rlv567 Loc: Baguio City, Philippines

I follow because I enjoy the laughs I get from some of the moronic posts (such as the one I'm answering). I post occasionally hoping to bring some clarity to the dark corners - but sometimes just to stir things up a bit (though always with the truth!!!)

Loren - in Beautiful Baguio City

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing now, and your post is full of misinformation.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

Thanks for the time and effort you put into this. Very informative.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

Editing jpegs is like turning an old grumpy into a beautyful butterfly

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Every successful photographer is driven by an inner voice telling them everyone else is shooting in RAW.

anotherview Loc: California

The answer to your query lies partly in your intention or your purpose for the photograph(s).

Or to simplify, place your photograph(s) on a measure running from snapshot to artwork. At one extreme, a snapshot records a visual impression arising from actuality with little else to recommend it. The JPEG file format will do as a shortcut toward this end.

At the other extreme, artwork typically involves an artistic sensibility from start to finish, while involving a development process to bring out the potential of the given photograph(s). The RAW file format presents more information for this activity.

gwilliams6

Even though jpeg quality from most modern cameras is acceptable and a standard many have become accustomed to, if you only shoot jpegs you will NEVER know the full image quality, the full dynamic range, the full color range, the full resolution and the full detail that your camera and lens can capture. Just a fact.

Many dont need that ultimate image quality, dynamic range, full color range, resolution and detail possible with raw files, but also many do want all of that when they shoot. Everyone has different standards, different creative needs, different work flows that work for them .

I personally always shoot raw+jpeg; raw files to one card slot, jpegs to the other card slot. The jpegs are great for fast editing, fast on-site transmitting to media, and fast sharing online. My raw files then can be edited for the best final output of my images.

The jpegs also serve as a redundancy backup if somehow the raw files get corrupted or lost before I have a chance to back them up to an external storage device. I would never shoot any assignment without this redundancy. My clients deserve no less. It is great that we have that option nowadays in many cameras with dual card slots.

TIFF format is much less common, but you may know it if you use Photoshop. I work with TIFF files sometimes in post processing like in Topaz Denoise AI. I go from the raw file in LR to a TIFF file in Topaz Denoise AI. TIFF files are much larger than JPEGs, but they're also lossless. That means you lose no quality after saving and editing the file, no matter how many times you do it. This makes TIFF files perfect for images that require big editing jobs in Photoshop or other photo editing software.

The TIFF format offers you the truest representation of your art or photograph. It's not a practical choice for posting to the web or sharing online due to the big file size. When it comes to accurate representation, though, few other choices match up to TIFF. Some of the best high-end printing is from TIFF files.

In the end if I output my processed TIFF or processed Raw Files to a quality jpeg, that jpeg will have more image quality than the lossy-compressed jpeg from SOOC. I do file and store both my raw files and my jpegs. As a working photographer it just makes sense to save them both.

But if jpeg in-camera compressed and processed quality is all you will ever need, then use it . For me personally I didn't pay for my quality cameras and lenses, and not plan to get the most out of them whenever possible. But my needs can be quite different for yours and there is room for us all.

Cheers and best to you all.

https://www.lifewire.com/differences-between-jpeg-tiff-and-raw-493186#:~:text=RAW%20doesn't%20compress%20or,do%20the%20post%2Dprocessing%20yourself.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I've not looked at one of these discussions in quite a while, because they tend to be between two groups hardheads with incomplete information. They are all wearing earplugs and shouting at each other. But upon noting that this one had risen from the dead and had reached 16 pages, I felt that it demanded at least a quick look. After wading through probably 5 pages at each end, several thoughts sort of coalesced in the fog. Here's a quick look at them.

First...anyone who drags a camera out of the box and starts shooting is completely correct to determine that the JPEGs fall somewhere on a scale from unattractive to unusable and that they must make adjustments.

Second...anyone who drags a camera camera out of the box and starts shooting without learning and making adjustments to image size and compression level deserves the low resolution images and highly compressed files that are likely to result from default settings.

I realize that some cameras provide more options than others to address these issues, but in my mind, if you don't at least investigate your options, you haven't done your job.

I personally use my cameras for artistic pursuits, partly for documentation, partly for making snapshots, and partly for some other things that I don't even know what to call it. Some of what I do requires extensive processing of raw captures. Most of it does not.

When I was working as an industrial engineer, one if the hardest parts of my job was getting people to quit doing work that didn't need to be done. Sometimes that was because they were trained by another employee who really didn't have a clue how to do the job. Sometimes it was because made up their own stuff to do because thay thought it was a good idea. Sometimes it was because "It's always been done that way." It was always wasteful, always cost money unnecessarily, always left the employee more tired at the end of the day than necessary, and was sometimes unsafe and risked employee injury.

There are many times that modern cameras, used correctly, can produce not just usable but beautiful images with no further work required. If you don't know how to recognize and take advantage of that, the shortcoming is yours. Other times, the situation will require a more complex process. If you are so far at the top of the ladder that you only deal in these esoteric artistic images, more power to you. But don't be so arrogant as to claim that there is no other use for photography. It's not a good look for you, and it's simply not true.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

You have just described the essence of these discussions on UHH. ;)

Certain topics will always be like that.

User ID

(Download)

gwilliams6

One more opinion.

Digital Photography School: https://digital-photography-school.com/13-tips-for-improving-outdoor-portraits/

"3. Always shoot in RAW, not JPEG
These words have left my mouth a thousand times, and they will surely come out a million more. The RAW file format is an unmodified compilation of your sensor’s data during the time of exposure. It is your digital negative. And it gives you immense post-processing flexibility, not to mention improved image quality.

On the other hand, when you shoot in JPEG format, much of what you capture is stripped away. You lose lots of key information, including color nuance and tonal range. It’s a recipe for disaster.

For instance, a RAW file lets you recover clipped highlights and shadows, which can be a big deal when shooting contrasty outdoor scenes. A RAW file is also essential if you want to make heavy color modifications to your shots (e.g., you want to do artistic color grading). But a JPEG won’t allow for much detail recovery, and a JPEG will severely limit your photo’s color-grading potential.

So stick to RAW files. Yes, they’re larger and require processing. But unless you’re a photojournalist on an ultra-tight deadline, they’re worth the extra effort.

(If you love the shareability of a JPEG and can’t see yourself shooting without it, then consider using your camera’s RAW+JPEG mode, which saves both a RAW file and a JPEG file at the time of capture.) "

Cheers and best to you all.

anotherview Loc: California

In one approach to image processing, with Adobe Photoshop, the RAW file format allows the photographer to fix images with Adobe Camera Raw, and to finish them afterward in the full Photoshop.

Yet, a fraction of photographers declines this approach in favor of shooting in the JPEG file format for its simplicity and immediate use.

The field of photography allows for diversity of approach.

Bill_de Loc: US

UHH should have more of these long threads that continually beat the dead horse.

It is so much better than having a dozen threads a week spewing the same arguments.




---

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

This is reasonable counsel. Many folks have unreasonable expectations, forgetting their own struggles and learning paths, and expecting new photographers to immediately become experts in "everything, everywhere, all at once."

It's pretty simple really. If you need to ask, you are probably better off working with JPEGs. Today's cameras, properly set up, are capable of producing beautiful images if you take the time to learn how to take advantage of their capabilities and avoid loss of captured data. You can also begin learning how to make subtle adjustments to your images and why it can be helpful and beneficial.

As you learn more, or as you undertake to photograph subjects for which JPEG simply will not suffice, you will be motivated on your own to explore what using the raw files and procesding them can do for you.

The absolute last thing that photography calls for is rigidity. (Some discipline, yes, but never rigidity.) That threatens many. Especially many here. But it doesn't make it wrong. I am not here to do things "your" way, or even the mosy popular way. I am here to do photography in a manner that works for me and also allows me to learn new approaches.

brentrh Loc: Deltona, FL

jpeg if you miss polaroid, raw if you want to produce a better image. Jpeg if you shoot on program, Raw if you like to process your work. I started years ago processing my photography with black and white film. Lots of hours in the darkroom making my pictures better. Ansel Adams taught me you do your very best capturing you image with you camera settings. Then you are half way there now you go to darkroom and apply techniques to make it better. With digital photography you have a choice of raw or jpeg. Jpeg will process it for you. In the film days just send it out to be developed and be content with the results. With raw you are now going to have to process it, you can do this with jpeg but you have less information in you file. Raw gives you more information and an improved image compared to jpeg results. Processing Raw files is simple with most programs. Which is truly better depends on what you want to achieve with you photography