Raw Vs. JPG

[boomtap]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

[masdog]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

No. RAW is a tool. It isn't the be-all, end-all of digital photography.

While it grants you much more creative control than JPEG, it isn't suitable for everything, especially if your camera's buffer limits the number of consecutive RAW images you can shoot. Unless I missed it earlier in the thread, I haven't seen where you said what camera you're shooting with or what you intended subjects are.

[Ronnoco]

[QUOTE=masdog]No. RAW is a tool. It isn't the be-all, end-all of digital photography.QUOTE]

I would heartily second this view and add that it is neither efficient, effective, nor necessary to shoot everything in RAW, especially so, if you like to spend more time with your camera than with the computer.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

That is only practical if you plan to do a very limited amount of photography. Imagine trying to quickly find one photograph on an almost full hard drive of 300 gig or so, or searching through 300 CDs or DVDs.

The reality is that no matter how great a photographer you are, not all your photos will be archival keepers. If you have a good eye, it is easy to decide which to keep and which to erase. When it comes down to it, spending a lot of time searching through large archives of photos, is not profitable. It becomes a decision related to priorities.

Ronnoco

[boomtap]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

[Ronnoco]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

Well, in landscapes, I would shoot RAW for the early morning, mist rising off water, sun breaking through, etc. with mixed lighting from bright areas to dark areas, for interesting dramatic clouds, stormy weather, sunsets etc.....but for the average sunny mid day shots with a mildly interesting subject, I would probably shoot jpeg.

Ronnoco

[Erik Stiegler]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

You should at least experiment with RAW.

At least as far as post processing is concerned, I've found RAW to be more forgiving than JPEG. If the white balance or exposure is off, it's much easier (at least for me) to fix with a RAW image than a JPEG.

You can find good free RAW converters. SilkyPix Developers Studio and RawShooter Essentials are a couple you can download and use free to get your feet wet. Go shoot some RAW images and see how it goes for you.

[masdog]

I am using a Nikon D50 and shoot mostly landscapes on hikes. I have never taken 1 raw photo yet and am trying to decide if I should begin taking them. I am a noob for sure, so it sounds like raw is a bit less forgiving?

Actually, you're getting it backwards. RAW is more forgiving. If you screw up your exposure, want to saturate the colors, use the wrong white balance, etc, you can make changes much more easily in RAW (in my experience, anyway). They're better for most landscapes as they grant the shooter more control over the final output.

The disadvantage to shooting RAW is that it takes up much more space. On a Canon 20D, the Large/Fine JPEG is usually about 3.5 Mb. A RAW file is more than twice that. So if you start to shoot more in RAW, you'll have to get more storage.

[boomtap]

I am just now figuring that out. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

I just read these, and it seemed to shed some light.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...awtruth1.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tu...aw-files.shtml

[Ronnoco]

Actually, you're getting it backwards. RAW is more forgiving. If you screw up your exposure, want to saturate the colors, use the wrong white balance, etc, you can make changes much more easily in RAW (in my experience, anyway). They're better for most landscapes as they grant the shooter more control over the final output.

The disadvantage to shooting RAW is that it takes up much more space. On a Canon 20D, the Large/Fine JPEG is usually about 3.5 Mb. A RAW file is more than twice that. So if you start to shoot more in RAW, you'll have to get more storage.

Not quite correct. Yes you can make a lot of changes but without a good eye, you are missing the problems and disadvantages created by making those changes. Tim had a link to an example in RAW as being super, but no one noticed the noise made more prominent in the pavement area of the shot, by the changes to exposure in RAW. As to changes being more easy in RAW, no the advantage of jpeg is that the changes can be made selectively to small sections of the photo without adversely affecting other areas of your picture.

Storage is only one disadvantage. RAW as I have suggested all along requires a much better eye for noise, colour changes, tonal changes, lack of detail etc. and the effect of making adjustments and changes to other areas of your photo. With lots of experience and the desire to spend a lot of time in post-processing in front of the computer, you can make RAW work to your advantage. However if you totally shoot RAW, you are wasting time, effort, storage, and efficiency. How much you are wasting depends on your style of shooting and your typical subject.

My approach is to decide on RAW or jpeg based on the kind of shooting I am likely to do when I go out. If it is journalistic or public relations in type and speed is important, then I am likely to shoot jpeg for most and switch to RAW + jpeg if it seems that an exceptional, quality shot is possible. In weddings, I would lean to RAW + jpeg for the classic shots and jpeg for everything else. For scenic shots it would depend on the time of day, weather, and the impact of the subject. Mid morning and afternoon would be mostly jpeg while sunrise, sunset, fog, mist, and unusual weather would be RAW + jpeg.
In this way, I save storage space, organization, time, efficiency and profitability. Even if I shoot jpeg when RAW might have been better, I still have the advantage of selective improvements in jpeg of parts of the photo, rather than adjustments that affect the total picture.

Ronnoco

[Erik Stiegler]

Even if I shoot jpeg when RAW might have been better, I still have the advantage of selective improvements in jpeg of parts of the photo, rather than adjustments that affect the total picture.

Any RAW file can be converted into exactly the same JPEG as the camera will produce. Any adjustments that can be made to a JPEG can be made to a photograph taken as RAW. I do not see how JPEG has any practical advantages over RAW when it comes to postprocessing.

[Ronnoco]

Any RAW file can be converted into exactly the same JPEG as the camera will produce. Any adjustments that can be made to a JPEG can be made to a photograph taken as RAW. I do not see how JPEG has any practical advantages over RAW when it comes to postprocessing.

To repeat what has been proven in tests in the labs of the photo mags, some cameras can produce a better jpeg than conversions done later through software and that is the reason for the choice RAW + jpeg in a lot of cameras. This means that if you make no adjustments and simply do a conversion from raw through software, the resulting jpeg will NOT equal the quality of the jpeg produced directly from the camera.

As to adjustments they are not equal either. The difference is for example, working in RAW to improve the exposure in a dark area and the consequence is blowing out the highlights. In jpeg you would work on the dark area selectively using Curves and the highlights would not be affected at all.

Practical advantages have already been mentioned.

Ronnoco

[masdog]

Not quite correct. Yes you can make a lot of changes but without a good eye, you are missing the problems and disadvantages created by making those changes. Tim had a link to an example in RAW as being super, but no one noticed the noise made more prominent in the pavement area of the shot, by the changes to exposure in RAW. As to changes being more easy in RAW, no the advantage of jpeg is that the changes can be made selectively to small sections of the photo without adversely affecting other areas of your picture.

To be honest, I didn't even click the link earlier in the conversation, but I have gone back and looked at it. I did notice the noise, but that could be attributed to the software that he used. Some software is better than others at converting RAW files. I've converted files that were almost 2 stops overexposed and ended up with no noticable noise.

Storage is only one disadvantage. RAW as I have suggested all along requires a much better eye for noise, colour changes, tonal changes, lack of detail etc. and the effect of making adjustments and changes to other areas of your photo. With lots of experience and the desire to spend a lot of time in post-processing in front of the computer, you can make RAW work to your advantage. However if you totally shoot RAW, you are wasting time, effort, storage, and efficiency. How much you are wasting depends on your style of shooting and your typical subject.

This goes without saying in any digital editing, Ronnoco. Whether you're working with RAW or JPEG, you'll introduce noise into the file if you make any changes. Most of that noise that you see on the screen won't be noticable when you make a print unless you're enlarging it.

Its not a good idea to tell photographers that they're wasting their time because they shoot everything in RAW. For whatever reason, they have decided on that method, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't work for them. Its a matter of preference that shouldn't be judged in the manner that you have judged it.

[Ronnoco]

To be honest, I didn't even click the link earlier in the conversation, but I have gone back and looked at it. I did notice the noise, but that could be attributed to the software that he used. Some software is better than others at converting RAW files. I've converted files that were almost 2 stops overexposed and ended up with no noticable noise..

Attributing it to the software is unlikely. For that matter he may have used the same software that you do. Even if software is to blame, it suggests another weakness in the process of working with RAW format. Without seeing an original underexposed shot with the EXIF info and the converted file, I cannot comment on that except to say that colour and detail are also factors of concern in working with underexposed shots in RAW.

This goes without saying in any digital editing, Ronnoco. Whether you're working with RAW or JPEG, you'll introduce noise into the file if you make any changes. Most of that noise that you see on the screen won't be noticable when you make a print unless you're enlarging it...

The difference is that in digital editing in RAW, you are introducing noise and other problems into the whole photo, while in jpeg you can control the noise or other problem to an extremely small area of the photo by selecting a small part of the photo to adjust. This is a very important difference.

Its not a good idea to tell photographers that they're wasting their time because they shoot everything in RAW. For whatever reason, they have decided on that method, and just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it doesn't work for them. Its a matter of preference that shouldn't be judged in the manner that you have judged it.

The reverse of that is that it is not a good idea to tell a new photographer that they should shoot everything in RAW, regardless of their experience, expertise in using photo editors, or their style and subjects. They should be allowed to listen to the arguments, test both RAW and jpeg equally and come to their own conclusion.

To quote from Rob Sheppard, editor of PC Photo and Outdoor Photographer."Photographers sometimes use Raw even when it does not meet their needs but they feel guilty if they shoot jpeg. Well-meaning experts, often promote one approach to digital, because that is how they do it, but unfortunately they don't adequately explore alternatives as really used by photographers." He goes on to suggest that there is no...one format fits all for digital photography and that photographers should not be bullied into chosing RAW, if it does not meet their needs or fit their style for the particular kind of work that they do.

Ronnoco

[boomtap]

If you take a raw image, make no changes to it, convert it to JPG will it be just like the JPG that would come out of the camera?

[Ronnoco]

If you take a raw image, make no changes to it, convert it to JPG will it be just like the JPG that would come out of the camera?

No. Most cameras produce better jpegs with their electronics from the processor information than what is possible through conversion software. Jpeg compression in the camera is 5% or less, which means limited loss as well.

Ronnoco

[boomtap]

Ronnoco, I really appriciate filling me in on all this and bringing up the other side of the argument. Most people I have found have been on the side of Raw except you and Ken Rockwell who's articles helped talk me into getting the d50 in the first place.

[Ronnoco]

Ronnoco, I really appriciate filling me in on all this and bringing up the other side of the argument. Most people I have found have been on the side of Raw except you and Ken Rockwell who's articles helped talk me into getting the d50 in the first place.

Thanks boomtap! I shoot both RAW and jpeg and recognize that there are advantages and disadvantages to both. As I said, I do not believe that one format fits all photographers or all shooting situations or all business practices. For your info. I was looking at one RAW shot of mine that was 46 meg. That is huge in comparison with jpegs that can be less than one quarter of the size. The implications of this size alone are longer processing times in the camera and between shots, longer time uploading to a computer, more memory required for editing, more storage space etc. and longer time to find and bring the RAW file on screen.

Bottom line is that I carefully discriminate whether to shoot RAW or jpeg in particular situations and my jpegs have been extremely successful. Although I am very comfortable with the computer, I still prefer to do most of my work with the camera, which means I try not to spend a lot of time in post-processing particularly when I am dealing with large numbers of photos.

Ronnoco

[Photo-John]

I was looking at one RAW shot of mine that was 46 meg. That is huge in comparison with jpegs that can be less than one quarter of the size.

You must be talking about an uncompressed TIFF or PSD file. Because as an unprocessed RAW file it wouldn't have been anywhere near that large.

[Erik Stiegler]

If you take a raw image, make no changes to it, convert it to JPG will it be just like the JPG that would come out of the camera?

That depends on the converter. Some do the same thing as the in-camera algorithm. Some do better, some worse.

DPReview does comparisons between in-camera JPEG, the manufacturer's software and Adobe Camera RAW in their reviews. Go see how many camera's JPEG routines outperform ACR, or even the manufacturer's software. I seriously doubt your D50 is capable of producing better output than Nikon Capture or ACR.

You can read magaines, web sites, and threads like this, but there is no substitute for experience. Get some RAW conversion software and try it out.

Just for fun, shoot both RAW and JPEGs that are improperly exposed, or shot with the wrong color balance, and see which ones are easier to fix.

Finally, I don't know about anyone else, but I have never shot a photo as RAW and later said to myself "I really wish I had shot this as a JPEG instead." I have regretted shooting as JPEG instead of RAW.

[Photo-John]

The difference is that in digital editing in RAW, you are introducing noise and other problems into the whole photo, while in jpeg you can control the noise or other problem to an extremely small area of the photo by selecting a small part of the photo to adjust. This is a very important difference.

That is true. You are making global changes when you make adjustments to the RAW file. They don't have to be huge adjustments though and you will usually get a better result from the 12-bit, if you're careful. It is very possible to get overzealous with the RAW and make a mess of an image, though. You can do the same thing with a JPEG, though. I don't think most people really know how to make selective adjustments.

The best workflow is to use a RAW converter for an initial global adjustment. How much and what you do depends on the image, your style, and the capabilitise of the RAW converter you're using. After you make your global adjustment and convert to a TIFF, then you open it in Photoshop and make any selective adjustments you might want. Every step taken should be done to prepare the file for the next step. I shoot for the highlights so that they aren't blown out. I convert for an overall color balance, saturation, contrast, etc; making sure not to lose the highlights. Then I make final, selective adjustments using Photoshop masked adjustment layers.

[Ronnoco]

The best workflow is to use a RAW converter for an initial global adjustment. How much and what you do depends on the image, your style, and the capabilitise of the RAW converter you're using. After you make your global adjustment and convert to a TIFF, then you open it in Photoshop and make any selective adjustments you might want. Every step taken should be done to prepare the file for the next step. I shoot for the highlights so that they aren't blown out. I convert for an overall color balance, saturation, contrast, etc; making sure not to lose the highlights. Then I make final, selective adjustments using Photoshop masked adjustment layers.

Thanks, John. You made one of my initial points quite successfully. At the beginning, you said RAW was an easy format to work with, and implied that everyone should shoot everything in RAW. Now, you have finally started to detail some of the intricate process necessary to work successfully with RAW and then follow up by editing in jpeg.

What you seemed to originally forget and it is understandable, since these things become second nature is that not everyone sees this process as being easy and not eveyone has the sharp eye to see problems developing as they progress through the steps and know how to solve them. Complicating the situation is that not everyone sees the process of working correctly with RAW as even important or worth the effort.

The way I see it, is that if some people find jpeg meets their needs and fits their style of photography and their business or hobby then all power to them. The same thing with RAW. However the decision to shoot jpeg or RAW should be based on a thorough knowledge of the advantages and disadvantages of both and the recognition that neither format is best for all photographic styles, situations or businesses.

Ronnoco

[Photo-John]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

Anything that's worth saving is worth saving in RAW. you should still do an initial sort and toss the obviously bad images. And you don't need to convert anything unless you actually want to use it. I have thousands of archived RAW images that have never been converted. But as I have the inclination or I get a client request, I convert them. And since I have been saving RAW for a few years, I always know I can deliver the best possible quality.

Finding them isn't that hard either. That's a matter of workflow and having a good filing strategy. And it would be the same with JPEG as RAW.

[Franglais]

Ok, then let me pose another question to the panel of distinguished photographers. Would it be a good idea to shoot everything in raw, convert the raw to JPG, and then keep the raw files as well for a later time, because as software continues to develop eventually you will be able to have more control over the raw images than you do today?

This is what I do. I made a terrible job with some of my first RAW images in Turkey last year. They were much too saturated. 6 months later I converted some of them to black & white. And now - that doesn't seem right either, I might have another try at a colour version. With RAW it's easy -I just get back the RAW file from archive, undo the adjustments I did last time, make some new ones, generate the JPG for my online library then pop the RAW file back on the archive.

I use the Rampant Paranoia method of archiving. I have at least two copies of any RAW file, on different media. Last weekend one of my RAW archives on DVD+RW got a CRC check failure (i.e. it's terminally unreadable). I got back all the files from my original CD-R and DVD-R archives, burnt a new DVD+RW - and I also copied all my RAW files to USB hard disk.

3 months ago my first 300GB USB hard disk cost me 156 Euros. On Saturday my second one cost me 114 Euros! Storage is not going to be a problem, it's going to keep getting cheaper and cheaper..

Charles

[Ronnoco]

This is what I do. I made a terrible job with some of my first RAW images in Turkey last year. They were much too saturated. 6 months later I converted some of them to black & white. And now - that doesn't seem right either, I might have another try at a colour version. With RAW it's easy -I just get back the RAW file from archive, undo the adjustments I did last time, make some new ones, generate the JPG for my online library then pop the RAW file back on the archive.

Charles

Well, if RAW is so easy, why were you having such a hard time...oversaturated images etc. Sounds to me that you are not really finding working with RAW format that easy at all.

Ronnoco