Use JPEG and forget RAW?!

[knickerhawk]

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Most photographers who choose to shoot JPEG+raw are exposing for the JPEG (what looks right to them in the EVF or what the in-camera metering is telling them to do).

Not true at all, most raw shooters I know plan on getting as much as possible correct in the camera, the exact same as jpeg shooters.

Obviously everyone plans on getting as much as possible correct in camera. That's hardly the issue (despite Josbiker's original claim to the contrary).

The difference between raw and jpeg is that raw files have more latitude for mistakes and post processing.

That's not the only difference. Regardless, the important point here is how you take advantage of the extra latitude in a raw file. You're doing yourself little or no good if you don't expose for an optimal raw file with that extra latitude in mind and, instead, expose for an optimal jpeg.

ETTR is fine if you like that sort of thing but it is barely any better, it would be an absolute disaster for shooting people, weddings and so on.

The benefits of ETTR will vary by scene, but 2-stop advantages which are quite common are more than "barely better" in my estimation. And the notion that you can't expose for raw output when shooting people and weddings (let alone that it's a "disaster") is counter to everything I know and practice in my shoots. For example, my shots taken at my daughter's wedding a month ago with my EM5 easily rival the images generated by the professionals we hired who were using Canon 5D-IIIs. In part, I attribute this to my willingness to "over-expose" the raw files (relative to what would be appropriate for jpegs) and adjust in postprocessing. The pro's don't have the time for that kind of processing.

Another good reason for shooting raw is color calibration, most users in these forums are not using color management to it full potential.

Sure. I calibrate and use my custom settings in ACR, but I find it hard to believe that this benefit is more noteworthy to you than the "barely any better" advantage of ETTR.

 

[Kim Letkeman]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Written in a style that tries very hard to convince us that the author has a clue.

But alas ... just more pabulum for the kiddies ...

Shoot how you like.
Try to get good at it.
Stop looking at what other people do with such a critical eye.

 

[Fri13]

Yes, you don't ask from surgeon who is operating your heart transplantation is he/she educated or not for that operation because all what you want is just the heart, right?

You made my point.

If the RAW doesn't give benefits in 90% of the times, there is no need to use RAW when the JPEG fills the needs.

Just like with Sony and its compressed RAW in A7r that landscape photographers loves.

You get great results even when you don't have all the benefits that RAW would offer:

Sony’s 11+7-bit Delta Compression, Posterization in Some Situations

diglloyd.com

JPEG vs RAW is a storm in the glass that "JPEG vs RAW", with wrong results that RAW is always better, while it has just now and then the benefits but not always or even most of the times.

So if I capture photos saved as JPEG and I can get them look as good as taken in RAW in challenging situations and I go around the streets showing two 24x18 prints and they can't see the difference is it taken as RAW or JPEG, why I should have taken them as RAW?

The same question goes to everything, if I can use 16Mpix to create a 24x24 print that doesn't look at all different from print taken with 36Mpix, why I should have taken it with 36Mpix?

Yes, it doesn't always require to know everything to use the tools, but you are not then qualified to label then or to educate others with "easier wording" like "JPEG Engine" as it really just mystifies the technology that would be valuable to beginners later or even at start.

There is way too much pushing the "Use only RAW, it is only real way to go" just like "It isn't DSLR level of quality" when it comes to mirrorless vs DSLR. And same thing is with "JPEG Engine" as it is just "Dah!" without really giving anything to audience/viewer/listener why there are differences and how those can be adjusted in any part of the workflow (from lighting to makeup to capturing to editing to viewing devices to printing or software used to view the image).

Good enough is good enough, but if you want more and better, you need to know what is the link in the chain that needs to be changed and what way to get better results.

Like example in one movie set the director wanted to have a carpet as red. So he told his wish to director of photography, who then told to set decorator what to get and finally the carpet was brought to set in couple hours and it was cyan colored.

And that was on the film era decades ago. People in sets were first "That man is going to be fired so quickly" but they just didn't know what the director of photography knew, that with specific colors and film the cyan turned easily to be a red in color grading process. The director was pleased for the result. He didn't need to know a jack about how to get the damn red carpet, neither did rest of the crew. And now you might ask why didn't he order just the red carpet? Because it would have turned to be totally different by color.

You can ask about does someone care is your photo taken as JPEG or RAW and does anyone care? No, no one cares if the results are wanted. But what if the results are not wanted? You need to know what to do and in what parts of process to avoid the problems and get the wanted results.

Just like example with the Sony A7 line problem of compressed RAW, most camera owners are happy but some finds the problems as they push sony files to its limits in post and hits the quality problems that they didn't get with other cameras.

And you need people who know what to look for to find the problem and educate others about the problem. And now there is enough voice to be heard from Sony tower that they are rumored to be considering a firmware update that would offer a uncompressed RAW.

The buyer/customer/client doesn't need to know a jack, it is the producer task to know how to meet their demands. And what happens when the producer doesn't know how to get the results? Does the producer blame the tools or himself from not knowing what to do?

Does the photographer blame the JPEG when not knowing what can be made with JPEG and how it goes trough whole workflow, or does photographer blame himself not knowing how to use JPEG?

There is already enough tutorials all around web that goes and "educates" people "Don't use JPEG, use always the RAW format!" without really explaining why. They might just mention about white balance or compression artifacts etc, but if those things doesn't matter in the end for the customer/client/uneducated person, why to even say to use the RAW?

Every tool has its advantages and disadvantages and those can turn around in different situations. And knowing how and when something has benefits is the key for success.

And it doesn't help that uneducated people just call things they don't know with own invented terms like "JPEG Engine" or "Binary Blob" etc as they just shades everything behind a term that doesn't actually tell anything. It is just like the word "RAW", what does it mean? Like we could ask from many photographers what the RAW file truly is, and many probably would not have a accurate answer because they might not know things like the Sony RAW compression.

It is so simple things like difference between "Quality" and "Accuracy". When we want to print a image but we need to downscale it, we need to choose algorithms and ways to downscale it. We need to know how the file behaves in different parts of the process. And as example, we can be required to make a decision do we want the downscaled image to be as accurate as possible, resulting worse quality, or do we want want to have better quality but with less accuracy in the image.

In many cases we need to "do it wrong to get it right" but we need to know when and why to do so. And it doesn't help anyone if people invents something by itself or try to repeat what "famous people" says without knowing it. Just like phrases "It is about the glass" and people run to buy very expensive products believing they really need it.

What I try to say is that the point is the JPEG isn't just something only cameras produce and that can't be affected at all in the camera. As the JPEG is very widely used for different imagine works and even a one of the main ones to deliver work to printing or to be viewed.

Should we just start calling Adobe Photoshop export function as "JPEG engine" when we export image to file in JPEG? How about talk "JPEG Engine" in printers? Or how about encryption embedded to JPEG image visible to all?

It is just not wise to use whole term "JPEG Engine" as it doesn't mean anything. And just relaying that "Most people use that" is not proof that it is correct way either. Just trying to get acceptance by popularity doesn't make it correct.

 

[Fri13]

So you are person who believes that uneducated majority dictates how technology works, while educated minority is the ones being wrong?

This has nothing to do with how technolgy works. It just a name. The Volkswagen Beetle hadn't six legs and nonethless, everybody has been calling it the Beettle in the past 70 years.

Your analog fails about the beetle, and it isn't "just a name" but it is explanation how things work and it doesn't express the term for it.

In Germany, we have been calling a screw driver for decades 'Schraubenzieher' (means screw puller). Now, in the past 15 years, the professional groups using screw drivers suddenly started telling us that 'Schraubenzieher' is wrong, we should say 'Schraubendreher' which is closer to screwdriver, as 'Schraubenzieher is wrong. This is a development you see everywhere. Every profession group starts to use their own terms for something to then tell the rest of the world that they are stupid as they are using other, allegedly wrong terms for the same subject. No matter if these terms have been used for years or centuries.
But believe me, they all can leave me alone with their nonsense.

Actually they are correct about that term as my rusty germany tells....

Do you know what cameras does to produce the JPEG file? Do you know what the JPEG really is? Do you know how the computers (any computer, even the digital cameras) gets the image presented us on screens? Do you know how printers operates the JPEG to get it printed on material.

Am I interested in knowing it? No, I'm not.
Do you know how the fuel injection of your car works, what ABS and ESP do to make you travel safely. Do you know how a combustion engine works at all? Are you using it anyway and uses the terms others came up with although you don't know if they are right or wrong. So what are you trying to tell me?

Actually I do know.

And that is reason why I can discuss with the old school car mechanics, modern "automotive engineers" and even with just other engineers or amateurs about cars.

When I am discussing with my friend who is surgeon, I am not going to use medical terms that doesn't make sense. I ask him about what is the term for specific things and he explains it so I can learn and use the correct one. Because afterwards I can discuss with other doctors with the terms and make myself more clear what I mean.

Do you know how a WWW-browser manipulates the JPEG so you look at it on computer? Do you know how your computer network stack can manipulate the JPEG to transfer the bits? Do you know how the patented JPEG algorithms can be used to generate the file/data and how those can be altered?

Am I interested in knowing it? No, I'm not.

There are so many devices you are using in your life without the slightest understanding of their technology and nonetheless, you are using the terms others came up with. Just leave me alone with right or wrong when it comes to a name. It just doesn't matter.

Oh, but I do care and I am not alone.

You want to be ignorant or not to know anything what you are using, it is OK. But you are not helping others and you are not making yourself clear what you mean, you just believe everyone else knows exactly what you mean.

I don't think so that majority even knows those very basic things I mentioned.

And yet they want to be the ones that claim knowing how the stuff works and be the people who can "label" technical things by trying to mystify everything under the "JPEG engine" because they can't gasp what the technology really is used for and made for.

As I said. It doesn't matter. Anybody understand what they are talking about when using the term JPEG egine and that's the only thing that counts.
May the experts look down on us and tell each other how stupid we are - I don't give a sh*t.

No, not everyone understand it. I could in few minutes find dozens of people who would have not a slightest idea what you are talking about. And as you said, you don't have either because you don't have interest at all what you are talking about. You just want to use the word because you believe you know what it means. But as you say, "It doesn't matter".

And if you don't give a *****, it at least meant something because you saw worth to mention it.

And the whole world goes **** when people starts not to give a ***** because as it goes (and you probably know it well), "First they came...."

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

And it applies to everything in the world basically. When your child beats someone on street just for fun, you should give a ****. When someone beats someone else on the street just for fun, you should give a ****.

And for your screwdriver analog, http://www.ted.com/talks/patricia_ryan_ideas_in_all_languages_not_just_english

 

[Fri13]

Whether or not someone understands what goes on is irrelevant.

So tell us, why it is relevant or irrelevant that it is called as "JPEG Engine"?

You just told exactly that it doesn't matter at all is it correct or not. And it doesn't matter does everyone know it or no one knows it. Because it would always be irrelevant.

And as it is irrelevant, there is no point to have the even discussion about the JPEG algorithms or discussions like JPEG vs RAW because there is no difference in those two. In fact you just said that it is irrelevant to have a JPEG in the camera, or irrelevant to have the RAW, because it is irrelevant what is happening in the camera.

And if it is irrelevant to know what is happening in the camera, it is then irrelevant to know how to get the photos. And as it is irrelevant to know how to get the photos (because we want them with good exposure etc to be as we want them to be) it is irrelevant to even own the camera because it is irrelevant to us how the photos will look.

But hey, this reply is as well totally irrelevant because you either understand it or you don't. So I am totally irrelevant to you and everyone else, just like we all are to you at that point.

Or is it just stupid to wait that when the "irrelevant" turns to be "relevant" is the good time to find out to habe be doing something wrong for long time as it was 'so hard' to learn it correctly in the first place?

 

[Martin Ocando]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

I did bit the bullet a few posts back, and replied not aware that was indeed a very trolish thread. Although, is on the end of its life, so I'll just let it go quietly.

To the OP: After further reading of your post, I realize that you are either totally unaware of how a RAW file works, or simply looking for stirring trouble by a flaming and trolling thread.

It might a good idea if you check out this article on the subject, and later on you can comment on your original idea.

The RAW vs JPEG battle have been fought for years now, and have always been a subject of heavy debate, but at the end, is good to have the option. If you don't like RAW, just don't select it on your menu. Don't flame people telling that we shoot RAW because we don't know how to properly expose a JPEG. That is totally arrogant, and at the same time lame.

BTW, what you call the profit from shooting RAW, apart from small file size, and possible high frame rate, both of which are of no use to me, since hard disk space is cheap, and m43 RAWs are not so big to begin with. For the rest, the advantages of a RAW file overshadows a JPEG in simply every respect, from dynamic range to white balance adjustment, gradation details, ability to re-demosaic a file with a new processing engine, every time a new RAW converter is released, and I'm not even mentioning shadow and highlight recovery.

For me, and for many, is simply a single click of the Export button in Lightroom. Not time consuming at all.

 

[Chris59]

The biggest problem with the RAW shooters they do not know how to shoot a perfect JPEG on the spot.

They go to their computer (time consuming) and they are forgotten how the scene really was and than they give a certain twist to their photo's thinking that was the original scene.

Do the test and you should be glad, do not use the extremes because that photo was not good enough right from the start.

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back, i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

Stupid statement.

 

[bgalb]

Yep! Lets get it over with and run this useless thread dry.

 

[bgalb]

ignore bgalb. He is just stupid and uninformed.

 

[bgalb]

My lifetime wish: to make the last post in a thread.