Which I use depends a lot on what I'm shooting. Landscapes, sunsets, full moon, etc -- of course I'll use RAW. But if I'm taking photos of the kids' soccer game or some other variation of a "snapshot," where speed is of more essence, I often use JPG. It isn't like I'll be tinkering with subtle detail fixes, and there is definitely a tiny but discernible pause between RAW shots.
Thanks so much luminar gave lot of information on link gave all cameras it is combatible with and computers where else would I get such information thanks again Seamus
Ysarex wrote:
But let's get this straightened out: Yes, the JPEG compression rate is variable and user adjustable. But it doesn't ever produce anything like 2% or even 10% or even 30% or even 40%. Those tiny amounts of compression aren't an option with JPEG.
I took the original of the image you see below and saved it as an 8 bit uncompressed TIFF file in Photoshop. The result saved to disk was a 74.2 megabyte file. I then saved it as a JPEG adjusting the compression rate to the least amount (highest quality) that Photoshop permits. The JPEG file on disk is 20.2 megabytes. Photoshop won't permit me to compress it any less and that's over 70%. So my 80% figure would be a good average stab for JPEGs in general. There's no 2% option in there.
P.S. (Not directed at DirtFarmer) As an aside that image below is an example of a photo that can't be created as a SOOC JPEG using any camera and the camera's image processing software.
But let's get this straightened out: Yes, the JPEG... (
show quote)
Looks a little overcooked?
Thank you for sharing , this is the best simplest video on explaining raw to a novice . Beats anything on this feed today . I even shared with my Meetup Photo group we teach with .
Gallopingphotog wrote:
Which I use depends a lot on what I'm shooting. Landscapes, sunsets, full moon, etc -- of course I'll use RAW. But if I'm taking photos of the kids' soccer game or some other variation of a "snapshot," where speed is of more essence, I often use JPG. It isn't like I'll be tinkering with subtle detail fixes, and there is definitely a tiny but discernible pause between RAW shots.
I’m telling you’re kids you shoot just jpegs at them! Shameful
Shooting in JPEG is nothing to be ashamed of, but do it in private and wash your hands afterwards.
The Petapixel video has some problems with the facts -- he perpetuates some myths like raw files aren't image files. And he's wrong to claim that if you shoot raw + JPEG you get the best of both worlds -- you don't.
The Adorama video is better.
davyboy wrote:
I’m telling you’re kids you shoot just jpegs at them! Shameful
They already think I’m hopeless, I don’t shoot with my phone
oregonfrank wrote:
Not sure my understanding of the difference is accurate. Is it true that an image in both JPEG and RAW consists of the same number of pixels in either format and can be printed equally as large with equal sharpness? And, that the major difference is RAW offers greater latitude for PP?
All digital images are RAW when first taken. If you set the camera to save the RAW file, it simply saves everything that was originally captured. But a RAW file is not an image. It's just data that was gathered by the sensor. You can't "print a RAW file". If first much be processed or "developed" into an image.
If you have set the camera to save JPEGs, then it quickly processes the image, according to the various settings of the camera, converting the RAW into a JPEG... And then "throws away" a lot of data that it deemed as "unnecessary".
You can see the difference for yourself. Many cameras can take RAW + JPEG... take a few shots that way with yours, then download them and look at the sizes of the two versions of any given image. The RAW file will always be a good deal larger than the JPEG.
The other option is to "shoot RAW" (actually just save it unprocessed), download the RAW to a computer and convert it into a usable image file under more controlled conditions. That's called post-processing. There are several file types you can make, depending upon how you'll be using the image. A JPEG is fine for most purposes, including many printing processes. JPEGs are even required by some printing services. They also are the standard for online display.
Yes, because the RAW file contains so much more info, generally speaking it offers more latitude. For example, if you set the white balance wrong when you took the shot, it's easily changed in a RAW with no loss of image quality. The same may not be true of a JPEG that's "already been developed". Another example, if you under or over-expose an image, RAW files may be recoverable as much as a stop more "out of whack" than a JPEG. Maybe more, depending upon the particular image and the camera that was being used. There are other things that you have more control over with a RAW, than you do with a JPEG.
Alan, thank you for your post. You and others have added a lot more to my knowledge of JPEG and RAW which I appreciate much. Frank
nikonbrain wrote:
Thank you for sharing , this is the best simplest video on explaining raw to a novice . Beats anything on this feed today . I even shared with my Meetup Photo group we teach with .
My pleasure to share. In addition to my long career as a pro (over 40 years in the business) I am also a longtime university professor of photography and I have to explain this to hundreds of students.
Cheers
Ysarex wrote:
The Petapixel video has some problems with the facts -- he perpetuates some myths like raw files aren't image files. And he's wrong to claim that if you shoot raw + JPEG you get the best of both worlds -- you don't.
The Adorama video is better.
I always shoot raw+jpeg and it is the best of both worlds IMHO as a pro of over 40 years in the business. I do love Mark Wallace of Adorama, he does a great job explaining things in a way most can understand. Cheers
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.