Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
JPEG versus RAW
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
Feb 25, 2018 21:52:52   #
chaman
 
Peterff wrote:
Yes. I do say so. And the facts are on our side.


And what side is that?

Reply
Feb 25, 2018 22:01:09   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
chaman wrote:
And what side is that?


The side that says raw clearly has the technical advantage over JPEG formats, and that engaging in a pissing contest is juvenile.

Reply
Feb 25, 2018 22:05:59   #
chaman
 
Peterff wrote:
The side that says raw clearly has the technical advantage over JPEG formats, and that engaging in a pissing contest is juvenile.


Ive always advocated for RAW been superior. About pissing contests your buddy Scotty just intervened in such a fashion in this very same thread to jump on me for things that happened elsewhere. If you are going to say something at least be objective and impartial. I didnt saw you then.....

I think I know your side then. Good night.

Reply
 
 
Feb 25, 2018 22:38:26   #
Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.
 
chaman wrote:
Ive always advocated for RAW been superior. About pissing contests your buddy Scotty just intervened in such a fashion in this very same thread to jump on me for things that happened elsewhere. If you are going to say something at least be objective and impartial. I didnt saw you then.....

I think I know your side then. Good night.


So we're in agreement about raw. Now we just need to agree about the futility of pissing contests, regardless of who started them. They don't add any value to the conversation.

Reply
Feb 25, 2018 22:59:50   #
chaman
 
Peterff wrote:
So we're in agreement about raw. Now we just need to agree about the futility of pissing contests, regardless of who started them. They don't add any value to the conversation.


Im not interested in any agreement with you to be honest. You jumped in here and just attacked me. I dont consider your intervention a fair one. If anyone jumps at me I will not stay in silence and will have my say. The value of this conversation was derailed by the one you are defending. I dont have anything more to say to you.

Reply
Feb 26, 2018 01:21:05   #
JohnR Loc: The Gates of Hell
 
Hi Peter. I agree I may not perceive or discern what others might but then again who knows what anyone else perceives or discerns. What colour does a red stop light look like to a person who's red colour blind ? Words are a very poor media for describing what you see. Photographs are somewhat better but then we have post processing by which means the editor can change the photo completely with different colours, lighting etc etc. Maybe its what he/she saw or imagined he/she saw but we will never know as we can't see through their eyes. Sometimes we say WOW what a great pic, other times we might say - hmm thats a bit over edited or something but unless we saw the original scene/subject we can't comment on the realism of the edited pic. By the way, I have certified 20/20 vision with 100% correct colour perception. I view on a 27" Retina iMac which to my eyes shows almost perfect colour displays.

Also regarding your hammer and nail - well you hit the nail on the head there :- there definitely are some nuances in the situation that continue to elude me. Mainly the responses of some Hoggers ! LOL
Peterff wrote:
You're inability to perceive or discern any difference does not prove or demonstrate anything.

Remember, if your only tool is a hammer, then every problem looks lile a nail.

Perhaps there are some nuances in the situation that continue to elude you.

Reply
Feb 26, 2018 06:45:09   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
JohnR wrote:
... there definitely are some nuances in the situation that continue to elude me. ...

It's the nuances that create the misunderstandings.

Anyone can say that, "JPEG compression is lossy." - it loses data.

We should then ask, "When? Which data? How much? Does it matter? Can anyone see the difference? How many saves before the loss is apparent?" Don't dismiss JPEG until you can answer those questions.

If someone does not understand the issues or is not interested in giving it some thought they might say, "Raw is always better." Sometimes raw is better - but it depends.

Blanket statements expose closed minds.

Anyone should be able to learn how to operate an editor and do a raw conversion. Your camera does it every time you press the shutter. It's not as smart as you are, let's hope.

JPEG does not always lose highlight and shadows information because there may not be any. A scene with a narrow DR might span only Zones III through VII. If you expose correctly JPEG is fine. Even a little more DR can be accommodated using Active-D lighting. So raw is not always necessary.

In fact there are situations where JPEG straight from the camera is mandatory and edited raw is not permitted.

A wise photographer knows the difference between raw and JPEG and can use either method appropriately.

Reply
 
 
Feb 26, 2018 08:03:55   #
warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA
 

Reply
Feb 26, 2018 08:04:43   #
warrior Loc: Paso Robles CA
 
rmorrison1116 wrote:
There is no directive saying one must use RAW or JPEG or TIFF or whatever. If you don't want to shoot RAW, don't. If you believe you can get the same results from editing a JPEG file as you can from a RAW file, that is your prerogative.
Personally, I will continue to shoot RAW.



Reply
Feb 26, 2018 09:38:43   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
I use Lightroom for postprocessing. I started doing that when my photopile exceeded 10,000 images, mainly because my memory is decreasing with age and I have trouble finding photos from 10 or more years ago. Lightroom is good at image management and allows me to add keywords to my photos and search for things in many different ways, as well as organizing my images in many different ways.

Since Lightroom will convert a raw file to an image, I can shoot raw only. Yes, the files may be large, but since the raw files have 14 bit data depth and the jpg files have 8 bit data depth I gain flexibility by using raw. I see no point in shooting jpg when I can shoot raw. If I shot a jpg image I would be tempted to use it directly witthout putting it into Lightroom. That would mean the image was not in my lightroom catalog and I would have a very good chance of not remembering how to find it 10 years from now.

There are times to shoot jpg. There are times to shoot raw. I rarely encounter those times when jpg is necessary, but that's just me. YMMV.

Reply
Feb 26, 2018 10:25:10   #
selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA
 
DirtFarmer wrote:
... If I shot a jpg image I would be tempted to use it directly witthout putting it into Lightroom. That would mean the image was not in my lightroom catalog and I would have a very good chance of not remembering how to find it 10 years from now.

There are times to shoot jpg. There are times to shoot raw. I rarely encounter those times when jpg is necessary, but that's just me. YMMV.

You will be lucky if your Lightroom catalog survives 10 years without misplacing stuff. I have seen many questions here about how to recover from Lightroom catalog problems.

I have more faith in my own storage and removable backup drive schemes but then I have been doing that for a long time. It's just a matter of coming up with a logical naming scheme for file folders. It keeps me independent of any particular software or computer.

Reply
 
 
Feb 26, 2018 11:52:41   #
frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.
 
selmslie wrote:
It's the nuances that create the misunderstandings.

Anyone can say that, "JPEG compression is lossy." - it loses data.

We should then ask, "When? Which data? How much? Does it matter? Can anyone see the difference? How many saves before the loss is apparent?" Don't dismiss JPEG until you can answer those questions.

If someone does not understand the issues or is not interested in giving it some thought they might say, "Raw is always better." Sometimes raw is better - but it depends.

Blanket statements expose closed minds.

Anyone should be able to learn how to operate an editor and do a raw conversion. Your camera does it every time you press the shutter. It's not as smart as you are, let's hope.

JPEG does not always lose highlight and shadows information because there may not be any. A scene with a narrow DR might span only Zones III through VII. If you expose correctly JPEG is fine. Even a little more DR can be accommodated using Active-D lighting. So raw is not always necessary.

In fact there are situations where JPEG straight from the camera is mandatory and edited raw is not permitted.

A wise photographer knows the difference between raw and JPEG and can use either method appropriately.
It's the nuances that create the misunderstandings... (show quote)


You are right on. I'm just responding to add some information to answer some of the questions that you, and others, ask or for other people that do not understand these differences.

There are a lot of different file formats. Each one has its place in the world but it's handled in a different way. JPEG and RAW are the two biggest questions and comparisons on this site. It is often said that jpeg loses information. This is true. The way jpeg Works in storing its information when it compresses it there is some data that is lost that's by definition you can find that anywhere on the Internet by the engineers in the people that do this that's not me saying that. But the information that is lost is minimal and the human eye doesn't notice it. But it is the most widely accepted on the internet the passing back and forth and emails and so forth because of this file size. Raw on the other hand has all the information that was recorded none is lost. It is a matter of opinion, needs, and uses that Define which file type we want to use. I have searched and searched and searched and cannot find what is lost in the compression of a Jpeg. doesn't state that anywhere that I can find. Only that it's lost but is not noticeable. Another thing that's been stated is that jpegs cannot be edited with Lightroom. This also is wrong you have complete control at least I have seen that to edit. Maybe I don't understand Lightroom since I'm new at it enough to notice but I have edited in Lightroom highlights Shadows everything. For the newbies here like me here is a link that will explain all file formats and uses. http://guides.lib.umich.edu/c.php?g=282942&p=1885348

So yes it's lossy meaning it loses data when it says. Other files are not lossy such as Tiff and others. But they are large files which makes them hard for sharing my email posting on the internet Twitter Etc jpeg by far is the most used because of its quality and size. Jpeg or Raw, or any other, is an individual choice. Do your research look at your uses and decide for yourself.

Reply
Feb 26, 2018 15:01:09   #
terry44 Loc: Tuolumne County California, Maui Hawaii
 
I really wonder why this is such a argument Raw gives us much more latitude when processing our photo JPG is a lossy file which does in fact lose something in the file every time it is edited and also when it is saved each and every time, now many may not notice this loss the first few edits and saves especially if you do minor adjustments
. With a RAW file nothing is lost we keep everything the best way is to create a copy of the original either RAW or JPG, tiff etc. and work with it that way the original is always there and always the same. When I work open a jpg it is not far into the process that I can see a difference such as banding, and tonal differences. This should not be such an argument its your choice either use RAW with its full capabilities or use jpg and push it as far as you can your choice. In my opinion why not use the file that gives you the most control which you can redo over and over without fear of losing the original.
JohnR wrote:
A 1st time poster on UHH although I have been subscribed for nearly a year now. I started photography with my first job in 1963 where I received training using a Linhoff Technica 5” x 4”, developing and printing Ilford FP4 & HP4 etc etc. (some Kodak varieties but can’t remember their names … ! ) Although not exactly a “Professional” photographer, photography has been part of my work with every job I’ve ever had. I have taken probably the best part of 500K shots in nearly 50 years of work. I moved over to digital in the early 2000’s with Fujifilm & Pentax progressing to Olympus and lately Nikon & Sony cameras. Digital cameras coupled with the internet were wonderful for me enabling me to embed photos directly into my reports for me to email to clients often on the same day the work was completed. Reports in the days of film sometimes took a month or more before the client saw them ! Anyway that’s my background …

I have been reading with interest recent posts “discussing” JPEGS versus RAW and noted many stating that JPEGS discard data that is retained in RAW files. I felt from day 1 this is wrong ! JPEGS are compressed RAW files – nothing is discarded.

To prove this I have taken exactly the same shot for each file size setting on a Nikon D5300. Set on a tripod with manual settings :– ISO 900, ¼ sec, F7.1, focal length 18mm. Shots taken = JPEG Fine, RAW, RAW + JPEG Basic & JPEG Normal & JPEG Fine.

I then did a little basic editing in Faststone – exactly the same for each shot both NEF and JPEG. I levelled each and adjusted each for colour then saved at best 100% quality. Resulting file sizes are tabulated below.

File sizes

File Camera setting Jpg Raw Edited Jpg Edited Raw
353 Jpg Fine 11849 19455
354 Raw 21900 17815
355 Raw +Jpg Basic 2978 21999 17769 17706
356 Raw + Jpg Normal 6329 21801 19003 17753
357 Raw + Jpg Fine 11786 21792 19439 17801

Hmmm !! Who would have thought !!! Even the JPEG Basic file when edited comes out as large as the edited RAW files. Where did all that data come from I wonder – data obviously is not discarded when the camera saves the JPEG to the SD card. This confirms for me that I can get the same results editing a JPEG as I could editing a RAW file – all the shadow and highlight details etc. must be still in the JPEG given the resulting file sizes after editing. Editing can alter the data, can delete (crop) the data but I cannot see anyway it could add data.

Maybe some super high tech wizard can explain all this but I still think using RAW gives no benefit whatsoever. I certainly cannot see any difference between any of the shots whether RAW or JPEG whatever. For interest I view on a 5K Retina iMac

Cheers JohnR
A 1st time poster on UHH although I have been subs... (show quote)

Reply
Feb 26, 2018 16:02:20   #
DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
 
selmslie wrote:
You will be lucky if your Lightroom catalog survives 10 years without misplacing stuff. I have seen many questions here about how to recover from Lightroom catalog problems...


My catalog started about 12 years ago. Everything is archived and the archive is maintained. Both the catalogs and the raw files are archived. Lightroom allows you to list missing photos. I have none.

Yes, I have had LR catalogs get corrupted. However I have the daily backup catalog that I can turn to so the most that could be lost is a day's work. Raw files occasionally get corrupted but I download them to my computer from the card, then work on them in LR. If it shows up corrupted in LR I can download it from the card again. The card does not get reformatted until the postprocessing is completed and the appropriate files are archived. So there are always two copies of the raw file. (Actually I have a dual card body so the raw files start life backed up).

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 7
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.