RAW vs. JPEG if exposure isn't an issue?

[Marie Meyer]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

 

[JustUs7]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

Raw let’s you change the white balance and picture style (portrait vs landscape vs fine detail, etc) non-destructively after capture.

In the end your final image will end up as a jpeg anyway, so if you feel good about non-exposure related settings, jpegs are fine.

 

[Tom Axford]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

If you are happy with the results you are getting with JPEG, then why change?

I shoot raw because it gives me the maximum flexibility if I find that I want to make changes after I have taken the shot: lightness, white balance, lifting the shadows, retrieving lost highlights, etc.

However, sometimes the SOOC JPEG is about as good as it gets and the raw serves no purpose in those cases.

 

[hotdog321]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

Jpeg would be fine. I'm a pro and shot jpegs for many years for print and web use.

I like RAW when the light sux--when it's off-color and you are fighting nasty shadows and crunchy highlights.

 

[robgendreau]

I rarely do all JPEG just because of WB. It's often hard in ambient light to check to see if there's a color cast, and with a target and raw I can almost always get it right. But there are some times I don't even care about that, and sure, a JPEG works fine.

 

[AstroVagabond]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

I always shot raw in the studio. I wanted maximum opportunity to make adjustments if necessary. And it cost me nothing additional to shoot raw.

If you have a camera why not answer the question for yourself?

 

[D Cox]

I rarely do all JPEG just because of WB. It's often hard in ambient light to check to see if there's a color cast, and with a target and raw I can almost always get it right. But there are some times I don't even care about that, and sure, a JPEG works fine.

However, you can adjust WB of a JPG too. Just make sure there is something neutral grey in one of the photos in a set. You can click on that to change the WB, and then copy that setting to the other shots.

An asphalt road surface is a good grey, but a Color Checker is better.

Very often, there is really no "correct" WB, and you can just set it to what you think looks good. Somebody else would set it differently.

Don Cox

 

[AngelFish]

Can I please add to this question. What is the advantage of saving both the RAW file and the JPEG? Why would you need the JPEG in addition?

 

[tamaraw35]

I rarely do all JPEG just because of WB. It's often hard in ambient light to check to see if there's a color cast, and with a target and raw I can almost always get it right. But there are some times I don't even care about that, and sure, a JPEG works fine.

However, you can adjust WB of a JPG too. Just make sure there is something neutral grey in one of the photos in a set. You can click on that to change the WB, and then copy that setting to the other shots.

An asphalt road surface is a good grey, but a Color Checker is better.

Very often, there is really no "correct" WB, and you can just set it to what you think looks good. Somebody else would set it differently.

Don Cox

It is possible to adjust white balance in a jpg, yes, just more work and less convenient.

 

[tamaraw35]

Can I please add to this question. What is the advantage of saving both the RAW file and the JPEG? Why would you need the JPEG in addition?

The jpg is an easily shareable or uploadable file that can be used right away.

It's also kind of like a proof or contact sheet in that it is easy to scroll through a bunch of jpg's quickly and pick out the images you want.

In some cases, the jpg may be pretty dang good and you can use it as is without bothering to open the raw file and export a copy.

I also use the original jpg as an a/b check when exporting an image from a processed raw file. That way I have a baseline to compare to and make sure the final image adjustments are an improvement vs a mistake.

 

[Deekie]

Can I please add to this question. What is the advantage of saving both the RAW file and the JPEG? Why would you need the JPEG in addition?

If you keep the RAW file you can always go back to it (time & time again) and make as many different edits as you wish, making lots of different JPEG's from the same file. The in-camera produced JPEG is just one output, based upon your particular cameras settings, which you may like & keep, or you may want to change/edit. But editing a JPEG is limited.

Post editing software produces another output, based upon its settings and your skill using the software application, as an editor.

If you keep editing the JPEG file (without saving the cameras version of the 'original') you will loose bits of information with every JPEG edit, including loss of quality, eventually to the point of the JPEG's degradation/destruction. Hence (even with a JPEG) its a good idea to always save/backup the original.

When i shoot JPEG only, i know the edits i am going to make (in post) are relatively small & limited, if any at-all.

With the RAW file you can make as many post edits as you like, experiment with different settings or preferences & visual effects, to produce as many different high quality JPEG images as you wish.

As i got to know/tweak my camera, i am generally happy with its JPEG output. However, i occasionally do need the RAW file.

So if i am working on something i know i will want to edit further than what my camera is set to deliver (with its JPEG) i have a custom button set to deliver both a RAW and JPEG file with every press of the shutter button. Both avenues are then covered - as long as i remember to press the custom button! Another option would be to set the camera to ALWAYS shoot RAW + JPEG.

If you want to push the image further, or are into post editing, starting with the RAW file is a fundamental.

If you are happy (or need) only the JPEG e.g. for online distribution etc, then setting your camera up to deliver the nearest/desired output, would be more important. ;-)

 

[Klaus dk]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, ...

... sometimes you don't see what's wrong until after the shoot ...

and if the photos are destined for social media use, ...

... you can't always predict if a picture will be used for something it wasn't destined for ...

does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

What's the disadvantage of shooting jpg+raw? Storage is cheap.

 

[JasonTheBirder]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

Raw is not just about exposure, but about all the tone in between. If you want to use a different tone curve, it will look much better in Raw compared to JPEG.

 

[rsn]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

No. Lots of photographers submit work professionally using JPEG and have done so for some time now. I have two systems. Fujifilm processes (colour science) their product coming out of the cameras resulting in many shooting JPEG with Fuji. Sony and Leica do as well.

I have both Fuji and Canon gear. I truly wish, and I believe Canon will sooner or later, change how their cameras process the image. Canon is old school, the camera's neutral is used and you work on the image in post. Canon's picture styles are limited, too limited. Folks are wanting an out of camera experience much like an iPhone image, processed needing no work. Or maybe a little crop here or a little straightening here, but after that - good to go.

We are in transition with colour science so you will still have RAW versus JPEG discussions for a long time to come, but I think eventually contemporary colour science will win. The lazy and easy to use technology always wins. I use to have a reel to reel tape recording set up. But even though reel to reel was superior, 8 cassette came along, then cassettes, then CD"s.

IPhones and Smartphone photography is changing photography equipment big time and one of those areas is JPEG. Next a better wireless system, easy to use, not clunky wireless software has to be included in all cameras, pro models or not. We want seamless connection from camera to phone to computer to the internet.

 

[Graham Meale]

Anything a JPEG can do, a raw can do better. So restricting yourself to JPEG doesn't make sense. I'll always prefer to make decisions myself rather than leave it in the hands of the camera.

 

[D Cox]

Anything a JPEG can do, a raw can do better. So restricting yourself to JPEG doesn't make sense. I'll always prefer to make decisions myself rather than leave it in the hands of the camera.

The algorithms used in cameras for noise reduction and sharpening are designed for speed rather than quality. The sharpening in JPGs tends to give halos -- white lines around the edges of objects. A specialist program such as Topaz Sharpen is very slow but gives hardly any halos.

However, the quality of a JPG won't really show on a small screen.

Save JPG+RAW and you're covered.

Don

 

[D Cox]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

No. Lots of photographers submit work professionally using JPEG and have done so for some time now. I have two systems. Fujifilm processes (colour science) their product coming out of the cameras resulting in many shooting JPEG with Fuji. Sony and Leica do as well.

I have both Fuji and Canon gear. I truly wish, and I believe Canon will sooner or later, change how their cameras process the image. Canon is old school, the camera's neutral is used and you work on the image in post. Canon's picture styles are limited, too limited. Folks are wanting an out of camera experience much like an iPhone image, processed needing no work. Or maybe a little crop here or a little straightening here, but after that - good to go.

We are in transition with colour science so you will still have RAW versus JPEG discussions for a long time to come, but I think eventually contemporary colour science will win. The lazy and easy to use technology always wins. I use to have a reel to reel tape recording set up. But even though reel to reel was superior, 8 cassette came along, then cassettes, then CD"s.

IPhones and Smartphone photography is changing photography equipment big time and one of those areas is JPEG. Next a better wireless system, easy to use, not clunky wireless software has to be included in all cameras, pro models or not. We want seamless connection from camera to phone to computer to the internet.

Who are "we" ?

 

[MarshallG]

When I finally snap the best photo of my life, I want it to be RAW. Just so I can get the most of it.

The photo below looked awful straight out of the camera. It was “correctly” exposed (whatever that means). The sky wasn’t overexposed, the rocks and beach not underexposed But there was no color in the sky at all; it just looked like a bright, hazy sky. And the foreground just looked like a beach and a bunch of rocks. But I was able to change this substantially in post without losing quality; the transformation was dramatic. I don’t think I could have obtained this result straight out of the camera, no matter what.

 

[The Ghost of Caravaggio]

If someone is shooting in controlled conditions where getting the exposure correct every time isn't a problem, and if the photos are destined for social media use, does RAW offer any advantages over JPEG?

If the images will never be used outside of social media, raw has no advantage. The destruction of information content due to lossy JPEG compression is irrelevant when images are viewed for 5 seconds and forgotten.

Otherwise, when the exposure is perfect, JPEG images have a disadvantage when a scene is lit by two or more sources with significantly different color temperatures. In this case a single set of color-temperature rendering parameters can not properly represent the scene. Different color-temperature rendering parameters must be used for different regions in the image. Now, the information destroyed by lossy JPEG becomes useful. The utility depends multiple factors.

_____________________
“…the mathematical rules of probability theory are not merely rules for calculating frequencies of random variables; they are also the unique consistent rules for conducting inference (i.e., plausible reasoning)”
E.T Jaynes, Probability Theory: The Logic of Science

 

[tko]

If you can get the color balance and exposure correct, you're probably good to go. I've said it before. Pros shooting with pro lighting probably don't need raw (but it wouldn't hurt.) People like me, shooting on the run during vacation in a variety of conditions with only minutes if not seconds to set up, need raw.