RAW vs JPEG
Mar 2, 2019 14:06:35 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
This is not an attempt to debate the issue (I'm a RAW shooter except when I shoot in JPEG). The article lays out the situation very well.
https://www.phototraces.com/photography-basics/raw-vs-jpeg/
https://www.phototraces.com/photography-basics/raw-vs-jpeg/
Mar 2, 2019 14:21:32 #
Mar 2, 2019 14:39:14 #
Bottom line is: shoot however you want in whatever format you want.
Mar 2, 2019 14:50:13 #
The article shows “unprocessed RAW” images - you cannot view a RAW image without some processing so what is actually being shown? PS has something called Camera RAW, but what actually is that?
Mar 2, 2019 15:04:39 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
I always shoot both, but JPEG does a remarkable job of getting it right most times.
Mar 2, 2019 15:06:50 #
tenny52
Loc: San Francisco
Thanks, that is a very good site with free Lightroom presets on becoming member.
I find that the free presets are very useful.
I find that the free presets are very useful.
Mar 2, 2019 19:22:07 #
photoman022
Loc: Manchester CT USA
cdayton wrote:
The article shows “unprocessed RAW” images - you cannot view a RAW image without some processing so what is actually being shown? PS has something called Camera RAW, but what actually is that?
I think (not absolutely sure) that the "unprocesed RAW image" is the RAW image brought into (in my case) Adobe Camera RAW and then immediately exported to Photoshop Elements without any processing and then saved as a JPEG.
Camera RAW (in Photoshop and Elements) is the RAW processor in which you adjust (in Elements) the Color Temperature and Exposure. Additionally you can also adjust the following by lightening or darkening them: Highlights, Shadows, Whites, and Blacks. Finally you can also adjust the Clarity, Vibrance, and Saturation. All of the are used in processing the RAW image, which is then (in my case) exported into Elements. By processing Camera RAW you bring out the details in RAW file.
Attached you will find an "unprocessed" RAW photo (as explained in paragraph 1) and the same photo "processed". After exporting to PSE14, I did no further processing in either photo.
"unprocessed" RAW file -- converted to JPEG
Mar 2, 2019 21:25:08 #
cdayton wrote:
The article shows “unprocessed RAW” images - you cannot view a RAW image without some processing so what is actually being shown? PS has something called Camera RAW, but what actually is that?
No, not true. When I load Nikon RAW files into Lightroom, I am seeing exactly what I shot in camera. That is the genius of RAW images.
Mar 3, 2019 05:46:57 #
Mar 3, 2019 07:11:23 #
LWW wrote:
I always shoot both, but JPEG does a remarkable job of getting it right most times.
Mar 3, 2019 07:14:50 #
LWW
Loc: Banana Republic of America
cdayton wrote:
The article shows “unprocessed RAW” images - you cannot view a RAW image without some processing so what is actually being shown? PS has something called Camera RAW, but what actually is that?
Yes you can.
Mar 3, 2019 14:25:35 #
rgrenaderphoto wrote:
No, not true. When I load Nikon RAW files into Lightroom, I am seeing exactly what I shot in camera. That is the genius of RAW images.
You seemed to have missed cdayton's point.
When you view a raw (no caps) image on a computer using ANY software, that image has been rendered, de-mosaiced, and converted to a bitmap for your screen. And it is a well know fact that different raw rendering softwares yield subtly different results. The most obvious thing is color. Lots of articles on the subject are available via a simple search of the internet. Even worse, some raw (no caps) viewer softwares display the embedded JPEG rather than processing the raw (no caps) file.
Don't believe there are differences? Open a raw (no caps) image in Lightroom and then open the same image using Capture NX-D. And compare them side by side on the same monitor.
Mar 3, 2019 14:28:01 #
Mar 3, 2019 14:44:30 #
photoman022 wrote:
This is not an attempt to debate the issue (I'm a RAW shooter except when I shoot in JPEG). The article lays out the situation very well.
https://www.phototraces.com/photography-basics/raw-vs-jpeg/
https://www.phototraces.com/photography-basics/raw-vs-jpeg/
It has been debated too many times and it always comes up again.
The author does a decent job of explaining the differences on a rather high level, and he suggests reasons for shooting one or the other, which is good.
However I find this statement interesting:
"To minimize photo manipulation or the chance of it, many news agencies now require that all photo submissions are shot in JPEG format only."
The reason I find it interesting is that JPEGs can be easily manipulated with no trace, whereas raw images cannot. I think more likely the reason for news agencies asking for JPEGs is that JPEGs are a standard format and easily incorporated into their publishing processes, whereas raw files require processing.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.