Raw vs jpeg
Aug 1, 2018 08:00:00 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
If you use LR for editing, it will strongly resist overwriting an original jpg. There may be a way to do it but I have not done the experiment.
Photoshop, on the other hand, will overwrite an original jpg fairly easily.
The only other programs I've used for editing are IrfanView and FastStone. They will tell you that you are about to overwrite a jpg but they will let you do it.
Photoshop, on the other hand, will overwrite an original jpg fairly easily.
The only other programs I've used for editing are IrfanView and FastStone. They will tell you that you are about to overwrite a jpg but they will let you do it.
I’ve never had a problem with editing a jpg--still using 5.7. I don’t know about the newer versions.
Aug 1, 2018 08:01:03 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
.......
Of course changing the file name is probably a really good idea because if you have several jpgs with the same name how do you tell which one is the original?
.......
Of course changing the file name is probably a really good idea because if you have several jpgs with the same name how do you tell which one is the original?
Original: IMG_6302.JPG
Adjusted: IMG_6302adj.JPG
Smaller size: IMG_6302small.JPG
Medium size/adjusted: IMG_6302AdjMed.JPG
Cropped/adjusted: IMG_6302adj8x10.JPG
But this nomenclature works for me.....
Aug 1, 2018 08:16:29 #
LA
Loc: Little Rock, AR
If you've ever thought (as one example), "Boy! I sure wish I could retrieve some details in those shadows or in those blown highlights," then RAW is for you. If not, not.
Check out Film Photography section of our forum.
Aug 1, 2018 08:20:37 #
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
I realize that you are new to the forum Allen, but this subject has been hashed over way too many times. Use the Search function at the top of the page, please. Then you can read on the subject until you want to scream. Don't be discouraged, but use the resources at hand before you post a question.
Aug 1, 2018 08:35:14 #
jaymatt wrote:
I’ve never had a problem with editing a jpg--still using 5.7. I don’t know about the newer versions.
I didn't say you couldn't edit a jpg, only that LR would not want to overwrite the original file. There are ways around that such as saving to another folder or changing the file name.
Aug 1, 2018 08:41:55 #
Since my camera D7000 has two slots, I set it to use JPEG to one card a RAW to the other. Now I have both files and can make a decision which way I want to go based on the time I have to work on the file
Aug 1, 2018 08:45:32 #
traderjohn wrote:
If this is as you say;"just bait from a troll" I imagine the fact that you responded at all would indicate you have been caught with his "bait". All in all not the end of the world.
I think there is something for everyone in the raw vs jpg debate. What it comes down to is why you are shooting in the first place.
I enjoy shooting and like to get some good shots. But it is the shooting I enjoy most. So most of the time if I have a borderline shot I delete it and move on. Occasionally I see something in an image that makes me want to take it a step further and turn to the raw file. I shot only raw for many years before starting to save both and still remember some of how to work them.
I also like fishing in the pond across the street from my house. There are some nice bass, but it is catch and release. I enjoy the fishing, not the fish.
I doubt I am alone, although probably a minority.
--
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Aug 1, 2018 08:51:55 #
The issue is whether you want to fully control how your image is processed (color balance, exposure, black pt setting, etc) or you are willing to let someone else, who is quite good, make all those decisions. Raw, you control, jpeg, that other person makes the decisions.
Aug 1, 2018 09:02:46 #
Good morning. This discussion may help: https://www.slrlounge.com/workshop/dynamic-range-and-raw-vs-jpeg/
Note that you can set your Canon camera to capture both RAW and JPEG files.
In my own experience, I have found that a large JPEG file (for example, 24 megabytes) opened in the Adobe Camera Raw program gives me plenty of processing latitude to bring out the potential of a given photograph.
Good luck.
Note that you can set your Canon camera to capture both RAW and JPEG files.
In my own experience, I have found that a large JPEG file (for example, 24 megabytes) opened in the Adobe Camera Raw program gives me plenty of processing latitude to bring out the potential of a given photograph.
Good luck.
Allen hammer wrote:
I am all stressed out after learning of the situation with Canon 5D Mark IV and raw files. I was shooting along just fine til I recently bought in to the idea that RAW is the only way to shoot if you are a "serious". Well I am thinking now that maybe it's a bit of hype and that most folks could not tell a raw processed shot from jpeg. I would welcome some discussion on this. Thanks
Aug 1, 2018 09:05:56 #
imagemeister wrote:
Your astute observation is correct ! - assuming that the JPEG is shot and processed correctly.......
..
..
Aug 1, 2018 09:10:53 #
This is something that has been discussed many times in this forum. Many photographers believe that RAW is the only way while many others, like me, believe that there is a place for both files.
In the first place, it is practically impossible to tell the difference between a RAW file once converted to a JPEG and an original JPEG. A RAW file is data from the sensor without intervention by the firmware of the camera. Special software is needed to edit RAW files. The operator needs skills in editing to extract all of the goodness of a RAW file. Practically all editing programs recognize and can edit JPEG files. JPEG is the universal file like sRGB is the universal color. Do not take a RAW file to a professional lab, they do not print those files so you have to make it a JPEG first.
An original RAW file has 12 bits of color information and billions of color shades BUT neither you nor I can see those colors and I seriously question if a monitor can see them. Once the file has been edited it has to be converted to a JPEG that only has 8 bits. If you are using a wide color space like Adobe RGB or ProFoto you have to convert those colors to sRGB. I am convinced that lots of information is lost when the files are converted to JPEG but I have no way to prove it.
Modern JPEG files have excellent quality and some of my best enlargements came from original JPEG files. Because it is a file that tends to loose information the more it is used I like to save my originals as TIFF.
As I said, I shoot both files depending on the subject.
In the first place, it is practically impossible to tell the difference between a RAW file once converted to a JPEG and an original JPEG. A RAW file is data from the sensor without intervention by the firmware of the camera. Special software is needed to edit RAW files. The operator needs skills in editing to extract all of the goodness of a RAW file. Practically all editing programs recognize and can edit JPEG files. JPEG is the universal file like sRGB is the universal color. Do not take a RAW file to a professional lab, they do not print those files so you have to make it a JPEG first.
An original RAW file has 12 bits of color information and billions of color shades BUT neither you nor I can see those colors and I seriously question if a monitor can see them. Once the file has been edited it has to be converted to a JPEG that only has 8 bits. If you are using a wide color space like Adobe RGB or ProFoto you have to convert those colors to sRGB. I am convinced that lots of information is lost when the files are converted to JPEG but I have no way to prove it.
Modern JPEG files have excellent quality and some of my best enlargements came from original JPEG files. Because it is a file that tends to loose information the more it is used I like to save my originals as TIFF.
As I said, I shoot both files depending on the subject.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Aug 1, 2018 09:13:56 #
pecohen wrote:
The advantages of shooting JPEG rather than RAW wo... (show quote)
Editors of publications do not want to "waste" time processing RAW... they just want the photo "now" and a short description of the image. They do NOT want to waste time having to process the RAW image and then export it. Typical publications may have photos from many staff and "associate" photographers. Often times, they will have a photographer that is already in the area submit photos (either inaddition to staff photographers or instead of, which elimanates paying for travel, lodging etc.). This happens most offten in areas that are distant from where staff photographers may already be working. And, they want jpg so that they don't have to spend time processing..also, unless it is an online or press photograpy publication, they JUST WANT the image.. now.
Aug 1, 2018 09:14:27 #
burkphoto wrote:
Please don’t start this discussion again. We have flogged this dead horse into a liquid!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Use Search at the top of the page, and read several hundred pages of redundant explanations at your leisure!
Yes, definitely, the flogged horse's meat is liquid and it's bones powder.
If after having shot both Raw and Jpg (assuming you know how to use Photoshop, Lightroom, or some other PP Software), you can't answer that question yourself perhaps you need a different hobby.
Aug 1, 2018 09:21:39 #
BebuLamar wrote:
I am an old timer although I am a few years younger than you are but I always shoot RAW even when I had only a P&S.
Yup, I shoot even my Samsung Galaxy Note 8 in Raw!
Aug 1, 2018 09:28:39 #
DirtFarmer wrote:
https://helpx.adobe.com/camera-raw/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html
On 5D IV there is a footnote:
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/editing-canon-dual-pixel-raw-cr2.html
On 5D IV there is a footnote:
https://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/multi/editing-canon-dual-pixel-raw-cr2.html
I think DirtFarmer found the issue many pages ago.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Close Up Photography section of our forum.