Use JPEG and forget RAW?!

[rambling robin]

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.

I know I shouldn't feed you, but..... I shoot with a Pany G2. It is not capable of creating a useable jpeg in a number of simple situations. It is not alone in that respect. In RAW I am able to see the picture I took and want to keep. Why should I suffer loss of images I want to keep just because you don't like the way I work?

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back,

Rubbish!

i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

and I for one look forward to being awed by your expertise - perhaps you could show us some examples please? Oh, and some of the not so good stuff as well?

 

[daddyo]

It may not have been your intention, but the wording of your post serves only to antagonize and create controversy -- why?

I happen to be a Jpeg shooter, almost exclusively -- and I feel I have valid reasons. However, your dogmatic assertions regarding Raw shooters are pure nonsense. It seems that your attitude is as equally offense and off target as 'Raw snobs' who look down there noses at Jpeg shooters as being inept, lazy people who don't care about image quality.

If you wanted to make a valid point about the benefits of shooting Jpeg only, why not word your post in a way that indicates why you Jpeg capture format, rather than attack Raw shooters as being unable to get it right at the time of capture.

Your premise would equally condemn photography greats such as Ansel Adams, Edward and Brett Weston, etc. as being unable to 'get it right' on the negative, because they engaged in extensive printing manipulation.

 

[Gregm61]

I am an idiot. I only want to be thinking about composition and exposure while shooting, not composition, exposure and what silly setting from the last image I left on and need to remember to reset/turn off/change. Using raw is sort-of like 10-15 years ago shooting film. Just shoot and get it "right", whatever right is, later.

--
"There's shadows in life, baby.." Jack Horner- Boogie Nights

 

[tgutgu]

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

Why so they need to shoot a perfect JPEG (a superfluous exercise anyway). They know, how to shoot a perfect RAW, and that is plenty enough.

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.

Perhaps your memory is so weak, not mine. Personally I don't think that in camera RAW converters (also called JPEG engine) have any particular benefit. Instead they are rather crippled compared to most RAW editors, and have the huge disadvantage of stripping away important data right from the beginning: JPEGs are limited to 8 bit color information. Why on earth, would one opt for throwing away this data already in the camera?

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

JPEGs are per se never very good right from the start. There are many parameters, which should not be at in camera, because you can't really judge them on the tiny and dark camera monitor. Sharpness, noise reduction, color saturation, and contrast should never be done via the JPEG engjne, and should be postponed to post processing instead. This is how a proper workflow works. These parameter do irreversible changes to your image and these parameter are impossible to get perfect right out of the cam.

Also, one would be a fool, to adjust those parameters via the camera tools and menus, because that would be the most unergonomic way to do that.

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.

You can't shoot a JPEG properly. That is inherent in this format. Data loss, no possibility to judge important adjustment parameters properly before you take the image, and so on, all this shows that it is much more advisable to shoot RAW.

Since RAW editors improve over the time, your older RAW images will profit from that too, but your JPEGs won't to the same extent. Another huge disadvantage for JPEGs.
--
Thomas

 

[Colin K. Work]

I know I shouldn't rise to this but ...

Mike Johnston's quote the other day seems appropriate here ..

"Making a picture that's technically what you want is where photography begins, not where it ends."

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

I'm amused by your presumption that thousands of experienced and skilled photographers "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.

For many, photography is a creative process, not simply recording a scene. Part of creativity is interpreting the image. Many great landscape photographs result from the photographer reproducing the effect the scene had on him/her.

The fact is that many scenes CANNOT be accurately recorded - the dynamic range is too wide. RAW gives us much more scope to manage highlight/shadow detail than jpg. And yes, it does need to be managed.

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.

RAW should not be a "crutch" for poor photography (garbage in, garbage out). But it offers some advantages over jpg, simply because you are starting with more data.

An image may need manipulation for a variety of reasons - is the final image for screen or print? What size print? What lighting conditions? The masters will prepare an image differently to best suit the intended output (which might include the type of paper and/or printer used).

 

[Bobo Hodls]

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.

Respectfully - Mind your own business, and I'll mind mine.

 

[Glen Barrington]

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.

However, it is my belief there is plenty wrong with people who try to make themsleves look smarter by questioning the judgement and skills of others.

Can you back up your big talk with some PHOTOS? You'd be amazed at how much credibility photos can lend to a person who claims to be a photographer.

http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/2015/04/maximizing-dynamic-range-with-acdsee.html

--

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .
http://glenbarrington.blogspot.com/
http://glenbarringtonphotos.blogspot.com/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/130525321@N05/

 

[TN Args]

Colin, I think you misunderstood Mr Johnston, if you think his statement is an argument in favour of raw files over JPEG.

 

[TomFid]

It makes the assumption that everyone is just trying to replicate exactly what they see, which isn't exactly what photography is all about for many people. Many of us like to put a twist on some of our shots and create something very different for the original scene. Part of this usually involves post processing to create something visually different. Now it is possible to sometimes do this using jpegs, but often it's much better to shoot raw and give yourself more creative options. Jpeg files fall apart pretty quickly, raw files not so much. So if you want to shoot everything pretty much as you see it that's great, but don't criticise others for doing it differently, that's your own bias.

Personally I shoot both as and when I see fit, some cameras don't even give you a raw option so there isn't a choice. I would never be so bold as to lecture anyone who does it either way, that's entirely up to them.

Exactly.

Replicating exactly what you see is a tough task, because visual perception is highly subjective, involves much processing, and memory is flawed anyway.

But even if that's what you're after, JPEG is not necessarily the way to go. Camera settings aren't necessarily any more like a straight print than raw developer settings (in my experience, the Lightroom defaults are more realist than the PanOly defaults). For realism, you should probably shoot raw and use a MacBeth color checker or similar so that your whole workflow is calibrated.

 

[aodi]

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

You mean thousands professional photographers shooting RAW have no clue how to shoot?

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.

 

[josbiker]

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.

I know I shouldn't feed you, but..... I shoot with a Pany G2. It is not capable of creating a useable jpeg in a number of simple situations. It is not alone in that respect. In RAW I am able to see the picture I took and want to keep. Why should I suffer loss of images I want to keep just because you don't like the way I work?

The RAW shooters show you always very extreme lighting examples and think or say look at that what i have gain back,

Rubbish!

i say shoot your JPEG properly and than you gain all the profit from JPEG shooting.

and I for one look forward to being awed by your expertise - perhaps you could show us some examples please? Oh, and some of the not so good stuff as well?

You understand exactly what i meant, learn to shoot in JPEG and benefit from all the advantages JPEG gives and after that you will be more satisfied i am sure of that, no hard feelings and i am not arrogant, i am just trying to help people with our passion for photo and film.

 

[rambling robin]

and I for one look forward to being awed by your expertise - perhaps you could show us some examples please? Oh, and some of the not so good stuff as well?

You understand exactly what i meant, learn to shoot in JPEG and benefit from all the advantages JPEG gives and after that you will be more satisfied i am sure of that, no hard feelings and i am not arrogant, i am just trying to help people with our passion for photo and film.

Would it be too much for you to enumerate and explain these advantages and benefits? I'm sure that would be of far more value to those you are trying to help than empty sound-bites. Clearly you have mastered techniques that would be of enormous help to everyone and I'm sure I'm not alone looking forward to learning from you.

 

[b0k3h]

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.

therefore you are wrong before you even got started.

next batter pls

 

[next shot]

Very funny. Any shot you do in j peg I can make better in Raw. Did Ansel Adams sell his shots out of the camera, no he had a darkroom to make them better. Same thing.

 

[Ross]

[No message]

 

[Adam-T]

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

The BIGGEST PROBLEM with JPG shooters is that they`re throwing away about 35% of the performance of their cameras fine detail / resolution capture away even at Base ISO .......

I`m a RAW shooter and know perfectly well how to expose properly (you need to with small sensors like M43) - What I refuse to do however is reduce all the money spent on the EM1 with its AA-filterless quality and the 12-40`s detail capturing ability to an output inferior to an IPhone-6 (which is what Oly`s smudgy JPG engine does) .

JPGs are fine for product work and fast proof snaps but kill all advantage high end glass buys you in maximizing output , doesn`t exactly make the best use of the high ISO performance too - and I`m on about both Oly and Pan here .

--
** Please ignore the Typos, I'm the world's worst Typist **

 

[zodiacfml]

Yes and No. No tool is perfect for all types of job or purpose.

It depends on the skill, purpose and satisfaction of the photographer to decide whether or not to shoot RAW.

 

[gregs4163]

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.

Do you shoot Weddings? I do and I can tell you no matter how good you are in JPEG your not good enough to make changes in the split second which means getting the shot or missing the shot, and you don't have a second chance. Many time I've salvaged shots that would otherwise be useless shot in JPEG and would be very disappointing to my clients! Believe me I try to get every shot as best I can in camera but in every shoot there are shots that aren't which makes shooting in RAW a must!

 

[Colin K. Work]

Colin, I think you misunderstood Mr Johnston, if you think his statement is an argument in favour of raw files over JPEG.

 

[Ross]

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

The BIGGEST PROBLEM with JPG shooters is that they`re throwing away about 35% of the performance of their cameras fine detail / resolution capture away even at Base ISO .......

I`m a RAW shooter and know perfectly well how to expose properly (you need to with small sensors like M43) - What I refuse to do however is reduce all the money spent on the EM1 with its AA-filterless quality and the 12-40`s detail capturing ability to an output inferior to an IPhone-6 (which is what Oly`s smudgy JPG engine does) .

JPGs are fine for product work and fast proof snaps but kill all advantage high end glass buys you in maximizing output , doesn`t exactly make the best use of the high ISO performance too - and I`m on about both Oly and Pan here .