Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
The pros and cons of shooting RAW versus JPEG
Page <<first <prev 6 of 14 next> last>>
Jul 14, 2021 12:06:47   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
BigDaddy wrote:
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.
I guess somebody might gives a rat's patootie what... (show quote)

Let's go over your 3 gross exaggerations above.

1. "Jpgs deteriorate so I shoot raw"
2. "If you want to edit a file, you must shoot raw".
3. "You can't fix white balance in a jpg"

1. JPEGs don't deteriorate; nobody claims that. JPEGs will be degraded by being re-compressed as JPEG if the file is first opened and edited. This damage is very slight and negligible if only done a few times. It is nonetheless real.

Editing a JPEG so as to alter tone/color substantially will cause JPEG-unique degradation of the image. This will always happen -- nothing can be done to prevent it. This damage is more severe than the above however for most people who edit JPEGs it is swamped in the resolution of the file and not visible given their normal use of the image. So no real harm if they can't see it. The same does not occur editing raw files and if the image is going to be used in a manner in which the damage becomes visible then the difference matters.

2. Of course you can edit a JPEG. People do it constantly. Rather than claim you must edit raw files (your gross exaggeration) the point is made that editing raw files provides substantially more editing options and avoids the degradation that occurs when a JPEG is edited (see #1 above).

It is true that capturing and editing raw files in some extreme lighting conditions can achieve a successful result where shooting JPEGs won't but those are outliers and don't fall under the category of general photography.

3. Already address here: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-704155-5.html#12394711

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 12:07:50   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
johngault007 wrote:
My comment has nothing to with how much data is coming from where. And I think LS was trying to explain that. From strictly a computer point of view...all files need some sort of interpretation to display. We just take for granted common file extensions are usually pre-loaded with an OS.


As far as the in-depth minutia of editors...I am thoroughly enjoying the discussion because that is something that this forum is very good at digging into.
My comment has nothing to with how much data is co... (show quote)


Reply
Jul 14, 2021 12:24:06   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Ysarex wrote:
As I suspected. Big mouth no show. You won't show us because you can't. You can't back up what you say because it's a pile of BS. With nothing to show you've got nothing to say.

OK, I spent 3 minutes on your lousy picture using just the white balance tool in ACDSee. I could make the tones in your lousy picture look any way I want. I adjusted to what I think looks better than yours, and all I care about is how the picture looks to me. You of course, with your superman eyes, superman monitor and cape and all, might or might not like it. The point is anyone can adjust white balance of a jpg any which way their little heart desires. and even with a light weight editor and a few seconds of effort. Moreover, if I wanted, I could change the green box to IBM blue, or the walls to raging pink, if I wanted. Jpg images are easily edited, including white balance, and the proof of that saturates the internet, including right here on the hog.

Now, having completely waisted my time on your pontifications over nothing, I'll again promise myself to make an effort to not reply to your BS.


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Jul 14, 2021 13:15:03   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Ysarex wrote:
Let's go over your 3 gross exaggerations above.

1. "Jpgs deteriorate so I shoot raw"
2. "If you want to edit a file, you must shoot raw".
3. "You can't fix white balance in a jpg"

1. JPEGs don't deteriorate; nobody claims that. JPEGs will be degraded by being re-compressed as JPEG if the file is first opened and edited. This damage is very slight and negligible if only done a few times. It is nonetheless real.

Degrade/deteriorate, the point is people often say they shoot raw because jpgs degrade/deteriorate each time you edit one. See "Just Fred's" post on the first page of this very thread.

This is meaningless because it's simple to preserve the original and or the edits with a developer file such as .PSD .ACDC or .AFphoto. See my response to "Just Fred" on the first page of this thread.
Ysarex wrote:
Editing a JPEG so as to alter tone/color substantially will cause JPEG-unique degradation of the image. This will always happen -- nothing can be done to prevent it. This damage is more severe than the above however for most people who edit JPEGs it is swamped in the resolution of the file and not visible given their normal use of the image. So no real harm if they can't see it.

Very few give a rats patootie if you can't see the difference. You, with your x-ray eyes, spectrograph and cape can always see the difference, but that's your problem. I already suggested you toss your 16 bit monitor and buy a cheap one, and maybe you'll begin see what most people see.
Ysarex wrote:
2. Of course you can edit a JPEG. People do it constantly. Rather than claim you must edit raw files (your gross exaggeration) the point is made that editing raw files provides substantially more editing options and avoids the degradation that occurs when a JPEG is edited (see #1 above).

Yeah, too many people are wringing their hands over stuff they can't see. I worry only about what I can see. The rest I'll leave to the physicists with their prism's and spectrographs, and of course you to analyze.
Ysarex wrote:
It is true that capturing and editing raw files in some extreme lighting conditions can achieve a successful result where shooting JPEGs won't but those are outliers and don't fall under the category of general photography.

Yes, said that a million times myself, I just don't wear the raw T-shirt, and don't suggest everyone that likes to edit must shoot raw, or editing jpg's always degrades the image, or that white balance can't be edited in a jpg, and a bunch of other nonsense. What I've also said that in a long list of things that make for a good picture, RAW is near the very end of the list.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:25:26   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BigDaddy wrote:
<JPEGS>Degrade/deteriorate, the point is people often say they shoot raw because jpgs degrade/deteriorate each time you edit one.

If you perform successive edits to the same image the quality will degrade.

If one always uses the original image as a edit starting point, they don't.

But no one usually states that. They only state that JPEGS degrade with editing.
No one usually qualifies the degradation under what conditions.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:38:39   #
BebuLamar
 
Longshadow wrote:
If you perform successive edits to the same image the quality will degrade.

If one always uses the original image as a edit starting point, they don't.

But no one usually states that. They only state that JPEGS degrade with editing.
No one usually qualifies the degradation under what conditions.


If you don't save the jpeg until you're satisfied with the edit then the multiple save degradation is small. The really draw back of jpeg is that it loses tonal gradation much more when you make contrast and brightness adjustment.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:41:26   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BebuLamar wrote:
If you don't save the jpeg until you're satisfied with the edit then the multiple save degradation is small. The really draw back of jpeg is that it loses tonal gradation much more when you make contrast and brightness adjustment.


One big edit (once) is better than many small edits (multiple different times) to the same image.

Reply
 
 
Jul 14, 2021 13:46:29   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Longshadow wrote:
If you perform successive edits to the same image the quality will degrade.

If one always uses the original image as a edit starting point, they don't.

No one would normally repeatedly re-save the same jpg file on top of itself, same as they wouldn't take a picture with the lens cap on. If they would, they need to learn a smidgeon about files, particularly jpg files.
Longshadow wrote:

But no one usually states that. They only state that JPEGS degrade with editing.
No one usually qualifies the degradation under what conditions.

They also don't state that most editors have production or developer format that you can save your jpgs in lossless and preserve the edits for future editing.
They don't state it because they don't know it and are trying to justify shooting raw but for the wrong reasons. What's really cool is the same statements, often the same exact words, are repeated over, and over and over all over the web.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:48:05   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
BigDaddy wrote:
OK, I spent 3 minutes on your lousy picture using just the white balance tool in ACDSee. I could make the tones in your lousy picture look any way I want. I adjusted to what I think looks better than yours, and all I care about is how the picture looks to me.

That wasn't the exercise. What you didn't do and could not do is match the result I got setting WB in the raw file. Of course you can change the color of a JPEG. duuuuuh. Changing the color to any bloody thing you want is not setting the white balance and not the point.

And you know that because you just said you used the WB tool in ACDSee. What's the purpose of that tool? To set white or neutral gray that was present in your scene to white/neutral gray in your photo. You completely failed.

The topic here is setting the white balance. From Cambridge in Colour: "White balance (WB) is the process of removing unrealistic color casts, so that objects which appear white in person are rendered white in your photo." https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/white-balance.htm

There's a color checker in the photo and it has a grayscale. You don't have a single gray step in your photo (first illustration below). And you actually have the colors going in different directions which is pretty amazing since they were all gray on the color checker. In my version of the photo the grayscale is gray (second illustration below). You can't even do that let alone get the rest of the colors in the scene to match. Only way you could get the grayscale gray would be to select each step in turn and edit them one at a time.

You've done a good job proving yourself full of it.

Big Daddy Botch Job -- grayscale has no gray
Big Daddy Botch Job -- grayscale has no gray...
(Download)

WB set in raw processing -- grayscale is gray
WB set in raw processing -- grayscale is gray...
(Download)

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:53:16   #
johngault007 Loc: Florida Panhandle
 
I took a long break and the dumb still exists here.....glad to see some are still punching down rabbit holes that really have no bearing on anything.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:57:55   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
BebuLamar wrote:
If you don't save the jpeg until you're satisfied with the edit then the multiple save degradation is small. The really draw back of jpeg is that it loses tonal gradation much more when you make contrast and brightness adjustment.

The really good thing about jpg is todays camera's make it easy to take pictures well within the tonal gradation limits for jpg editing. There are times, although normally rare, that only a raw file can save you. Some prefer to always shoot for that rare occasion, some only when they think it will be needed, some don't care enough to bother, and some, particularly those wearing the raw T-shirt, think it's what makes them a "real" photographer...

Reply
 
 
Jul 14, 2021 13:58:11   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BigDaddy wrote:
They also don't state that most editors have production or developer format that you can save your jpgs in lossless and preserve the edits for future editing.
They don't state it because they don't know it and are trying to justify shooting raw but for the wrong reasons. What's really cool is the same statements, often the same exact words, are repeated over, and over and over all over the web.


Reply
Jul 14, 2021 13:59:35   #
josquin1 Loc: Massachusetts
 
And the battle rages on with the JPGs attacking and the RAWs digging in on the defense. Who will win? Only time will tell.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 14:02:36   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
josquin1 wrote:
And the battle rages on with the JPGs attacking and the RAWs digging in on the defense. Who will win? Only time will tell.

The people who are already doing what they want.

Reply
Jul 14, 2021 14:13:29   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
josquin1 wrote:
And the battle rages on with the JPGs attacking and the RAWs digging in on the defense. Who will win? Only time will tell.

Every one that learns something from the battle wins.
The only losers are those who are not interested, yet keep on reading/participating

The "raging" battle has only reached 6 pages so far, so "raging" battle is way off the mark.
More like a very minor skirmish.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2023 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.