RAW vs JPEG (Page 2): I'm a troll for ditzing an over covered issue? My opinion. Been a UHH member since 2014. Been doing Digital photography since 1990s, and film since 1977. You seem...

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Sidwalkastronomy wrote:

I tired of trolls like you being sparky.
why not go back under your bridge. It's a serious topic and you are clearly a serious idiot

I'm a troll for ditzing an over covered issue? My opinion. Been a UHH member since 2014. Been doing Digital photography since 1990s, and film since 1977. You seem to have anger issues. Take that to the attic please.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

lamiaceae wrote:

I'm a troll for ditzing an over covered issue? My opinion. I'm a long term member. Been doing Digital photography since 1990s, and film since 1977. You seem to have anger issues. Take that to the attic please.

Isn't complaining every time the same subject comes up as repetitive as the same subject coming up?

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

Longshadow wrote:

Then stop watching the thread.
(don't open to begin with.)
Just go someplace else.
Simple solution.

Well, at least you were not insulting. Why can't we just retire topics that are so old and never have a consensus or reach a solution? That one has been the same for many years.

The other reply was not meant for you. It looks like Admin removed the insult I reported. So now we can ignore it I guess.

David Martin Loc: Cary, NC

mgeyelin wrote:

How much can you fine tune a JPEG image vs RAW? I don’t really enjoy post processing RAW images, and don’t have an eye for it. How much control do you give up using JPEG.

Short (and yes, overly simplified) answer by single example:
Canon R5 RAW file is 47.5 MB. Same Canon R5 image saved as a JPEG instead of RAW is 12.4MB.

By saving you image as a JPEG rather than RAW, you have discarded data that you could have otherwise had to work with when processing your image.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

David Martin wrote:

Short answer by single example:
Canon R5 RAW file is 47.5 MB. Same Canon R5 image saved as a JPEG instead of RAW is 12.4MB.

By saving you image as a JPEG rather than RAW, you have discarded data that you could have otherwise had to work with when processing your image.

The processing both discards unneeded data and compresses the retained data within the JPEG format. The file size different from RAW to JPEG is not discarding data to arrive at the smaller file size in bytes.

BebuLamar

lamiaceae wrote:

Well, at least you were not insulting. Why can't we just retire topics that are so old and never have a consensus or reach a solution? That one has been the same for many years.

The other reply was not meant for you. It looks like Admin removed the insult I reported. So now we can ignore it I guess.

Now I kind of agree with you that there are a good number of subjects like this one that has been discussed to death and we never agreed. But if there are some members who sincerely want to know the reasons to do it one way or another I don't think we should discourage them to post. Of course there are those who made the post just to create a long discussion that leads to nowhere but we can't be sure if the post is one or the other do we?

mgeyelin

I think RAW images look washed out without PP.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

An example RAW recovery.

I saw this duck on my digital frame yesterday and was reminded of the recovery effort made from the underexposed RAW. If you open the attachment and click to the 1:1 details, even in the 2048 resized version, you can see the details and the image harvested from the original 'miss' in the camera.

Is this a reason to shoot in RAW for the recovery of that 1 miss? Probably not. The idea is to show what the image format and editing software (and training and practice) are able to accomplish.

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

mgeyelin wrote:

I think RAW images look washed out without PP.

They should, RAW files should initially look worse than your JPEGs. RAW images have ZERO processing. Depending on your camera and the software used to view / edit the RAW, the images will likely have the wrong colors, wrong WB, no sharping, and too little (or too much) noise reduction processing.

When you become a RAW photographer, you become the decision maker for these considerations in post processing, where many had been decided by the camera for the JPEG:

1. Sharpening
2. Noise Reduction
3. Color Saturation
4. Exposure adjustments, general
5. Contrast, general
6. Highlights and shadows
7. White Balance
8. Lens corrections
9. Color space
10. Pixel resolution for target image share platforms
11. Disk storage (for the larger files)
12. Image file back-up strategy (for those larger files)

You don't have to understand all these issues, but when you do, you'll be much more successful as a RAW photographer.

mgeyelin

I'm beginning to think that PP images is cheating and that you should aim to print what comes out of your camera.

BebuLamar

mgeyelin wrote:

I think RAW images look washed out without PP.

If you think so then use the RAW converter from your camera manufacturer. They would look exactly the same as the JPEG without PP.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

mgeyelin wrote:

I'm beginning to think that PP images is cheating and that you should aim to print what comes out of your camera.

So, when you hammer a nail in the wrong place, you just leave it because that's what the hammer decided?

So, when you finish a dish, you never taste the spices and adjust the seasoning, because that's how recipe said to make it and / or that's how it came out of the oven, even if you made a mistake in one of the measurements?

You never add condiments to your hotdog, because that's how it was served?

A chef would never serve a dish without confirming and adjusting the seasonings. No artist ever sees things only as the camera would. If he did, he would cease to be an artist.

mgeyelin

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm beginning to think of extensive PP as cheating. I know how awesome Lightroom is and what it can do, I just don't enjoy doing it. I prefer to go with what comes out of my camera. I think that's the real challenge, getting the shot right in the first place. I know that's very difficult and that PP can be a convenient backup, so that's how I use it.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

mgeyelin wrote:

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm beginning to think of extensive PP as cheating. I know how awesome Lightroom is and what it can do, I just don't enjoy doing it. I prefer to go with what comes out of my camera. I think that's the real challenge, getting the shot right in the first place. I know that's very difficult and that PP can be a convenient backup, so that's how I use it.

In a reply above was a suggestion to configure your camera for more refined JPEGs directly from the camera. Whether you take control of your camera or just assume the generic decisions made by the engineers are good enough for you, that decision is entirely your individual decision and has no application to any other individual anywhere. The only person you cheat out of success is yourself.

BebuLamar

mgeyelin wrote:

Maybe I'm old school, but I'm beginning to think of extensive PP as cheating. I know how awesome Lightroom is and what it can do, I just don't enjoy doing it. I prefer to go with what comes out of my camera. I think that's the real challenge, getting the shot right in the first place. I know that's very difficult and that PP can be a convenient backup, so that's how I use it.

I don't know which camera you use but I use Nikon Df and I shot RAW+JPEG and when I open the NEF (Nikon RAW file) with Nikon NX2 or now Studio NX it looks exactly the same as the JPEG. I can then simply save it as JPEG or I could use the JPEG from the camera they are the same.
Now if for some reason I need to make adjustments the NEF files would allow me to make much better adjustments than I can with the JPEG.