The pros and cons of shooting RAW versus JPEG (Page 2): That's ludicrous. I like, actually love, post processing, and I rarely shoot raw. If that's the essence of the article, then the...

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

JohnR wrote:

Makes a couple of incorrect statements - one is " you can't edit a JPEG as much as a RAW file" !!!! Of course you can - its just that you don't get the quite same results. Other than this sort of generalisation its not a bad effort. Boiling it all down to the essence its saying "If you like post processing then shoot RAW and if you don't then shoot JPEG"

That's ludicrous. I like, actually love, post processing, and I rarely shoot raw. If that's the essence of the article, then the article is just a troll. True, if you don't edit, you shouldn't shoot raw, but if you shoot jpg, you should have little problems editing jpgs, unless you really screw up exposure. The last thing on a long list of things that make for a good result is raw.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

srt101fan wrote:

I don't like beets. I just don't understand how anyone can like beets. All that like beets must be losers....... 🤔

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Delderby wrote:

NO! - only when you re-save to the original JPG do you suffer image loss. You can also save as a TIFF and re-edit without loss.

NO! Saving as a TIFF does nothing to prevent image degradation that occurs from editing a JPEG. It prevents image degradation from re-compression when saving the edit which is a different issue.

1. Image degradation results from editing a JPEG.
2. Image degradation results from re-compressing an edited JPEG.

Saving as a TIFF only prevents the #2 damage listed. It does nothing to prevent the #1 damage listed. The #1 damage listed is the more severe of the two.

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

JohnR wrote:

Surely Fred you only edit once? I always keep the original unedited whether RAW or JPEG then I can always go back again and do a new edit if I so desire. (Hasn't happened yet though!! - have to make myself edit once!) I don't understand why anyone would wish to keep editing a JPEG file time and time again - madness I reckon

And, if the edit has any complexity so you don't want to start over from scratch, you also save it in a production format such as PSD, AFphoto, ACDC and so on. I always keep my original jpgs but will save the lossless production file as well if the edit is at all complex.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Longshadow wrote:

If you don't/can't get the same results, one can't edit the same (equally)...

BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA

Longshadow wrote:

Interesting how different pros and cons are important to different people in different ways.
More interesting is that each person believes that their way is the "correct" way.
"Why don't you do it my way, I don't understand. It's the best way."

I guess somebody might gives a rat's patootie what others do, but for me, my only interest is when the reasons given for doing one or the other is false. "Jpgs deteriorate so I shoot raw" is just wrong, just like shooting with the lens cap on is wrong. Who would do either?

"If you want to edit a file, you must shoot raw". Sorry, that's just wrong. What's most annoying [to me] is there can be a semblance of truth in these types of statements, but generally, they are meaningless to the point of being wrong.

"You can't fix white balance in a jpg" is another one, there are plenty of them. Hopefully there will always be someone around to point out why they are wrong when declared.

So, it's not that one method is right or wrong, there are good reasons for each format, just many of the reasons given are grossly exaggerated and misleading, ie, wrong.

johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle

I put peanut butter on the bottom slice of bread, and jelly on the top.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BigDaddy wrote:

I guess somebody might gives a rat's patootie what... (show quote)

Some editors are more efficient at different functions than others.
Everyone has their own individual preference of what and how.
Perception is a key operator here.
If what one is doing works well and they like it, keep doing it.
However, refusal to investigate alternate methods could be limiting one's abilities.
Could be.....

BebuLamar

BigDaddy wrote:

I guess somebody might gives a rat's patootie what... (show quote)

Do whatever you want but if I think I would need to edit I definitely would shoot raw. I don't fix the white balance on the jpg unless it's really bad. You can edit the jpeg but the result is not as good as raw.
But once again I don't wish you do what I do.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

BebuLamar wrote:

Do whatever you want but if I think I would need to edit I definitely would shoot raw. I don't fix the white balance on the jpg unless it's really bad. You can edit the jpeg but the result is not as good as raw.
But once again I don't wish you do what I do.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Ysarex wrote:

NO! Saving as a TIFF does nothing to prevent image degradation that occurs from editing a JPEG. It prevents image degradation from re-compression when saving the edit which is a different issue.

1. Image degradation results from editing a JPEG.
2. Image degradation results from re-compressing an edited JPEG.

Saving as a TIFF only prevents the #2 damage listed. It does nothing to prevent the #1 damage listed. The #1 damage listed is the more severe of the two.

Are you saying that, if I crop a JPG image, and save it as a TIFF, the image will degrade, and that if I then open the TIFF and lighten the image, then save it, it the image will further degrade?
If true, how so will it degrade?
Thanks for your advices.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Delderby wrote:

Are you saying that, if I crop a JPG image, and save it as a TIFF, the image will degrade, and that if I then open the TIFF and lighten the image, then save it, it the image will further degrade?
If true, how so will it degrade?
Thanks for your advices.

OMG you got me! No, not cropping. Making changes to tone and color is what I mean by editing.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

BigDaddy wrote:

"You can't fix white balance in a jpg" is another one, there are plenty of them.

You will demonstrate that right? You will back up what you say with an actual proof.

I'm waiting excitedly to see it. Here you go. The first image below is directly from the camera set to auto WB. All I've done is resize it to something more reasonable for the forum. The camera screwed up the auto WB.

I took the NEF file and loaded that into Capture One where the only thing I did was set the WB. That's the second image and it's color is correct on the color checker. (There are multiple light sources and I've done no local correction). The gray scale on the checker is gray in the second image but in the auto WB shot the gray scale is not gray. All you have to do is correct the first image to match the second one.

You may remember that I called you on this once before and you skidaddled tail between you legs. So I'm calling big mouth no show unless you put up.

(Download)

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Ysarex wrote:

OMG you got me! No, not cropping. Making changes to tone and color is what I mean by editing.

What about sharpening (for those with an anti-alias filter)? or using a haze filter?

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Delderby wrote:

What about sharpening (for those with an anti-alias filter)? or using a haze filter?

Sharpening always does damage. Most editing is double edged. In the case of sharpening we're weighing benefit against harm. Haze filters likewise can uncover prior degradation in a JPEG by accentuating JPEG artifacts. In the case of a JPEG sharpening can accentuate prior damage from JPEG artifacts. But most degradation that results from editing JPEGs occurs when tone and color are altered.