ChPozzar Loc: BOSTON MA

I shoot Raw + Jpeg/Tiff. The picture weight the same ,20.7M......Does it make a difference when processing Raw or Jpeg/Tiff since they are both 5568X3712 Mp? I am confused, can somebody explain ?

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Since we're all human, there will be times when we miss those optimal settings. For that reason it might be a good idea to shoot raw+jpg. If you like the jpg, use it. If not, the raw file is there for you. If you're short of space (no real excuse for that given the low cost of memory these days) you just delete the raw files you don't need.

Raw -- it's what's for dinner

Oh, sorry, the phrase should be:

Raw -- it might save your bacon.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Interesting - so "better" in the final analysis, translates into personal preference? Edit: And (CYA?) No other factual evidence I've seen in this thread.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Thanks for the info.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I hear ya I’m in counseling right now trying to deal with my absolutely rotten stinkin poor poor jpegs. After livin with jpegs all my life I’m just a terrible second class citizen hunkered down waiting for my door to be broken down by da Raw police!!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Not only is it just "better" it is "WAY/MUCH BETTER"

In the final print, in what way ? and what is the magnitude ? - can it be measured ? - OBJECTIVELY ??

Can anyone (viewers) tell if an image was shot as raw ?? or not ??

Or, is it all/mostly just in the mind (psyche) of the photographer/presenter ?

Does it depend on the size and technology (date) of the sensor ??

Does it depend on the particular raw software in use (of which there are MANY !) ??

Does it depend on the PP expertise and knowledge of the post processor/photographer ??

.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Personal statements and questions are no proof.. Haven't seen evidence. RAW for me just a PITA. I'll get it in the camera and tweak if needed.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

"Better" is always subjective.
As far as factual evidence, there are a lot of facts that describe how raw is "better" than jpg, but not all facts are relevant to all people. It all depends what's important to you. Maybe instead of saying raw is better, we should just say that raw has more possibilities than jpg.

If you don't like postprocessing your images, then raw is not something you'll like.
If you always get it "right" in camera, then you won't need raw until you come across a high dynamic range image.
Even then, if the ultimate technical quality is not important to you, raw is not your thing.
If you want to CYA, raw will be useful. Jpg+raw if the raw utility is rare as far as you are concerned. You can always delete superfluous files. If the few seconds it takes to download the raw files is going to make you late to dinner, you have my permission to ignore the improvement in possibilities.


As a nerd, maximizing my possibilities are important to me, so I shoot raw. Other family members could not care less about the ultimate image quality. OK is Good Enough. We still get along.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

You're right, they are not proof as far as you are concerned. The importance of anything depends on personal experience. I would however ask people to keep an open mind and try things out occasionally. You will not learn from other people's mistakes as much as you learn from your own.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, but Today, mostly done with multi-image merging IN CAMERA - or controlling the light - but there are a very few exceptions - I know. Still, not a reason for me to blanketly shoot everything in raw.
.

Quixdraw Loc: x

Still no proof. They used to say "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" it is about the photos. Won't speak about anyone elses, but I'll stand on my own.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

As I said elsewhere, shooting jpg+raw enables you to have options when you shoot a grab shot of a transient subject (non-repeatable) where you don't have time to switch to raw. Yes, you wind up with a lot of raw files along with your jpgs but all the computer keyboards I have come across have a delete button.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Let's do some facts then. One reason I shoot raw is to be able to take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG. I do that regularly and no way am I willing to give up that capability. Shooting camera JPEGs would mean I can't take many of the photos I want to take.

Worth noting here as well: I also shoot raw to reduce my time spent at the computer in post processing. It's faster and easier to just process a raw file. Given that I take photos out in the world under given lighting conditions half the time plus the lighting is not ideal and some post correction is required. Doing that to repair a JPEG takes more skill and more time than just processing the raw file.

But back to point number one and you'd like to see some facts.

Here's a photo I took of a lamp on a table. This was done for illustration purposes and we're going to assume it's representative of a high contrast scene in which you do not have access to adjust the lighting. The lighting contrast in the scene is extreme since the lamp shade is in fact a diffuse highlight and we can't clip a diffuse highlight.

The camera is a Fuji XT-2 on a tripod. I shot a bracket set changing the shutter speed. ISO is at base (200). WB is auto. The XT-2 has JPEG picture controls for highlight and shadow tone and they are both maxed to accommodate the extreme contrast -- doing all we can to get the best possible JPEG result.

Next step we're going to cheat in favor of the JPEG. Here it is: https://www.dropbox.com/s/slpgudjqveetqlh/DSCF1810.JPG?dl=0 The brightest diffuse highlight in the lamp is in fact clipped in two channels but we're going to use it anyway since the clipping is minimal. If we were being fair about this we'd have to drop exposure another 1/2 stop to get a JPEG with unclipped highlights -- so let's go with the cheat.

Below is the photo that I processed from the raw file that got 2/3 stop more exposure. Go ahead and download that JPEG in the link above and process it to match the photo posted below. Pay extra attention to the shadow detail and color in the lower right corner (maybe Delderby can help out with that extra special JPEG software). Deliver the facts back here that prove I'm wrong otherwise I think I'm right.

Why did I get to use a raw file that received 2/3 stop more exposure? Is that fair? Absolutely it's fair and that's the point. Shooting raw I can expose more and still not clip the highlights. Shooting JPEG you have to accept the best the camera JPEG sofware can provide and as you can see in this example even after giving the camera software every advantage plus some cheating it still couldn't avoid clipping that diffuse highlight. (In case it occurs to someone, in my job I get to handle and test most of the cameras in popular use and what I've done here with a Fuji will work much the same with the rest of them.)

I enjoy shooting backlit landscapes/cityscapes with the same kind of extreme lighting contrast in the photo presented here. I can take photos of those scenes shooting raw that are simply impossible to capture shooting JPEG -- and that's a fact.

Joe

(Download)

Quixdraw Loc: x

Key point "a photo you took" that requires whatever it does to achieve a result after the fact of the exposure. I take photos of virtually anything that interests, me most of the time with a low percentage of deletes, I post regularly and print every week JPEG Fine works just fine.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Yes it makes a big difference. The JPEG (TIFF?) you're getting from the camera is processed from the raw file by the processing software in the camera. Many of the decisions/choices that are made about your photo by that processing software are not reversible. Some can be moderated but not to the degree possible if you went back to the beginning and started over.

The software in the camera has no idea what you photographed. As such I have a 2x4 in my garage that's just as smart as your camera. So without really knowing what you photographed the software in the camera is going to assume "average" and apply a sequence of "average" processing steps to create your photograph.

You have some limited control before you take the photo by using the camera's picture control settings. Typically you can select more/less from a set of image characteristics like sharpen, saturation, contrast, etc. to modify the camera's processing. This can help quite a bit but you often have to work quickly and the range of adjustments is overall fairly limited.

Once created however the camera software adjustments are baked in and you can't really un-bake a cake.

A raw file holds the data the camera sensor captured and it is unprocessed -- not only not baked but the ingredients aren't even mixed together.

Unlike that 2x4 in my garage or your and my cameras we both know what you photographed and are capable of performing far beyond the "average" that guides your camera software so that if we set ourselves to the task, learn and practice we can do better.

If we are going to do better however we want to start ideally with the original ingredients and not an already baked cake.

Joe