Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
The RAW vs JPEG Debate Needs to End… Again
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
Sep 8, 2022 11:13:58   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
BigDaddy wrote:
For me, the argument is NEVER which is best, that's ALWAYS a personal choice, and the answer there is it depends.
The argument for me is ALWAYS the bogus reasons people wear the RAW T-shirt.
Things like:
jpg's deteriorates each time you edit;

For me the problem is: You always have your facts wrong.
To begin with that's just too little info to be useful or accurate and I wouldn't say that without further qualification, but yes, JPEG's do further deteriorate each time you edit them if the edits applied include substantial changes in tone/color.

JPEGs are highly compressed. The mechanism that achieves this compression is a grid of 64 pixel cells that becomes a permanent part of the image. The JPEG algorithm adds redundancy to the file by working with those grid cells to force pixels in the cells that are originally similar to become the same. Once that's done the compression grid is a permanent part of the image and can not be removed. Any substantial edit of tone/color will interact with that compression grid and produce degrading artifacts. That can't be avoided and it will happen with every and all subsequent edits.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 11:18:18   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
Longshadow wrote:

JPEGS only deteriorate if one does subsequent edits on the already edited file. If one starts with the original JPEG each time there is no degradation.

True, but the raw shooters that make this claim over and over don't get it. So again, it's not people claiming you must shoot raw, (although that's occasionally claimed by those wearing the T-shirt) it's the bogus claims as to why made by so many of the RAW only shooters that gets the ball rolling.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 11:19:53   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
Longshadow wrote:
Only if one saves the edits over the original (replaces the original with the edited file).
I never replace the original, I use "Save As" (new file) for all my edits.
My original always remains untouched.

Your key operator: resaved.


You can maintain an original untouched and you should. But what you originally said; "If one starts with the original JPEG each time there is no degradation." implies that the editing does not deteriorate the image including the image saved in a new form for example a PNG file. You edit because you want the new edited image with the changes included. That new image will be degraded by the editing.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2022 11:20:34   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
BigDaddy wrote:
True, but the raw shooters that make this claim over and over don't get it. So again, it's not people claiming you must shoot raw, (although that's occasionally claimed by those wearing the T-shirt) it's the bogus claims as to why made by so many of the RAW only shooters that gets the ball rolling.

The BEST in their opinion.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 11:26:10   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
BigDaddy wrote:
True, but the raw shooters that make this claim over and over don't get it.


You're editing your JPEG for a reason. You want the result that the editing produces. Of course you should never save that edit overwriting the original. The degradation caused by editing is in the result that you would presumably save as a different file. An image processed to the same result directly from a raw file would not contain the same degradation that the JPEG editing caused.

BigDaddy wrote:
So again, it's not people claiming you must shoot raw, (although that's occasionally claimed by those wearing the T-shirt) it's the bogus claims as to why made by so many of the RAW only shooters that gets the ball rolling.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 11:46:24   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
Ysarex wrote:
You can maintain an original untouched and you should. But what you originally said; "If one starts with the original JPEG each time there is no degradation." implies that the editing does not deteriorate the image including the image saved in a new form for example a PNG file. You edit because you want the new edited image with the changes included. That new image will be degraded by the editing.

No, that's what you inferred...
Starting with the original each time prevents sequential degradation, each edit "save" has its own unique "degradation". EVERY edit will be degraded from the original somewhat, by that edit.
Don't want ANY degradation? Don't edit.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 12:16:55   #
Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana
 
Good article. Worth reading.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2022 12:50:24   #
Ysarex Loc: St. Louis
 
Longshadow wrote:
No, that's what you inferred...
Starting with the original each time prevents sequential degradation, each edit "save" has its own unique "degradation". EVERY edit will be degraded from the original somewhat, by that edit.

OK, I think the logical inference is that you begin an edit starting with the original and you're working toward a goal for that image. That edit will degrade the image. Save that and continue work on that edit and that will further degrade the image.

So, if you start fresh each time with the original (which has been degraded by the JPEG algorithm) then you only have one edit iteration. You can always reset to the beginning, but you still can't say this: "If one starts with the original JPEG each time there is no degradation." JPEG means there is always degradation.

Likewise BigDaddy's complaint that this isn't true is false: "jpg's deteriorates each time you edit;"
Longshadow wrote:
Don't want ANY degradation? Don't edit.

Don't want any degradation don't save a JPEG.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 13:13:23   #
Boris77
 
A fun and meaningless debate. The people who inherit our view of the World just want a finished picture to look at, then discard.
Boris

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 13:20:12   #
Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley
 
Racmanaz wrote:
Yup, it shouldn't be a battle at all, it's a matter of preference.


Yep, whatever floats your boat.

will

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 13:24:06   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
This debate of shooting RAW data vs JPEG is as old as the invention of photography. In many of those debates presented here I have always sustained that modern JPEG files are of outstanding quality and for the busy photographer those files save a lot of time. I know of a professional wedding photographer in this Miami area that only uses JPEG files. According to her own statement NEVER ever she had a client complaining of the quality of her images. I have seen some of them and indeed they are beautiful images full of details.

If something is important for the JPEG shooter it is to never over manipulate the images while editing. Working on an image and saving the images a number of times in my humble experience NEVER had an ill effect on the file. When I shoot JPEG I try my best to avoid editing simply because I am working with an 8 bit image and subtle shifts in color can show up. When applying sharpness I keep sharpening in camera low and when necessary I just add a bit in post.

Shoot what works for you but do not tell me JPEG files are for amateurs only.

Reply
 
 
Sep 8, 2022 13:31:53   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
camerapapi wrote:
This debate of shooting RAW data vs JPEG is as old as the invention of photography. In many of those debates presented here I have always sustained that modern JPEG files are of outstanding quality and for the busy photographer those files save a lot of time. I know of a professional wedding photographer in this Miami area that only uses JPEG files. According to her own statement NEVER ever she had a client complaining of the quality of her images. I have seen some of them and indeed they are beautiful images full of details.

If something is important for the JPEG shooter it is to never over manipulate the images while editing. Working on an image and saving the images a number of times in my humble experience NEVER had an ill effect on the file. When I shoot JPEG I try my best to avoid editing simply because I am working with an 8 bit image and subtle shifts in color can show up. When applying sharpness I keep sharpening in camera low and when necessary I just add a bit in post.

Shoot what works for you but do not tell me JPEG files are for amateurs only.
This debate of shooting RAW data vs JPEG is as old... (show quote)


Reply
Sep 8, 2022 14:39:39   #
Bultaco Loc: Aiken, SC
 
Then why bring it up again? Shot what ever floats your boat.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 18:32:08   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Just Shoot Me wrote:
Then why do people keep bringing the subject up?

Ron


It makes for interesting conversation, and this is a social media web site that's main function is conversation.

Reply
Sep 8, 2022 18:46:51   #
rmorrison1116 Loc: Near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania
 
Boris77 wrote:
A fun and meaningless debate. The people who inherit our view of the World just want a finished picture to look at, then discard.
Boris


If it was fun, it wasn't meaningless, and the RAW vs JPG conversations are always fun. Besides, it gives some older folks an opportunity to get their blood pumping...!
Shoot how you want and don't concern yourself with what others are doing, and most importantly, have fun.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 3 next>
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.