exposure which was applied to ALL of the prints. So much for that "special" shot. The only way around this result was to send to custom labs or set up your own darkroom and do it yourself. Bingo, you got what you saw. That explains, to my mind, exactly what the difference is between jpeg and raw only now, I don't have to mess with chemicals and a dark room for hours on end. Easy decision for me to use raw/jpeg selection in my G-11 so that "custom processing" is always available. Likewise always use raw in DSLR. Adobe has just made available an updated (beta I think) ACR that works with the G-11 raws so if you've been comparing DPP with the "old" ACR conversion software, maybe DPP is not "better". Interesting thread.

I agree 100% with the need for custom processing.

Its just that Lightroom offers the same custom processing regardless of the format, RAW or JPEG, so the choice doesn't seem to be black and white.

Well, not entirely. More WB options for RAW, and useful ones.

Bottom line...why not take ALL the pp out of the mfg hands and put it in the hands of the photographer that took the pic? I would not let YOU decide how MY pic is supposed to look any more than the person who made my camera.
George

--
DianeR
http://www.pbase.com/ramseyd

--
John TF

 

[Mel7]

It is worth noting that RAW files contain a Thumbnail JPEG and that is what you view in LR if Standard Previews are used. If you work in Develop, the LR "loads" the RAW file applying some default processes to what you see, but doesn't change the RAW file. What you see "in the camera" after shooting a RAW image is the Thumbnail and is the Thumbnail equivalent of the JPEG with the selections you made if you would shoot only JPEG or RAW+JPEG. [I may be slightly wrong but close

The Wikipedia has a good writeup on RAW.

 

[John TF]

It is worth noting that RAW files contain a Thumbnail JPEG and that is what you view in LR if Standard Previews are used. If you work in Develop, the LR "loads" the RAW file applying some default processes to what you see, but doesn't change the RAW file. What you see "in the camera" after shooting a RAW image is the Thumbnail and is the Thumbnail equivalent of the JPEG with the selections you made if you would shoot only JPEG or RAW+JPEG. [I may be slightly wrong but close

The Wikipedia has a good writeup on RAW.

Thanks. Good to know.

--
John TF

 

[pdxpix]

Here's another reason for shooting RAW. It gives life to older cameras that have RAW capability, but whose internal JPG engines have been updated since production.

I still own and use a Canon S45, which had the guts and features of the G3. Yes, it is "only" a 4.0 MP sensor, but it contains features found today on the G11, including full manual controls and ability to shoot RAW.

The S45 has the Digic II processor, since surpassed by the Digic III and Digic IV. But both DPP and PSE 8.0 can open the older CRW RAW files and breathe new life into those files that the Digic II could not.

I have looked long and hard at the G11 and S90, but I am having a blast using a six-year old 4.0 MP camera, shooting RAW and "developing" the images using 2009-2010 software. The ability of the S45 (and later models) to shoot RAW extends the useful life of those cameras far beyond what they could fetch today on EBay.
--
40D, 17-55 f/2.8 IS, 50 f/1.4, 70-200 f/4L IS, 430EX and trusty S45

 

[bjmike]

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