camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Lately we have seen plenty of arguments on using RAW data against JPEG files. Many photographers prefer to shoot everything as RAW and there is no argument that the RAW data records more information. Careful and skillful editing needs to be done with RAW to bring back the original information we saw when we pressed the shutter.

A disadvantage to JPEG is that we are working with a lossy file. JPEGs have only 8 bits of information and it is very easy in post to create artifacts, change of colors and banding if the file is manipulated. The best thing that could happen to a JPEG is to leave it as it came out of the camera.
Although dynamic range is said to be better with RAW I have been able to work satisfactorily with it with JPEG files. Let’s remember the slide film dynamic range was only 5 stops and instead photographers were able to handle it. We are a little bit spoiled by digital.

Although RAW records more colors than a JPEG file we cannot see those colors; we cannot see all the colors of a JPEG either. Working with the 16 bits of a RAW data gives us flexibility against subtle changes in colors and artifacts. Banding is common with JPEG files during color manipulation and I had them in the skies of my sunsets. These files are not modern JPEG files. Modern JPEG files are of excellent quality compared to those of the 90’s and something tells me the quality will continue to improve. Get your act together setting the camera and the JPEG output should be the best it could be.
Do not work with Adobe RGB if using RAW but instead set the camera for the sRGB color space, the universal color better set for JPEGs. These files save time when it comes to editing and do not forget, the less manipulation of a JPEG the better. The smaller files also make for more images to store in the SD card.

Saving the JPEG file in my experience loses some sharpness, nothing spectacular but it is there. If that also happens with RAW when saved to a JPEG I have not noticed. I save my RAWS as a 16 bit TIFF which are big files but very flexible for future editing.
While we can change at will the WB with RAW the results of changing WB with JPEG are not always satisfactory. I keep sharpness and contrast at low settings in camera. If not overdone in post sharpness and contrast keep artifacts under control. I am no expert, these have been my observations using JPEG files with my camera which is 10 years old, not modern JPEGs by any means.

These are the JPEG images I made of the sunset around my neighborhood yesterday. I kept manipulation in post to a minimum and even so I got some banding in the skies. I used Sunlight as my WB, about 5300 degrees Kelvin.
I did not open the shadows in any of them because I prefer a dark foreground with my sunsets and opening the shadows can bring artifacts and noise. I used spot metering from a middle tonality in the sky and I followed the meter recommendations. All images handheld varying ISO between 400 and 1200. When necessary I used Topaz Denoise to control noise in the darker areas.

So, these are JPEG images from a 10 years old Nikon camera, the D610 with a Nikon 28-105 f3.5-4.5 AF-D. My JPEGs from my Olympus cameras using Super Fine compression are much better in quality; your experience with JPEGs could be different to mine.
A last thought, for serious work use RAW data, it records more information and it is more flexible in post. If using JPEG keep editing to a minimum or better yet, get everything right in camera and leave the file alone in post. If you are skillful with your editing RAW is the better alternative.

adedeluca Loc: holbrook ny

Totally agree

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

This is one of the key points of editing JPEGs. Your middle and final images #2 & #3 show these issues clearly, even as a thumbnail embed. Hopefully, all those that don't (refuse to?) understand will look at this image and begin to understand the potential issues of a JPEG-only approach.

I emphasize potential as you have to be shooting & editing these shots to encounter this banding issue / limitation of 8-bit color editing. The less you need to push the 8-bit file, the less risk of color banding in the results.

In a 3-image post, 66% exhibit color banding. That's a pretty poor 'success' rate.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Paul, I am clearly saying in my post that banding in the skies is evident in my images. You know as well as I do that that even minimal manipulation of a JPEG, at least with my old cameras, can produce banding and other artifacts. I know modern cameras are better but I have no experience using modern cameras to say.

If critical work is to be done I suggest to go RAW. Many, but many JPEG files can be used if dark areas of the sky are not involved like in my sunsets. As you very well know the problem is working with only 8 bits of information. Minimal manipulation in post will bring banding and that will be more evident with old cameras like mine. Yes, 66% is a poor success rate with my camera, I do not know the success rate with a more modern camera like a D810.

I do not see this limitation as much with my Olympus cameras using Super Fine compression but when shooting sunsets I prefer RAW.
Thank you for your always interesting comments.

bdk Loc: Sanibel Fl.

here is why I shoot RAW . When I was in school for photography, if you shot anything JPG, you failed.
that simple. everything had to be RAW all the time.

A while back I had to take 4000+ photos for a stamp company .
The difference in JPG and RAW was editing time. No editing in JPG and thats how I shot them
The Client was happy and I was VERY happy that I didnt have to do any editing.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

*groan*

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

If you are trying to give advice as to editing JPGs, you need to get up to date with the latest JPG software first and a more up to date camera to deliver it! Nothing wrong with your camera, but best not to attempt to advise those with the latest gear. Lossy is becoming something as old as the hills! I agree care is needed with sharpening JPGs, but it really comes back to knowing your camera. As for banding - how many photographers have bothered to invest in noise control software? yet they spend fortunes on Photo shop etc. (got to have the right labels).

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Getting a good shot is more important than what you shoot with. Skill, knowledge, and experience trumps anything else ever posted on UHH. And of course shooting in RAW is the forth most important thing.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

As I see it, sunsets hardly need editing - almost all have enhanced reds - isn't that about it - besides cropping etc?

jcboy3

I can run the entire batch of RAW photos through the camera RAW editor and have as shot JPG ready for delivery in an hour. And have latitude to correct many errors if needed. But in the case of delivered products like this, I shoot RAW + JPG and check and deliver JPGs. I frequently shoot events where the customer wants quick delivery of preview images, such as to run a slideshow during awards presentations. There are usually a couple of shots that warrant special treatment where I want the RAW.

Some news organizations require SOOC JPG. I prefer to shoot RAW + JPG in this case as well, because the RAW is better proof of ownership and origin.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Delderby, thank you for stopping by and for your interesting comments. You are absolutely right, it has been my fault to post images with an old camera when I was supposed to do a better research of new cameras first. I apologize.
Sunsets, like any other subjects in photography are usually enhanced and the enhancement as a rule is done to colors. With JPEG files colors are pretty accurate if the camera was set up right. With my Olympus I just set it to Sunset and the JPEGs of sunrises or sunsets are spectacular and I do not have to edit anything. Using my Nikons I cannot do the same but again, mine are old cameras.

I shot the sunsets for illustration for a couple of reasons, first because sunsets are a favorite and also because of the tendency of JPEG to show banding in the sky. Let me repeat it again, I have acted as a fool using old cameras, the new ones I bet have a different approach to JPEG judging from what I know.
If a dark sky is not shot the JPEG does a great job with the image. Polarizers darken skies, I do not use them often with that purpose but they could bring up the same banding as those I see with my camera at sunset.

As I said, if critical work is to be shot RAW is the way to go.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Personally, I do not shoot many sunset/rises, and if I did, I would prefer some detail in the shadow/foreground and, to that goal I would shoot a 3 exposure HDR as easily done in Sonys.

neillaubenthal

To be honest…importing RAW into LR with auto correct turned on then exporting would potentially have better results…but depending on lighting of the originals and the intended output shooting jpg could still have been good enough for the intended purpose. A good rule to follow is…if you know for a fact that shooting RAW of these subjects would not produce a better output for the intended purpose…then shooting jpg is fine because…as a famous person said…if you can’t see the difference it doesn’t matter.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

We all have our thing. One of the things (CHG_CANON) pointed out, I think I don't have as a problem with as I shoot HDR and the adding of the +&- 2 with the 3shots I believe compensates a lot towards not have that problem. Please correct me if I am incorrect.

mindzye Loc: WV