But to say that people that shoot JPGs put no time or effort into their shots is wrong.
It would be wrong if someone had actually said that. What was said was that modern DSLRs can convert their images to lovely .jpgs without the photographer having to enter editing commands before each image is converted. If your time and effort haven't been sufficient for those .jpgs to be lovely, you are free to edit your .jpgs. Many raw shooters have decided that their out of camera .jpgs would not be as lovely as they might achieve by editing the out of camera raws. Some of those think it is worth their time and effort in editing before the conversion to .jpg. It is true that those who shoot only .jpg don't put in -that- time or effort.
Dale B. Dalrymple
"Give me a lens long enough and a place to stand and I can image the earth."
...with apology to Archimedies
RAW images will always have more dynamic range (DR) and more maleable tonality than JPGs. JPGs out of the camera have established white and dark points and may clip highlights and shadows (especially newer cameras which often use heavy noise reduction in the shadow regions of JPGs, effectively reducing the DR even a bit more.) Clipped highlights and squelched shadows are where information is truly lost forever. With RAW files the extended highlights and relatively open shadows mean greater opportunity for recovery if needed.
RAW files contain the most DR you can achieve with a given camera and a 14 bit RAW contains (potentially) 16,384 shades per color channel, for a total of 49,152 color shades per pixel for an RGB imager (after interpolation). Compare this to JPGs 256/768 shades and you start to see some of the potential that is available in the RAW image file data. Color combinations are even more telling with 8 bit systems able to represent a total of 16.7 million colors, while 14 bit systems can represent 68.7 billion colors.
While 8 bits/16.7 million colors is generally accepted to be the minimum needed to accurately represent a lifelike color spectrum for human vision, if you start with just that amount, normal processing will generally only reduce the available palette of colors. JPG compression only reduces the available palette even more.
According to Luminous Landscape, the first 5 zones in 12 bit versus 8 bit systems are as follows:
JPGs are also processed with a given white balance (WB), where RAW files may have a WB bit set, but WB is not assigned until after the RAW file is processed. Post processing WB, and even processing shadows and highlights with different color balance, is often reason alone for using RAW.
Can you capture and manipulate JPG images and create wonderful renditions of scenes? Of course you can, but a RAW file gives you more DR in the resulting file, more hues and shades per pixel, and the ability to set WB in post. Those are the indisputable facts.
If you need to process the image at all, a RAW file will always give greater flexibility and options, and very often a RAW file will allow better results.
Most modern dSLRs allow a greater continuous shot buffer depth and faster overall image cycling (especially including file write times) when using JPG. JPG files are also smaller and more JPG files fit a given storage card.
When I shot sports I used JPG files exclusively. I was happy to have the extra shooting throughput and effectively greater storage that JPG shooting allows.
When I shoot weddings and events and pretty much any paying gig I use RAW for the extra margin of safety in exposure, the extra dynamic range and the smoother gradations of color than JPG capture reliably allows.
By all means, try different methods and use what works. Ultimately it's whatever gives you the best results that will ultimately decide what's best for you as an individual.
Some links to explore:
For curiosity, I checked on the 2 deer pictures and blow up to 300% and I hardly can tell any difference by casually looking at it. To be honest, if one were to stare hard and to spot the slightest disparity, then I believed he is not actually looking and enjoying seeing a photograph as it is. He is actually fault finding. At least that’s not how I look at photograph. Some of the most amazing photographs are never without fault. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Now the duck. I think if the duck was simply posted under the critique thread without the dividing line, I think I can take on the bet no one will bring out the subject of what format was the pic taken. Probably a long strings of comment of “nice picture” follows. Perhaps Davev should have done some deception by dividing it horizontally instead of vertically, and those still managed to guess correctly the disparity is between the left and the right instead of top and bottom is god. You get the point? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Somehow we tend to loose sight the main focus and objective of a good image is not all about mega and more mega pixels, RAW or jpeg, DR etc etc. Of course all these does contribute in making a good photograph, but a good photograph need not be the product in using the latest, biggest, and most sophisticated camera or recording format. A bad photograph is a bad photograph.<o:p></o:p>
Not saying you can't take a great pic using JPEG format, but it seems to me that the pros of shooting RAW are so great and the cons so minor that you would have to be some kind of masochist not to shoot RAW, especially if you are an event shooter.
Not saying you can't take a great pic using JPEG format, but it seems to me that the pros of shooting RAW are so great and the cons so minor that you would have to be some kind of masochist not to shoot RAW, especially if you are an event shooter.
Hmmm, so now I'm a masochist.
Wait, I need to take this safety pin out of my nipple before I continue.
Here's my real take of the RAW/JPG deal.
Wait, I have to adjust my flame suit cause I'll be getting back 10 fold what I put down.
I look at RAW shooting like riding a bike with training wheels, helmet, elbow pads and knee pads.
It seems as though everyone's afraid to take a chance on anything anymore.
Learn how to take a photo without trying to fix everything in post.
RAW is this great big safety net that no one wants to stray away from.
Let's say that you're a wedding photographer and you misplaced your extra cards. Do you take 30 RAW shots, or do
you have the confidence to switch to JPG and get a 100 shots?
I can at least say that I have tried shooting RAW and found for the shots that I take, I don't see any real advantage.
Now, in saying that, have I had some shots that didn't turn out that I maybe could have fixed in post
if I would have shot in RAW? Sure I have. But that percentage is so low, it would be crazy for me to waste
the space on my hard drives (1.5 TB, 750 GB, 500 GB, 320 GB) not including the 750 GB in the IMac.
Seeing as I'm just a hobbyist, it doesn't really matter if my shot turns out or not. I'm not getting paid for it.
But I would hope that before anyone wants to light me up for my comments here, that they would at
least try shooting RAW and JPG together, take those shots home and work a couple of them up, and show me what I'm missing.
And I'm not talking about some 3 stop underexposed shot, that would just prove my point that that
people don't take the time to learn their craft and expect to save everything it post.
And please, don't send me to a link where someone else took the time to try something, do it yourself.
Prove to me and yourself that (A) you are that good that you can set up a camera, (B) that you know
how to expose a shot, (C) maybe just learn that you can ride that bike without the training wheels.
I did the tests that I posted, show me in real world shots (not some graph) that I'm totally wrong.
Go ahead, flame away
And David, thanks for taking the time review the shots.
After Ziggy's explanation.. if one still does't understand, I just don't see a good reason to be continuing.
Yeah, Rambo, go on shooting jpeg only. Like people said, it is a personal choice what format to shoot in. Clearly, you prefer the jpeg, many of us prefer raw for the sake of extra options. What is the point of going apesh!t on those who shoot in raw? ohhh.. I know.. 'cause they do not agree with your thinking...
After Ziggy's explanation.. if one still does't understand, I just don't see a good reason to be continuing.
Yeah, Rambo, go on shooting jpeg only. Like people said, it is a personal choice what format to shoot in. Clearly, you prefer the jpeg, many of us prefer raw for the sake of extra options. What is the point of going apesh!t on those who shoot in raw? ohhh.. I know.. 'cause they do not agree with your thinking...
You don't think the man should defend himself when people make statements saying people who don't shoot raw are insane or masochists? Davev is sounding rather rational I think, and was just trying to say that not everyone HAS to shoot raw all the time to get good results. Look back to his first post:
Shoot in Raw and JPG, run both shots through camera raw and see if the extra data is worth the extra storage.
Only you can decide what's right for you.
For me, it's not worth it.
In my mind, storage is cheap, and some of what I shoot does need the extra data that raw gives me, so I choose to shoot in raw. But probably 90%+ of what I shoot could be done in jpg and nobody would ever know the difference. I choose to still shoot it in raw because I've got a comfortable raw workflow down, and I don't mind the extra storage space. To each his own...
Davev chooses to shoot jpgs and he is very good at it! That I can and DO respect. So should every one else.
Davev has chosen to shoot jpgs deliberately, after comparing his jpgs, with his images from RAW files. As he has stated, he has tried RAW and can shoot it, but chooses not to because he is able to get everything he needs in his images by shooting OOC jpgs ( He does admit to running his jpgs through Adobe Camera RAW from time to time and I would suggest then that RAW files hold up better in ACR than jpgs ). Let's leave at that and call it a gentlemanly difference of opinion.
While I usually shoot Raw, because I like the safety net that Davev disparages a bit, I can and do shoot jpgs from time to time also, depending on my needs and goals for the final files. If I am shooting in flat light, jpgs will encompass the dynamic range of the entire scene. I rarely find this luxury, however, I usually seem to have a dynamic range beyond that of my sensor, and so I want the highlight recovery ability of a RAW file, and I like the ability to alter color temperature with more aplomb than jpgs will afford me.
Raw files demand more storage and more work on my part and my computers part as well. I can see that jpgs have a lot to offer, and will shoot more of them from time to time - usually as RAW + jpg. Compact Flash space gets cheaper and cheaper. Then I can choose which file I want back at the comfort of my computer and with the file large on my monitor, not that little LCD on my camera.
Hi Guys,
Just to add my two cents worth ( I should have said tuppence worth as I'm welsh).
I came into digital from a film shooting background. I was given this advice around 34 years ago.................Always use the best film you can, to give yourself the best quality negative you can (obviously getting the exposure right as well). You can alter your prints as time and experience allows but if your negatives are poor...........your prints will always be poor.
Transposing this into the digital age I look at this debate in those terms. Using Raw "digital negatives" gives me the most information available to allow me to post process to my hearts content. This doesn't mean I would pp them to look any different to what my camera would have produced as JPEG's, but I have more options open to me than if I had taken the shots as JPEG's.
Storage is so cheap nowadays (and getting cheaper as we speak) that I dont find file sizes an issue.
I would simply say shoot what you will, whether JPEG or RAW, it's up to you. The important thing is that you learn and enjoy.
Much earlier someone posted a link showing a jpeg will start to degrade for repeated opening, edit and resave just after a mere 10 times. I was astound to learn that. So it’s nothing better than having an own experiment and below the result. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I got a picture size 1500x1275 and had demarcated 7 locations for “abused.” I used various editing tools using CS3 in these 7 squares. I will reopen, edit and resaved at 10 IQ (not the max. yet) and again reopen, edit and resave 40 times! Blowed up 300% and I couldn’t find any changes to area just adjacent to the “abused” location. I agree opening, edit and resave will degrade a jpeg image but I have yet to come across any credible journals mentioning the no. of repeats before degradation kicks in. And I think 40 times is heck of an aweful lot. Don’t just trust me. Someone may be interested to continue from here using my picture and post your findings.
Original <o:p></o:p>
Repeated 40 times
Back to RAW and jpeg – not to stoke the fire, me too have experimented RAW and when I did a comparison, many times I can’t tell a difference. If there is, it would be very minute that it’s not worth shooting RAW (OK, that’s me). I feel as long as the exposure is not excessively clipped and your technique is right, and more importantly being able to capture “the moment”, no one can fault you, RAW or no RAW. <o:p></o:p>
Much earlier someone posted a link showing a jpeg will start to degrade for repeated opening, edit and resave just after a mere 10 times. I was astound to learn that. So it’s nothing better than having an own experiment and below the result. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I got a picture size 1500x1275 and had demarcated 7 locations for “abused.” I used various editing tools using CS3 in these 7 squares. I will reopen, edit and resaved at 10 IQ (not the max. yet) and again reopen, edit and resave 40 times! Blowed up 300% and I couldn’t find any changes to area just adjacent to the “abused” location. I agree opening, edit and resave will degrade a jpeg image but I have yet to come across any credible journals mentioning the no. of repeats before degradation kicks in. And I think 40 times is heck of an aweful lot. Don’t just trust me. Someone may be interested to continue from here using my picture and post your findings.
Original
Back to RAW and jpeg – not to stoke the fire, me too have experimented RAW and when I did a comparison, many times I can’t tell a difference. If there is, it would be very minute that it’s not worth shooting RAW (OK, that’s me). I feel as long as the exposure is not excessively clipped and your technique is right, and more importantly being able to capture “the moment”, no one can fault you, RAW or no RAW. <o:p></o:p>
I just did a very quick test.
I used the upper half of your shot, (gee, I wonder why ) in the first (left square) I used USM at 99, .3, 0,
in the next square I used Smart Sharpen at the same 99, .3, the next square got highlights and shadows at 5 for
shadows and 10 for highlights, and lastly I did a slight "S" curve.
I saved, opened file 1, saved as 2, opened 2, saved as 3 ... and so on to 10, at level 10 in CS3.
I got the same results as my unedited photo, pretty much no change.
I'm guessing that you did the edit again and again in those same shots for it to look that bad afterwards.
There is no singular method for writing a JPEG/JPG compressor and some JPG compressors are better than others in the quality of the compression.
The JPG compressor used in Photoshop is of very high quality and while there is loss of data, after a few cycles of open and save the quantization stabilizes and no further loss occurs. If you make changes to the data then the quantization starts over again and further loss occurs.
One way to mitigate the loss is to both upres "and" convert to 16 bit "before" any editing. This gives the editing software a more comprehensive set of data from which to process and it gives the JPG compressor a larger set of data as well. Taking these steps will yield the best quality output with the smallest loss and smoothest results.
There is no singular method for writing a JPEG/JPG compressor and some JPG compressors are better than others in the quality of the compression.
The JPG compressor used in Photoshop is of very high quality and while there is loss of data, after a few cycles of open and save the quantization stabilizes and no further loss occurs. If you make changes to the data then the quantization starts over again and further loss occurs.
One way to mitigate the loss is to both upres "and" convert to 16 bit "before" any editing. This gives the editing software a more comprehensive set of data from which to process and it gives the JPG compressor a larger set of data as well. Taking these steps will yield the best quality output with the smallest loss and smoothest results.
Good info Ziggy.
I can't compare the size to the file posted here, cause I only used the top half, but like last night after the first save, the
file size was 326.560, after the 10th save it was 327.031.
I honestly can't remember re-opening and re-saving a processed file, working on it a bit more, then saving it more than 3 times.
I would also guess that most of those times were to simply convert the photo from color to B&W.
I can't figure out a way to process a shot, save it, then try to get rid of the processing and save it, to see if the
image degrades more.
If I just keep processing the shot, I know the file size and the look of the image is going to change.
Save your initial file and load it into Photoshop on the background layer. Do your edits and saves as many times as you desire, then open the final file in Photoshop on a layer above the initial file, and compare them with Difference Blend, to see the pixels that have been altered.
I don't think you can alter a jpg, and them process it to remove the alteration, because editing jpgs in Photoshop is destructive of data, as opposed to editing via metadata only, like is done in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw.
I think that the concern about saving jpgs and re-editing them causing damage to the file is much more of a concern with small jpg files, than the much larger jpg files we work with today. Try editing a 25 Kb file a few times and see if you don't see it begin to fall apart. Many of my jpg files are several Mbytes, and that is a whole lot more data than a few Kb.
98Olds - just my two cents ... there's been a lot of info here ... all with various degrees of significance. RAW is just another tool to use to improve your final image. RAW is most useful in color and exposure manipulation. RAW conversion adds an additional step in processing, so if you shoot a ton of images that additional step will add significant time to your workflow. If you are consistantly spot-on with your color temp and exposure then the advantages of RAW are reduced and that additional time of RAW conversion can be best used for something other than RAW conversion.
I strongly suggest to shoot something, (or a few "somethings" a few times), that is tricky and demanding of your photographic skills and experience in both RAW & JPEG ... then see which format delivers a better final image (after all it isn't about, hard drive space, or workflow, or telling your buds that you shoot RAW ... photography is ALL about the final image).
Good Luck to Ya,
Gary
PS- On the internet ... Before you take anyone's opinion as Gospel, check out their photo-site. Generally, a person with images that you respect, will also offer similar advice.
Save your initial file and load it into Photoshop on the background layer. Do your edits and saves as many times as you desire, then open the final file in Photoshop on a layer above the initial file, and compare them with Difference Blend, to see the pixels that have been altered.
I don't think you can alter a jpg, and them process it to remove the alteration, because editing jpgs in Photoshop is destructive of data, as opposed to editing via metadata only, like is done in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw.
I think that the concern about saving jpgs and re-editing them causing damage to the file is much more of a concern with small jpg files, than the much larger jpg files we work with today. Try editing a 25 Kb file a few times and see if you don't see it begin to fall apart. Many of my jpg files are several Mbytes, and that is a whole lot more data than a few Kb.
I agree with you Jim.
This may have been a larger issue with 1 meg files. I don't believe it to be a problem with my files from the 5DMKII, or the 7D.
There's more than enough info there to save it a few times with no worries.
I think I'm done. I've beaten this horse to death.
Have a good one everyone.
... I can't figure out a way to process a shot, save it, then try to get rid of the processing and save it, to see if the
image degrades more.
If I just keep processing the shot, I know the file size and the look of the image is going to change.
I saved, opened file 1, saved as 2, opened 2, saved as 3 ... and so on to 10, at level 10 in CS3.
I got the same results as my unedited photo, pretty much no change.
Just for further clarification, each time I reopened the file, I did something to all the 7 squares, repeated 40 times making a total of 280 "abused." Took me about an hr. I used USM, curve, blur, contrast, painting, brushing, equalised, saturate, add noise, denoise etc etc and whatever you can think of, and a very generous pulling of sliders, some pulling all the way, that's why you see all the blotches, ie a total destruction with the hope it will somehow affect the adjacent pixels beyond the square and start spreading destructive pixels across. But its ain't easy to abuse this file size of 634kb !
I think I can safely say it will still look pretty good if abuse another 20 times.
Workflow
Frankly, I notice no difference in workflow or time in shooting RAW vs JPEG. I use Lightroom. Here is what I do:
1. Import into LR and upload from CF Cards, copying to Photo drive. I also apply basic sharpening, auto exposure and some clarity to all shots as starting point.
2. Review shots, discarding obvious bad shots
3. Find whitebalance shots, correct WB, and copy settings to groups of shots at similar location/time (http://digitalmason.posterous.com/my-white-balance-workflow-in-lightroom)
4. Flag picks
5. Tweak picks for color, crops, noise, exposure, etc, flagging keepers
6. Select keepers, use "Export to Smugmug" (this happens to make JPEGs for Smugmug use, but they are not saved to disk)
7. Done
In my case, it makes no difference whether I start with RAW or JPEG, as I am going to go thru the same routine, except perhaps not apply sharpening, since the JPEG is already sharpened. There is no way I would upload a JPEG directly to Smugmug, since I want to archive and cull anyway: adding some cropping and basic edits takes little more time, and something I do regardless of what type file I start with. I may as well start with RAW, as it gives me a safety net in terms of exposure latitude and more control in terms what I get to start with for edits.
Honestly, I shoot in RAW and in JPG in some occasions and there isn't much of a difference when it comes to post production. You know by now that the RAW file is bigger and that is probably the biggest difference. Either than that, I just don't see much. I use Lightroom to edit all my pictures and it's a non destructive program. I don't see a difference in the quality after editing in Lightroom. Try both RAW and JPG and do your post production in lightroom and see what you think. You won't see a difference. Please feel free to view my work...http://www.jamadophotography.com
I'm not here to argue the merits of RAW vs Jpeg but below just doesn't go down well with me.
Quite a sinister remark. Could you explain why its insane for not shooting RAW. Not to put a feather on my cap, all my photos were shot in jpeg and I think i have many many keepers (that's what I think)
That's absolute rubbish and the most insane remark I ever come across.
More correctly would be a great photo will still be a great photo, even when shot in jpeg. Wrong?
Actually, I'd add a bad photo even when shot in RAW is destined for the bin.
So by every account including the amateurs (basically hobbyist) ought to shoot RAW lest they shouldn't even take up photography at all? And you expect a 70 yr old hobbyist who enjoy taking a few snap shots of his grandson to do a RAW conversion.
Pse, don't impose your warp philosophy unto others.
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
OK. I'll try and answer your questions straightforwardly.
1) I DO think serious photographers should be able to shoot RAW. This is not the same as saying that JPEG cannot give great results. When you understand your in-camera settings fully JPEG can be used as a default setting in many situations. As evidenced several times in this thread, many great photographers opt for JPEG on occasion.
2) Bad photos should be binned, whether shot in RAW or JPEG. My point is that a photo in RAW is never worse than a JPEG, potentially. However, you always have to do work in post on the RAW to make it as good or better than the JPEG delivered by your camera. RAW photos in my experience always need post processing whereas JPEGs are often good to go. Working on RAW is not a trivial task. When you are happy with your JPEG results then you should stick with it.
Today's cameras contain the accumulated wisdom of fifty years photography to deliver JPEGs that can be used "as is". You need be both confident and competent to do better.
3) Everybody should be able to take a decent photo and that is what today's technology provides - point and click. However the serious hobbyist and professional will squeeze a bit more from the sensor by using RAW and a post-processing package such as LR or Aperture. The skilled PS operator will squeeze even more. Like many aspects of photography, how much can you afford to invest in time and money to squeeze an extra 10%? Maybe you get better by buying a better body or better glass or both.
Hmmm, so now I'm a masochist.
Wait, I need to take this safety pin out of my nipple before I continue.
Here's my real take of the RAW/JPG deal.
Wait, I have to adjust my flame suit cause I'll be getting back 10 fold what I put down.
I look at RAW shooting like riding a bike with training wheels, helmet, elbow pads and knee pads.
It seems as though everyone's afraid to take a chance on anything anymore.
Learn how to take a photo without trying to fix everything in post.
RAW is this great big safety net that no one wants to stray away from.
Let's say that you're a wedding photographer and you misplaced your extra cards. Do you take 30 RAW shots, or do
you have the confidence to switch to JPG and get a 100 shots?
I can at least say that I have tried shooting RAW and found for the shots that I take, I don't see any real advantage.
Now, in saying that, have I had some shots that didn't turn out that I maybe could have fixed in post
if I would have shot in RAW? Sure I have. But that percentage is so low, it would be crazy for me to waste
the space on my hard drives (1.5 TB, 750 GB, 500 GB, 320 GB) not including the 750 GB in the IMac.
Seeing as I'm just a hobbyist, it doesn't really matter if my shot turns out or not. I'm not getting paid for it.
But I would hope that before anyone wants to light me up for my comments here, that they would at
least try shooting RAW and JPG together, take those shots home and work a couple of them up, and show me what I'm missing.
And I'm not talking about some 3 stop underexposed shot, that would just prove my point that that
people don't take the time to learn their craft and expect to save everything it post.
And please, don't send me to a link where someone else took the time to try something, do it yourself.
Prove to me and yourself that (A) you are that good that you can set up a camera, (B) that you know
how to expose a shot, (C) maybe just learn that you can ride that bike without the training wheels.
I did the tests that I posted, show me in real world shots (not some graph) that I'm totally wrong.
Go ahead, flame away
And David, thanks for taking the time review the shots.
Sorry if I struck a raw nerve. I don't know your work, but I'm sure it's great.
However, I've heard the 'only poor photographers need RAW' argument before. It's total BS. There are many world class photographers shooting RAW and I'm sure that it's not because they don't know how to expose a picture correctly.
On the other hand I have personally met JPEG shooters who have given me this argument, but having seen their images the bride's dress is a white out and they don't even care! If you are a hobbyist, and shooting JPEGs saves you some time and money that's fine. But a wedding is a one off and it seems obvious to me that one should have as many 'safety nets' as possible if that means that the images will be better for the client.
2) My point is that a photo in RAW is never worse than a JPEG, potentially.
What you mentioned previously was "A great photo will still be a great photo, even when shot in raw. Entirely differ from above.
A great photo has nothing to do with what format it was shot. A p&s can produce a great photo. A great photo means good in composition and may be a potential award winner.
3) However the serious hobbyist and professional will squeeze a bit more from the sensor by using RAW
That's your opinion. I'm a serious hobbyist but i don't find myself needing to sqeeze every single juice from the sensor. And I think there are many out there just like me. I just ensure my exposure and technique are right couple with pp when needed. I don't need to buy insurance.
I'm sorry. It's seems we are drifting apart, or I couldn't understand you better.
Space is cheap and there's a time and a place for both
So why not shoot both at once? I've been fairly lucky in that I like the JPEG output from my Olympus cameras and find Aperture profiles them pretty well (camera raw with PSE is always a struggle but I'm told in CS3 you can get it to profile the camera better). If there are no significant blown highlights indicated in Aperture, I use the JPEG, otherwise I use the raw (very similar preset accept a small move right on the recovery slider).
Ditto with my Canons ... I shoot both. Storage is inexpensive, and I can access my photos on any computer with any ol' software ... Even Word or, heaven forbid, Paint. And I always have RAW to fall back on if something critical needs to be done.
Comments
It would be wrong if someone had actually said that. What was said was that modern DSLRs can convert their images to lovely .jpgs without the photographer having to enter editing commands before each image is converted. If your time and effort haven't been sufficient for those .jpgs to be lovely, you are free to edit your .jpgs. Many raw shooters have decided that their out of camera .jpgs would not be as lovely as they might achieve by editing the out of camera raws. Some of those think it is worth their time and effort in editing before the conversion to .jpg. It is true that those who shoot only .jpg don't put in -that- time or effort.
Dale B. Dalrymple
...with apology to Archimedies
RAW files contain the most DR you can achieve with a given camera and a 14 bit RAW contains (potentially) 16,384 shades per color channel, for a total of 49,152 color shades per pixel for an RGB imager (after interpolation). Compare this to JPGs 256/768 shades and you start to see some of the potential that is available in the RAW image file data. Color combinations are even more telling with 8 bit systems able to represent a total of 16.7 million colors, while 14 bit systems can represent 68.7 billion colors.
While 8 bits/16.7 million colors is generally accepted to be the minimum needed to accurately represent a lifelike color spectrum for human vision, if you start with just that amount, normal processing will generally only reduce the available palette of colors. JPG compression only reduces the available palette even more.
According to Luminous Landscape, the first 5 zones in 12 bit versus 8 bit systems are as follows:
A 12 Bit raw File
An 8 bit JPG File
(Referenced from: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml)
JPGs are also processed with a given white balance (WB), where RAW files may have a WB bit set, but WB is not assigned until after the RAW file is processed. Post processing WB, and even processing shadows and highlights with different color balance, is often reason alone for using RAW.
Can you capture and manipulate JPG images and create wonderful renditions of scenes? Of course you can, but a RAW file gives you more DR in the resulting file, more hues and shades per pixel, and the ability to set WB in post. Those are the indisputable facts.
If you need to process the image at all, a RAW file will always give greater flexibility and options, and very often a RAW file will allow better results.
Most modern dSLRs allow a greater continuous shot buffer depth and faster overall image cycling (especially including file write times) when using JPG. JPG files are also smaller and more JPG files fit a given storage card.
When I shot sports I used JPG files exclusively. I was happy to have the extra shooting throughput and effectively greater storage that JPG shooting allows.
When I shoot weddings and events and pretty much any paying gig I use RAW for the extra margin of safety in exposure, the extra dynamic range and the smoother gradations of color than JPG capture reliably allows.
By all means, try different methods and use what works. Ultimately it's whatever gives you the best results that will ultimately decide what's best for you as an individual.
Some links to explore:
http://www.bythom.com/qadraw.htm
http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html
http://photodoto.com/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/
http://www.prophotoshow.net/blog/2010/04/30/jpeg-vs-raw-example-conclusion/
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
What you mentioned here are totally irrelevant to what I've queried. You're just circumverting conveniently my above 3 questions.
<o:p></o:p>
Now the duck. I think if the duck was simply posted under the critique thread without the dividing line, I think I can take on the bet no one will bring out the subject of what format was the pic taken. Probably a long strings of comment of “nice picture” follows. Perhaps Davev should have done some deception by dividing it horizontally instead of vertically, and those still managed to guess correctly the disparity is between the left and the right instead of top and bottom is god. You get the point? <o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
Somehow we tend to loose sight the main focus and objective of a good image is not all about mega and more mega pixels, RAW or jpeg, DR etc etc. Of course all these does contribute in making a good photograph, but a good photograph need not be the product in using the latest, biggest, and most sophisticated camera or recording format. A bad photograph is a bad photograph.<o:p></o:p>
Hmmm, so now I'm a masochist.
Wait, I need to take this safety pin out of my nipple before I continue.
Here's my real take of the RAW/JPG deal.
Wait, I have to adjust my flame suit cause I'll be getting back 10 fold what I put down.
I look at RAW shooting like riding a bike with training wheels, helmet, elbow pads and knee pads.
It seems as though everyone's afraid to take a chance on anything anymore.
Learn how to take a photo without trying to fix everything in post.
RAW is this great big safety net that no one wants to stray away from.
Let's say that you're a wedding photographer and you misplaced your extra cards. Do you take 30 RAW shots, or do
you have the confidence to switch to JPG and get a 100 shots?
I can at least say that I have tried shooting RAW and found for the shots that I take, I don't see any real advantage.
Now, in saying that, have I had some shots that didn't turn out that I maybe could have fixed in post
if I would have shot in RAW? Sure I have. But that percentage is so low, it would be crazy for me to waste
the space on my hard drives (1.5 TB, 750 GB, 500 GB, 320 GB) not including the 750 GB in the IMac.
Seeing as I'm just a hobbyist, it doesn't really matter if my shot turns out or not. I'm not getting paid for it.
But I would hope that before anyone wants to light me up for my comments here, that they would at
least try shooting RAW and JPG together, take those shots home and work a couple of them up, and show me what I'm missing.
And I'm not talking about some 3 stop underexposed shot, that would just prove my point that that
people don't take the time to learn their craft and expect to save everything it post.
And please, don't send me to a link where someone else took the time to try something, do it yourself.
Prove to me and yourself that (A) you are that good that you can set up a camera, (B) that you know
how to expose a shot, (C) maybe just learn that you can ride that bike without the training wheels.
I did the tests that I posted, show me in real world shots (not some graph) that I'm totally wrong.
Go ahead, flame away
And David, thanks for taking the time review the shots.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Yeah, Rambo, go on shooting jpeg only. Like people said, it is a personal choice what format to shoot in. Clearly, you prefer the jpeg, many of us prefer raw for the sake of extra options. What is the point of going apesh!t on those who shoot in raw? ohhh.. I know.. 'cause they do not agree with your thinking...
My Site
My Facebook
You don't think the man should defend himself when people make statements saying people who don't shoot raw are insane or masochists? Davev is sounding rather rational I think, and was just trying to say that not everyone HAS to shoot raw all the time to get good results. Look back to his first post:
In my mind, storage is cheap, and some of what I shoot does need the extra data that raw gives me, so I choose to shoot in raw. But probably 90%+ of what I shoot could be done in jpg and nobody would ever know the difference. I choose to still shoot it in raw because I've got a comfortable raw workflow down, and I don't mind the extra storage space. To each his own...
Davev chooses to shoot jpgs and he is very good at it! That I can and DO respect. So should every one else.
Davev has chosen to shoot jpgs deliberately, after comparing his jpgs, with his images from RAW files. As he has stated, he has tried RAW and can shoot it, but chooses not to because he is able to get everything he needs in his images by shooting OOC jpgs ( He does admit to running his jpgs through Adobe Camera RAW from time to time and I would suggest then that RAW files hold up better in ACR than jpgs ). Let's leave at that and call it a gentlemanly difference of opinion.
While I usually shoot Raw, because I like the safety net that Davev disparages a bit, I can and do shoot jpgs from time to time also, depending on my needs and goals for the final files. If I am shooting in flat light, jpgs will encompass the dynamic range of the entire scene. I rarely find this luxury, however, I usually seem to have a dynamic range beyond that of my sensor, and so I want the highlight recovery ability of a RAW file, and I like the ability to alter color temperature with more aplomb than jpgs will afford me.
Raw files demand more storage and more work on my part and my computers part as well. I can see that jpgs have a lot to offer, and will shoot more of them from time to time - usually as RAW + jpg. Compact Flash space gets cheaper and cheaper. Then I can choose which file I want back at the comfort of my computer and with the file large on my monitor, not that little LCD on my camera.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Go take some some pictures in what ever format you want, and have a good day.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Just to add my two cents worth ( I should have said tuppence worth as I'm welsh).
I came into digital from a film shooting background. I was given this advice around 34 years ago.................Always use the best film you can, to give yourself the best quality negative you can (obviously getting the exposure right as well). You can alter your prints as time and experience allows but if your negatives are poor...........your prints will always be poor.
Transposing this into the digital age I look at this debate in those terms. Using Raw "digital negatives" gives me the most information available to allow me to post process to my hearts content. This doesn't mean I would pp them to look any different to what my camera would have produced as JPEG's, but I have more options open to me than if I had taken the shots as JPEG's.
Storage is so cheap nowadays (and getting cheaper as we speak) that I dont find file sizes an issue.
I would simply say shoot what you will, whether JPEG or RAW, it's up to you. The important thing is that you learn and enjoy.
Carpy
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
<o:p></o:p>
I got a picture size 1500x1275 and had demarcated 7 locations for “abused.” I used various editing tools using CS3 in these 7 squares. I will reopen, edit and resaved at 10 IQ (not the max. yet) and again reopen, edit and resave 40 times! Blowed up 300% and I couldn’t find any changes to area just adjacent to the “abused” location. I agree opening, edit and resave will degrade a jpeg image but I have yet to come across any credible journals mentioning the no. of repeats before degradation kicks in. And I think 40 times is heck of an aweful lot. Don’t just trust me. Someone may be interested to continue from here using my picture and post your findings.
Original
<o:p></o:p>
Repeated 40 times
Back to RAW and jpeg – not to stoke the fire, me too have experimented RAW and when I did a comparison, many times I can’t tell a difference. If there is, it would be very minute that it’s not worth shooting RAW (OK, that’s me). I feel as long as the exposure is not excessively clipped and your technique is right, and more importantly being able to capture “the moment”, no one can fault you, RAW or no RAW. <o:p></o:p>
I just did a very quick test.
I used the upper half of your shot, (gee, I wonder why
in the next square I used Smart Sharpen at the same 99, .3, the next square got highlights and shadows at 5 for
shadows and 10 for highlights, and lastly I did a slight "S" curve.
I saved, opened file 1, saved as 2, opened 2, saved as 3 ... and so on to 10, at level 10 in CS3.
I got the same results as my unedited photo, pretty much no change.
I'm guessing that you did the edit again and again in those same shots for it to look that bad afterwards.
After one save.
after 10 saves.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
The JPG compressor used in Photoshop is of very high quality and while there is loss of data, after a few cycles of open and save the quantization stabilizes and no further loss occurs. If you make changes to the data then the quantization starts over again and further loss occurs.
One way to mitigate the loss is to both upres "and" convert to 16 bit "before" any editing. This gives the editing software a more comprehensive set of data from which to process and it gives the JPG compressor a larger set of data as well. Taking these steps will yield the best quality output with the smallest loss and smoothest results.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Good info Ziggy.
I can't compare the size to the file posted here, cause I only used the top half, but like last night after the first save, the
file size was 326.560, after the 10th save it was 327.031.
I honestly can't remember re-opening and re-saving a processed file, working on it a bit more, then saving it more than 3 times.
I would also guess that most of those times were to simply convert the photo from color to B&W.
I can't figure out a way to process a shot, save it, then try to get rid of the processing and save it, to see if the
image degrades more.
If I just keep processing the shot, I know the file size and the look of the image is going to change.
Any Ideas?
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I don't think you can alter a jpg, and them process it to remove the alteration, because editing jpgs in Photoshop is destructive of data, as opposed to editing via metadata only, like is done in Lightroom and Adobe Camera Raw.
I think that the concern about saving jpgs and re-editing them causing damage to the file is much more of a concern with small jpg files, than the much larger jpg files we work with today. Try editing a 25 Kb file a few times and see if you don't see it begin to fall apart. Many of my jpg files are several Mbytes, and that is a whole lot more data than a few Kb.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I strongly suggest to shoot something, (or a few "somethings" a few times), that is tricky and demanding of your photographic skills and experience in both RAW & JPEG ... then see which format delivers a better final image (after all it isn't about, hard drive space, or workflow, or telling your buds that you shoot RAW ... photography is ALL about the final image).
Good Luck to Ya,
Gary
PS- On the internet ... Before you take anyone's opinion as Gospel, check out their photo-site. Generally, a person with images that you respect, will also offer similar advice.
G
Unsharp at any Speed
I agree with you Jim.
This may have been a larger issue with 1 meg files. I don't believe it to be a problem with my files from the 5DMKII, or the 7D.
There's more than enough info there to save it a few times with no worries.
I think I'm done. I've beaten this horse to death.
Have a good one everyone.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I don't know of any truly reversible processing.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
Just for further clarification, each time I reopened the file, I did something to all the 7 squares, repeated 40 times making a total of 280 "abused." Took me about an hr. I used USM, curve, blur, contrast, painting, brushing, equalised, saturate, add noise, denoise etc etc and whatever you can think of, and a very generous pulling of sliders, some pulling all the way, that's why you see all the blotches, ie a total destruction with the hope it will somehow affect the adjacent pixels beyond the square and start spreading destructive pixels across. But its ain't easy to abuse this file size of 634kb !
I think I can safely say it will still look pretty good if abuse another 20 times.
Frankly, I notice no difference in workflow or time in shooting RAW vs JPEG. I use Lightroom. Here is what I do:
1. Import into LR and upload from CF Cards, copying to Photo drive. I also apply basic sharpening, auto exposure and some clarity to all shots as starting point.
2. Review shots, discarding obvious bad shots
3. Find whitebalance shots, correct WB, and copy settings to groups of shots at similar location/time (http://digitalmason.posterous.com/my-white-balance-workflow-in-lightroom)
4. Flag picks
5. Tweak picks for color, crops, noise, exposure, etc, flagging keepers
6. Select keepers, use "Export to Smugmug" (this happens to make JPEGs for Smugmug use, but they are not saved to disk)
7. Done
In my case, it makes no difference whether I start with RAW or JPEG, as I am going to go thru the same routine, except perhaps not apply sharpening, since the JPEG is already sharpened. There is no way I would upload a JPEG directly to Smugmug, since I want to archive and cull anyway: adding some cropping and basic edits takes little more time, and something I do regardless of what type file I start with. I may as well start with RAW, as it gives me a safety net in terms of exposure latitude and more control in terms what I get to start with for edits.
OK. I'll try and answer your questions straightforwardly.
1) I DO think serious photographers should be able to shoot RAW. This is not the same as saying that JPEG cannot give great results. When you understand your in-camera settings fully JPEG can be used as a default setting in many situations. As evidenced several times in this thread, many great photographers opt for JPEG on occasion.
2) Bad photos should be binned, whether shot in RAW or JPEG. My point is that a photo in RAW is never worse than a JPEG, potentially. However, you always have to do work in post on the RAW to make it as good or better than the JPEG delivered by your camera. RAW photos in my experience always need post processing whereas JPEGs are often good to go. Working on RAW is not a trivial task. When you are happy with your JPEG results then you should stick with it.
Today's cameras contain the accumulated wisdom of fifty years photography to deliver JPEGs that can be used "as is". You need be both confident and competent to do better.
3) Everybody should be able to take a decent photo and that is what today's technology provides - point and click. However the serious hobbyist and professional will squeeze a bit more from the sensor by using RAW and a post-processing package such as LR or Aperture. The skilled PS operator will squeeze even more. Like many aspects of photography, how much can you afford to invest in time and money to squeeze an extra 10%? Maybe you get better by buying a better body or better glass or both.
Sorry if I struck a raw nerve. I don't know your work, but I'm sure it's great.
However, I've heard the 'only poor photographers need RAW' argument before. It's total BS. There are many world class photographers shooting RAW and I'm sure that it's not because they don't know how to expose a picture correctly.
On the other hand I have personally met JPEG shooters who have given me this argument, but having seen their images the bride's dress is a white out and they don't even care! If you are a hobbyist, and shooting JPEGs saves you some time and money that's fine. But a wedding is a one off and it seems obvious to me that one should have as many 'safety nets' as possible if that means that the images will be better for the client.
What you mentioned previously was "A great photo will still be a great photo, even when shot in raw. Entirely differ from above.
A great photo has nothing to do with what format it was shot. A p&s can produce a great photo. A great photo means good in composition and may be a potential award winner.
That's your opinion. I'm a serious hobbyist but i don't find myself needing to sqeeze every single juice from the sensor. And I think there are many out there just like me. I just ensure my exposure and technique are right couple with pp when needed. I don't need to buy insurance.
I'm sorry. It's seems we are drifting apart, or I couldn't understand you better.
Is there a spot anywhere in RAW showing where the AF point was set?
My Site
My Facebook
Yes (in aperture with Canon at least)
My Site
My Facebook
So why not shoot both at once? I've been fairly lucky in that I like the JPEG output from my Olympus cameras and find Aperture profiles them pretty well (camera raw with PSE is always a struggle but I'm told in CS3 you can get it to profile the camera better). If there are no significant blown highlights indicated in Aperture, I use the JPEG, otherwise I use the raw (very similar preset accept a small move right on the recovery slider).
Ditto with my Canons ... I shoot both. Storage is inexpensive, and I can access my photos on any computer with any ol' software ... Even Word or, heaven forbid, Paint. And I always have RAW to fall back on if something critical needs to be done.
Nam et ipsa scientia potestas est.