Seems I've raised quite a contentious issue here! I had been intending the original article just as a fairly 'entry-level' discussion of RAW vs JPEG for someone who might be fairly new to photography and perhaps hasn't considered not shooting in JPEG before.
I think both of you are currently in agreement that RAW is better from what I've read but seem to be disagreeing on exactly *why* it is better. That's great and all, particularly from a more advanced point of view but I think if someone is looking for an article on whether to shoot JPEG or RAW and is new to photography then if you present too much information then they might decide to ignore it and just stick with what they're doing.
I'm of the mind that learning is best when sometimes less information is given rather than more, certainly in a practical hobby where there is so much room for subjectivity I'm what is right and what is wrong. Obviously it's just my opinion but I feel it sometimes helps to give a little info that can be easily digested and then allow the reader to either decide they want to look for more in depth information or to try things out themselves. A novice is probably at the end of the day if we simplify things down just wanting to know:
More bits = More data = Good
... Which I suppose is newrly all you need to know from a practical point of view!
I think both of you are currently in agreement that JPEG is better from what I've read but seem to be disagreeing on exactly *why* it is better.
Better than what? Not better than capturing raw. I believe we are both in violent agreement on that point.
A novice is probably at the end of the day if we simplify things down just wanting to know:
More bits = More data = Good
Well if I take my JPEG and convert it from 8-bits per color to 16-bits pre color in PS and save it as a TIFF (since JPEG doesn't support high bit), nothing has been gained. A novice needs to understand that too.
Better than what? Not better than capturing raw. I believe we are both in violent agreement on that point.
Well if I take my JPEG and convert it from 8-bits per color to 16-bits pre color in PS and save it as a TIFF (since JPEG doesn't support high bit), nothing has been gained. A novice needs to understand that too.
Oops! Typo! Meant agreement RAW is better!
About the second point, true I suppose! But gaining nothing from starting out with low bit and saving it as a higher bit is more common sense than anything (I would hope?); it's like writing half an essay and making the font twice the size... No more info, but what is there takes up more space!
Tom, as to a newbie and making that decision I think that, despite the fact Andrew and I parse the statements differently, we both agree there is more available information in a raw image than a JPG SOOC, and that be definition makes it a more forgiving capture permitting far more post processing flexibility than a JPG. I can't remember where (it may have been Fraser) but I recall an analogy something like "raw are ingredients, jpg is a baked cake". Or some such, and that's a fair description, especially in areas such as white balance. It's really tough to un-bake a cake and redo it better if you screw up the first time.
I believe that the people with good reason to shoot JPG (and we might argue over how good) are: (1) technophobes or those who just plain will not spend some time doing post processing, and (2) those who have deadline or other time commitments which just do not permit them to post process. And for (2) I'd suggest that shooting raw+jpg is a good alternative, for that one very special shot in which you screwed up the exposure or white balance, and can now go back and save.
I still discount size. I watch people every day blow $3000 on a D800 plus maybe that much again on glass, then whine over spending $60 instead of $30 for a card, or spending $100 for another 3 terabytes on their computer. Sure, they are bigger, but is that the driving factor in your photography? I heard there are still millions also using dial up internet with AOL as well.
My suggestion as an article (assuming you agree with those two) is to make clear that raw is always better if you have time and inclination to post process. If you are trying to dumb it down, that's really it.
Tom, as to a newbie and making that decision I think that, despite the fact Andrew and I parse the statements differently, we both agree there is more available information in a raw image than a JPG SOOC, and that be definition makes it a more forgiving capture permitting far more post processing flexibility than a JPG. I can't remember where (it may have been Fraser) but I recall an analogy something like "raw are ingredients, jpg is a baked cake". Or some such, and that's a fair description, especially in areas such as white balance. It's really tough to un-bake a cake and redo it better if you screw up the first time.
I believe that the people with good reason to shoot JPG (and we might argue over how good) are: (1) technophobes or those who just plain will not spend some time doing post processing, and (2) those who have deadline or other time commitments which just do not permit them to post process. And for (2) I'd suggest that shooting raw+jpg is a good alternative, for that one very special shot in which you screwed up the exposure or white balance, and can now go back and save.
I still discount size. I watch people every day blow $3000 on a D800 plus maybe that much again on glass, then whine over spending $60 instead of $30 for a card, or spending $100 for another 3 terabytes on their computer. Sure, they are bigger, but is that the driving factor in your photography? I heard there are still millions also using dial up internet with AOL as well.
My suggestion as an article (assuming you agree with those two) is to make clear that raw is always better if you have time and inclination to post process. If you are trying to dumb it down, that's really it.
You forgot another group of people that shoot jpegs, people that just shoot for fun.
It's not their job, it's just having fun with a hobby.
It's like the person in the $100,000 car cruising around at 30mph and still having a smile on their face.
Comments
I think both of you are currently in agreement that RAW is better from what I've read but seem to be disagreeing on exactly *why* it is better. That's great and all, particularly from a more advanced point of view but I think if someone is looking for an article on whether to shoot JPEG or RAW and is new to photography then if you present too much information then they might decide to ignore it and just stick with what they're doing.
I'm of the mind that learning is best when sometimes less information is given rather than more, certainly in a practical hobby where there is so much room for subjectivity I'm what is right and what is wrong. Obviously it's just my opinion but I feel it sometimes helps to give a little info that can be easily digested and then allow the reader to either decide they want to look for more in depth information or to try things out themselves. A novice is probably at the end of the day if we simplify things down just wanting to know:
More bits = More data = Good
... Which I suppose is newrly all you need to know from a practical point of view!
Edit: RAW not JPEG, I blame lack of sleep! Oops!
My Photography Blog.
My Popular Photos
- Photos of Edinburgh, Scottish Highlands and Islands, Fife.
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Oops! Typo! Meant agreement RAW is better!
About the second point, true I suppose! But gaining nothing from starting out with low bit and saving it as a higher bit is more common sense than anything (I would hope?); it's like writing half an essay and making the font twice the size... No more info, but what is there takes up more space!
My Photography Blog.
My Popular Photos
- Photos of Edinburgh, Scottish Highlands and Islands, Fife.
I believe that the people with good reason to shoot JPG (and we might argue over how good) are: (1) technophobes or those who just plain will not spend some time doing post processing, and (2) those who have deadline or other time commitments which just do not permit them to post process. And for (2) I'd suggest that shooting raw+jpg is a good alternative, for that one very special shot in which you screwed up the exposure or white balance, and can now go back and save.
I still discount size. I watch people every day blow $3000 on a D800 plus maybe that much again on glass, then whine over spending $60 instead of $30 for a card, or spending $100 for another 3 terabytes on their computer. Sure, they are bigger, but is that the driving factor in your photography? I heard there are still millions also using dial up internet with AOL as well.
My suggestion as an article (assuming you agree with those two) is to make clear that raw is always better if you have time and inclination to post process. If you are trying to dumb it down, that's really it.
You forgot another group of people that shoot jpegs, people that just shoot for fun.
It's not their job, it's just having fun with a hobby.
It's like the person in the $100,000 car cruising around at 30mph and still having a smile on their face.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.