canon Lee

Hi Gene... Ive been away from this discussion group.. How are you Gene. As to shooting only raw. For me I do Picture day for youth sports clubs. I use CamRanger so I have to shoot Raw + Jpeg ( camranger uses jpeg camera output to speed things up). I do shoot action sports as well and use jpeg for rapid shooting. I use jpeg for my real estate shoots because they are used on the listing sites... If I were doing lets say images for print I would use RAW. There are occasions where high quality prints are needed and that of course would necessitate RAW.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

You think you can’t get a high quality print from a jpeg? Why surely you jest!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

I'm ok - good to see you back.

Other than buffer size, my Nikons and my Sony show no difference between raw and jpeg. I use the D8XX cameras universally, for all types of photography, and I haven't shot jpeg since 2006, other than for illustrative purposes or with my point and shoots and cellphone cameras.

But here's the rub - you can definitely get outstanding prints done from a camera-generated jpeg. I've done this numerous times.

There is a misconception out there that raw is automatically, eventually a better format. In settings where the light is good or controlled (studio lighting comes to mind) I don't know of anyone who can look at a print and tell if the image was camera-jpeg or raw-jpeg conversion. That goes for 4x6 to 40x60 and bigger.

Jpegs can be adjusted. But raw files provide greater range of adjustability.

On some cameras, shooting raw gets slow. I haven't seen that since my D700. My little Sony can burst at 24 fps, raw.

I shoot raw only because I like having all the options. In cooking, some people like to use spice blends for seasoning. As you might expect, I like to mix up the seasonings myself.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Thanks for a wonderful reply! I agree🙂

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Because I said; "I happen to know that Rafael plays an Alhambra..." Why? You'd have to ask him.

Joe

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

And if it makes you happy, you should just believe the opposite. But I can tell you, after judging many competitions, it's rare to see a SOOC image compete with those that are shot as raw and converted. The big thing being the lighting. You can create more dramatic and eye catching images when you start with raw than when you are limiting yourself to just using a SOOC jpeg. The reason I have decided to work with just raw, is that it is much easier to manage a single workflow. I would have to change the way I shoot for jpeg - which I might use on those 15% of the images I take where it wouldn't make a difference either way. Having a single shooting and post processing workflow allows me to always shoot the same way - much easier.

You are welcome to try and get a good image from the unedited jpeg.

.

unedited

(Download)

edited raw to jpeg conversion

(Download)

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

Gene, I love what you did! While someone will be sure to suggest you "overcooked" the edited version, regardless it does confirm what I always point out in these continuing contentious discussions. With raw images you can recover far more deep shadow detail with far less noise than is possible with a jpeg. That is just the way it is. You've shown that here. I have been able to recover sharp deep shadow detail from areas of raw files that are significantly darker than in your image. Doing the same adjustments on a jpeg version of the same image results in a dark and noisy mess.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Wow! Gene that photograph is stunning!

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thanks Tracy! How are you? Haven't seen you on here for a while . . .

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Thank you!

I think as far as overcooking is concerned - it probably isn't, other than a bit of extra texture in the sky. The final treatment was closer to what I witnessed at 7:20 AM on 11/1/17. But had I exposed for the foreground I would have blown out the brighter parts of the sky at the horizon, as well as the bright areas at the top edge. A bit of local adjustments here and there in raw, a little extra noise reduction and contrast enhancement in the darker areas, and a structure or microcontrast adjustment in the sky was all that I did - after merging the 3 rows of 5 images that I used to create the stitched panorama. The final image is 13790x10874 px, or just shy of 150 mp. To date, I have not had anyone say they preferred the unprocessed version. However I did get some comments on the redness of the sunrise sky. Seriously, it was quite close to that!

I took this one the day before, but it was 20 minutes later in the morning. This is quite a photogenic place.

(Download)

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Good, I do a lot of lurking on the site and less comments lately.

Dr.Nikon Loc: Honolulu Hawaii

Here is the quick editing of your JPEG shot on my IPad Pro .., as you said try and get a a try at my JPEG ... with the RAW .., yes I would have put it into my MacBook Pro and Major editing programs ...

I so enjoyed your posts on this subject and the accompanying reply’s from other intelligent photographers..

Your original
Attached file:
(Download)

My IPad quicky version

(Download)

Your JPEG version
Attached file:
(Download)

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

But but you can’t do that with a jpeg! The photo Gods won’t allow it

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Nonsense! The photo Gods will allow you to edit JPEGs as much as you want. They're just not going to work miracles for you when you do.

Did you download Dr. Bob's edit of Gene's JPEG? Go ahead and have a close look. I blew up a section for you below. Notice the pattern showing up in Dr. Bob's version. Look in the sky above the bridge cable. Recognize the pattern? That's what happens when you edit a JPEG.

Nothing can be done to prevent that from happening when a JPEG is edited. If you convert a JPEG to a TIFF first before you edit it the same thing happens to the same degree. Most JPEG edits are less severe (tone and color) and so the artifacts are less severe and if you look at them on your phone the artifacts don't show (they will if you make a print). Dr. Bob's edit is severe and so the artifacts are severe as well.

The photo God's don't care if you muck up your photos.

Joe

(Download)

srt101fan

This a serious question: How/why do the JPEG artifacts you show detract from the image? I ask because I wonder if we sometimes get overly concerned about such artifacts (as well as sharpness and noise issues) simply because we're told they're undesirable and they are detectable when you look for them.

Would most people even notice the artifacts in the bridge image if they weren't told they're there?