Raw Files vs Jpegs?

[Ryan1524]

I agree with this.

When I had to cover a local hockey tournament, I shot in JPEG to allow for speedier processing and export. But there's the key there, I still put it through processing for colour correction and some exposure adjustment. I had more time than 'minutes', so I could do it. The time was still sensitive enough to force me to use JPEGs instead of RAW, but if my computer was faster or if I had more time, RAW is not out of the question.

On the other hand, if I had seconds or minutes at most, then JPEG straight out of camera it better be.

 

[-hh]

Whether you use RAW or JPG is a decision you need to make based on your needs. However, using RAW and JPG is, I believe, the wrong choice. This setting chews up more space than just RAW, it doesn't speed up "Burst" mode, and doesn't give you anything in return .... except that some software used to post-process the images afterwards will be able to show you a preview faster than having to create the preview itself.

Do a MRoogle search in the forum.... there was a very complete thread on whether using JPG & RAW was a good idea (Consensus was that it was not).

So choose one or the other, and keep in mind... it's not for life. You can change the file format any time you want. So experiment with both - all good photographers are constantly experimenting anyway - and see what works best for you, at this time. And the don't forget that you can change again in the future. Good Luck.

Some interesting points; I'll have to go back and find that old JPG+RAW thread to understand their rationale better...in the meantime, I'll continue to shoot JPG+RAW myself, since burst rate isn't degraded on my dSLR (max length of burst is), and I usually don't care about it being a data hog. Philisophically, I can't accurately predict when that special "Once in a Lifetime" shot is going to come along to switch settings, so it is the question of the burden or costs of storing the RAWs while also retaining the generalized day-to-day 'convenience' of the JPEGs.

To use Johnnj's analogy of:

RAW=negative
JPEG=drug store minilab print

...when I go pick up my film from the drug store, I see no reason to leave my set of negatives behind on the counter.

FWIW, I believe that iPhoto now handles most RAW formats just fine; if that's the case ... and it is your tool of choice ... then so long as the stuff looks OK to you in iPhoto without any more post-processing, then the JPG can probably be dropped.


-hh

 

[Ruahrc]

It should also be pointed out that most RAW formats embed a JPEG preview within the RAW file itself. And there are programs out there that can extract the JPEG for you. For example, Nikon's NEF files have a preview JPEG embedded which is equivalent to a full-resolution JPEG set at "Basic" quality, and processed using the in-camera settings. This image is what is displayed on the LCD screen.

So, in effect, shooting NEF or NEF+JPEG when your JPEG quality is set to basic, does not gain you anything. The exact same JPEG can be extracted from the NEF you're already keeping.

Ruahrc

 

[tinman0]

Perfectly understand the speed issue, but likewise, if professionals with published images are using RAW, telling people to use RAW as standard seems a little odd

 

[Hankster]

Perfectly understand the speed issue, but likewise, if professionals with published images are using RAW, telling people to use RAW as standard seems a little odd

Correct. People need to use the format that suits their needs:

JPG: If you don't plan on doing post processing. Or, if you need faster writing speed. Or, if you have limited storage space.

RAW: If you plan on doing post processing. Or, if you have ample storage space.

 

[MattSepeta]

well

I still see no compelling reason to use JPG, unless your camera cannot record sRAW.

I have been on RAW for the past 3 years now, and at an event a couple weeks ago I stupidly ran out of space on my memory card (Spares were in my bag in a different area, D'OH!) and had to delete a few and switch to JPG really fast to get the shots.

After trying to white balance the JPGs in Aperture I was about to tear my hair out. Felt like I had gone back half a century!

If space is an issue, bite the bullet, spend $80 on a 2TB external WD and possibly get a faster CF card.

 

[Edge100]

Perfectly understand the speed issue, but likewise, if professionals with published images are using RAW, telling people to use RAW as standard seems a little odd

Ever heard the expression "Horses for Courses"?

PJ's with 5 minute deadlines use JPEG because it best suits that type of photography.

Wedding photographers who have time to pour over the tiniest edit use RAW (generally...some use JPEG).

 

[H2Ockey]

It should also be pointed out that most RAW formats embed a JPEG preview within the RAW file itself. And there are programs out there that can extract the JPEG for you. For example, Nikon's NEF files have a preview JPEG embedded which is equivalent to a full-resolution JPEG set at "Basic" quality, and processed using the in-camera settings. This image is what is displayed on the LCD screen.

So, in effect, shooting NEF or NEF+JPEG when your JPEG quality is set to basic, does not gain you anything. The exact same JPEG can be extracted from the NEF you're already keeping.

Ruahrc

I"m too lazy to look it up, but I was pretty sure the imbedded JPEG preview image is the same as the JPEG "small" resolution.

 

[Flash SWT]

I'm a photojournalist and shoot JPEG most of the time. I generally only switch to RAW for lit portraits or if I find myself in a really tricky lighting situation. For example, the other day I had to shoot photos of a very dark skinned cowboy wearing a white shirt and white cowboy hat under 2 PM sun.

As far as my colleagues there is a fairly wide mix of those who shoot JPEG vs. RAW and it is really a personal preference. Everyone has to transmit JPEGs, so those who choose to shoot RAW knowingly add an extra step to their workflow. You'll often find those still shooting with older bodies switching to RAW at night.

Photogs shooting for Getty usually have to use Getty's own image editing application which can't read RAW files. I've got a buddy who will shoot in RAW most of the time but has to switch to JPEG when shooting for Getty on deadline.

 

[dyn]

You said in a previous post "RAW allows you to be ignorant about what you're doing because you can correct it afterwards."

RAW is the file containing an image with no in-camera processing done to it. In this regard, it is no different than a negative after it comes out of the camera and then processed in the standard method for that film type.

To say that RAW enables the photographer to be ignorant because that file type has a greater capacity for editing/correction/creative changes is not something I agree with.

Again: RAW does has both positive AND negative characteristics. The problem I have is that only the positive ones are shown. The other problem I have is the fact that people in this thread do not seem to be willing to see the negative aspects of it.

Negatives and RAW are somewhat comparable but they also do differ quite a lot. You can do a bit more with RAW than you could with a negative. The problem with RAW is the fact that you can correct quite a lot of things so it is very easy to say "never mind that, I'll correct it afterwards". That is great when something went wrong and you didn't intend it to go wrong. But there is a caveat to that. If you do that a bit more you'll become sloppy because it is so easy to correct it afterwards than just do it properly the first time. People seem to be forgetting things like this too much. A CNN photographer did too and that lead to a scandal because he made pictures look too good (they weren't real any more). Editing in his case became propaganda. If you edit be very careful.

I also did not say or imply that I believe that all photographers shot RAW throughout the history of photography. I was continuing with my analogy of a negative to RAW and a drugstore print to JPEG from a couple of posts earlier.

You actually did because you were talking about the old days while RAW is something that stems from the new days. Photography in the old days is quite different than nowadays. You can now shoot and edit like there is no tomorrow. In the old days you hadn't this luxury, it was very very costly. Film is not something you can restore, you can with digital stuff and RAW (as you can not save the edits back to the original RAW file, you need to export them). People were very careful because if something went wrong they had nothing. Now it doesn't matter because we can edit and restore.

Again, I'm not saying anybody is ignorant, that is what YOU're saying. They are YOUR words and YOUR words only! It is a known fact that when things are becoming a routine, errors will most likely slip in and people will most likely start to not care any more. Take a look at air crash accidents for example. Pilot error is mostly caused by the simple fact that things became a routine and they started to not care.

If all you have to support your position on this thoroughly unimportant issue is ad hominem attacks, then you have my sympathies.

Take a good look in the mirror since you started trolling and are now trying to start a flamewar. Not necessary if you try to comprehend what somebody is saying and use some manners when replying. I only responded the same way as you did, since you didn't like that I suggest you to not respond like that any more. The way you did now was how you should have done that, it is more constructive.

 

[Edge100]

It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will argue about.

 

[macjube]

Me neither. What a silly discussion, all theory and opinions and dumb drugstore analogies. When I bought my D300s and 24-70mm f/2.8, I shot over 100 photos in RAW+JPEG, with high contrast, high value, and low value scenes. Then I carefully compared the RAW and JPEG versions at the pixel level. Guess what? There were NO visible differences.

So much for everyone's theories. Oh, and forget the misleading Wikipedia reference -- jaggles and artifacts only happen at high JPEG compression levels, and on my Nikon D300s, even JPEG BASIC is usually artifact-free.

Everyone, stop blabbing about this and inspect what YOUR camera/lens combination produces. See for yourself if the added time and size for RAW is worth it to you. It's certainly not worth the trouble to me; I shoot JPEG normal or fine all the time now.

 

[MattSepeta]

When I bought my D300s and 24-70mm f/2.8, I shot over 100 photos in RAW+JPEG, with high contrast, high value, and low value scenes. Then I carefully compared the RAW and JPEG versions at the pixel level. Guess what? There were NO visible differences.

Useless anecdote. Shooting RAW for "image quality" is equally useless. You shoot raw for ease of adjustment.

You shoot RAW because changing White Balance or Exposure in a JPG is ugly and unacceptable. Changing the W/B or exposure of a RAW/NEF is lovely and fantastic looking.

EDIT: I plan on posting a side by side example of this when I get home to my machine with Aperture 3 and my photo libraries.

 

[cupcakes2000]

Useless anecdote. Shooting RAW for "image quality" is equally useless. You shoot raw for ease of adjustment.

You shoot RAW because changing White Balance or Exposure in a JPG is ugly and unacceptable. Changing the W/B or exposure of a RAW/NEF is lovely and fantastic looking.

EDIT: I plan on posting a side by side example of this when I get home to my machine with Aperture 3 and my photo libraries.

Agreed!

 

[macjube]

Matt, you're quite right regarding WB and exposure adjustments. But I spent 20 years shooting film, and those days are over! My camera (and I assume yours also) has a nifty thing on the back called an LCD which can also display a histogram. At a glance, I can tell if the WB is off (and it seems that Nikons are always spot-on) and if the exposure was correct. There's nothing better than getting it right in the camera; it obviates the need for post-processing!

 

[MattSepeta]

Below is a RAW SOOC dragged out of Aperture 3 using the quick export or whatever it is called.

I adjusted the RAW W/B and Exposure to look like this. Only RAW adjustments were made.

I exported it, then imported it back in as a JPG, just as it would have been if it were a JPG from the camera.

I then opened up the ugly RAW next to the Ugly JPG, adjusted the RAW to normalcy using RAW adjustments and standard adjustments, lifting and stamping the exact same adjustment set onto the JPG.

This is why I never, ever shoot JPG.

 

[macjube]

You make a very good point...

Hey Matt, thanks very much for your effort to illustrate your point. I'm sure a lot of people will benefit from it.

But this is where I think we should agree to disagree. You obviously didn't like the look of the shot when you took it, and decided to fix it later. If it had been me, I would have re-shot with different white-balance settings, specifically to AVOID having to fix things later. Perhaps it all boils down to whether you want to spend your time shooting or post-processing? There are certainly advantages to just getting on with the shoot and fixing it later, but not for me… I'm an engineer and make my living in a non-photographic fashion, so I prefer not to waste too much time fixing things after the shoot.

To be more specific, your example photo was obviously lit by daylight from the windows, yet you wanted a warmer tungsten feel. If I had wanted that feel, I would have adjusted my white balance to get it, right there on the spot. But that's just me, and I think your example highlights the fact that shooting RAW gives you more post-processing flexibility, and shooting JPEG (when you know what you want) saves time and disk space. Neither approach is inherently better; you need to pick the approach that best suits your style.

Now, having said that, I recently posted on another thread where a guy was having trouble with bluish skin-tones in fill-flash photos at a car show lit by orange-pink sodium-vapor lamps. Now THAT'S a situation where I might have shot in RAW because the added flexibility in post-processing would have given me a clear advantage. But honestly, how many of your shoots suffer from such challenging lighting conditions?

So let's agree to disagree about RAW vs JPEG, but let's clearly keep in mind the advantages and disadvantages of both workflows in regards to our personal shooting styles.

With my honor and best regards to your knowledge and experience,

...Julian in Montreal, Canada.

 

[I AM THE MAN]

Below is a RAW SOOC dragged out of Aperture 3 using the quick export or whatever it is called.

I adjusted the RAW W/B and Exposure to look like this. Only RAW adjustments were made.

I exported it, then imported it back in as a JPG, just as it would have been if it were a JPG from the camera.

I then opened up the ugly RAW next to the Ugly JPG, adjusted the RAW to normalcy using RAW adjustments and standard adjustments, lifting and stamping the exact same adjustment set onto the JPG.

This is why I never, ever shoot JPG.

Haha I get what you mean. THANK YOU very much for the photos. I really do understand the RAW format much more.