petrochemist Loc: UK

The OP specifically said if they were not doing any post processing.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

It was obvious I understood that from my first post back on page 1 of this thread. I've had this right from the 8th response to the original post.

You are incorrect. The user has to accept the result that the camera processing software produces if they're not going to edit the camera JPEG. No user of a Nikon camera can, for example, adjust the camera settings to do an excellent job of noise filtering. The processing done in-camera is not the same as what's available outside the camera when processing the raw file. I just demonstrated that clearly.

Nikon's noise filtering does a mediocre job of suppressing noise while it wipes out fine detail. The standard expectation is to do the opposite.

I previously presented another clear example: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-34.html#14387861 The Fuji X camera user has no control over how the camera demosaices the CFA. The in-camera algorithm produces a specific result that the user of an unedited JPEG must accept. That result is visibly different than what's possible processing the raw file. The in-camera processing can not produce an equivalent end result.

And the reason these differences exist has always been that the cameras are limited by the need for speed. The makers compromise the in-camera processing to keep up with the camera's burst rate.

You are wrong. The camera makers compromise the in-camera processing in deference to the need for speed. Fuji recently experimented with this problem and added some JPEG processing options into their cameras with a caveat that they would slow processing -- clarity is one. The user can turn clarity ON but if the camera is set to burst mode that option greys out; Fuji knows the clarity processing can't keep up so they take it away in burst mode. When Fuji did this it created some angst on the Fuji focused forums about the cameras being broken/not working correctly. Here's an example: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4583615 Clarity enhancement is a common option available in most external raw processing software, but it's processing intensive. Added into the cameras it slows processing and that's often seen as a problem by the user.

Here's an earlier example from Canon for folks who remember back into the 5DmkII era. Like Nikon Canon has always made their in-camera raw processing available as a computer app (DPP). This allowed them to offer processing enhancements that were not available in the camera. WHY WOULDN'T THEY HAVE BEEN AVAILABE IN THE CAMERA?!! Because they slowed processing to unacceptable levels. One of those DPP enhancements was DLO (digital lens optimizer). It made a big difference in the IQ output from DPP and the SOOC JPEGs didn't get that advantage. Over the years as Canon was able to boost the processing power in their cameras DLO started to become an in-camera option -- first in the top-line cameras and then working on down.

This is an issue we've dealt with from the get go. Camera JPEGs are not in all cases created equal as compromises that affect quality are sometimes required to maintain output speed. Over the years JPEG quality has consistently improved as all of the camera makers have worked ceaselessly on the issue. But the problem persists and now with the adoption of mirrorless cameras that make ever faster burst rates possible the problem is refreshed.

btbg

I don't think that your final sentence is correct. There are lots of ways to do things, including photography. The reason the topic continues and starts to become hostile is because although there is a time and a place for jpeg only raw has greater capability. That is not opinion. That is fact. Whether one wants to use that capability, or has the skill to do so is a different issue, but it is a fact that raw has more capability.

As to raw and jpeg being for different purposes, that is simply not true. Both are there to get a finished image that the photographer or their customers are satisfied with. And, I repeat no, raw does not require a process to be finished if you don't want to. The raw preview in the camera will merely apply the jpeg settings that the camera has, so the two files look identical. It is simple to set your post processing software up to begin at those settings.

Consequently I do not have to process my raw files if I don't want to. All I have to do is open the file and save it as a jpeg and if I do nothing else it will be identical to what I would have had if I had just shot in jpeg to begin with. I choose to shoot in raw because 1) I have access to better noise reduction. 2) I have more control over color corrections. 3) Raw is better in extreme light conditions because of greater dynamic range or because the images had to be shot at high iso.

As to why convert the raw to jpeg, I only do that when I have to email images to work. Then a tiff is not an option as it is too big to email. And, no, raw does not take more time than jpeg under normal conditions. If I shot in jpeg instead of raw, which I used to do early in my photojournalism career I still have to open the image in a post processor to make sure that focus is sharp, do any necessary cropping, etc.... There is no time saving to shooting jpeg unless one goes on to do additional post processing of the raw file, which is the whole reason to shoot in raw in the first place.

As to your following sentence: "The whole context is about attacking a filetype saying all crappy things about it but still using the same filetype and saying they did a really good job. Pissing in ones pants yet believing oneself is better that the other guy who got wet with rain." You are correct that some people do post crappy photos on this site, both jpeg believers and raw believers. No question about that. As to using the filetype, duh, we have to use jpeg to post on this site, and to email photos. That's just a reality. I have nothing against jpeg, and I doubt that most of the raw proponents on here do either. The original question was about whether or not there are advantages to shooting in raw, and there are. That is not trying to be superior to anyone. That is just answering a question truthfully.

Keep in mind that the individual did not ask "Is there any advantage to shooting in raw if the image is never going to be post processed." Because then the answer is no and there is nothing to cause the thread to go on for 38 pages. He said if there is no intention of post processing. That qualifier is a very different thing. The answer then becomes yes, because there are advantages to raw, and some time at a later date intention might change.

For example when I shoot for work I have no intention of post processing. I do not have the time to do so, unless it is absolutely necessary to get a usable image, because deadlines are tight. But, I still shoot in raw because sometimes intention or no intention post processing is still necessary, and I can do better post processing in raw than if I had shot jpeg.

btbg

No, he did not. He said if there was no intention of doing post processing. That is not the same as not doing any post processing. No intention changes the meaning of the question.

When I go to work I have no intention of having to process any of the photos I take. Then I get to a gym that I have not been in before and discover that in order to get my shutter speed up to 1,000 of a second and freeze most of the action I have to shoot at ISO 12,800. Well, guess what, when that happens then I have to apply some kind of noise reduction. Now post processing becomes necessary to get a quality image. Had I shot only jpeg then there is nothing I can do about the noise. He did not ask about advantages of raw if there was no post processing. He asked about intention and that is a very different thing.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

Not so.

You are assuming that the software you use to open the raw file has access to the settings the camera used to produce the jpg internally. While some settings may be included in the metadata of the raw file, it is dependent on the manufacturer as to which settings are available. Moreover, the algorithm the camera uses to generate a jpg from a given group of settings is probably not the same as the algorithm your external software uses. Your best chance of having the camera's jpg and the externally produced jpg be the same is if you are using the manufacturer's software. But even then I suspect it will depend on which camera you are using.

If by 'open the file' you mean you are using software that just uses the embedded jpg in the raw file, then yes, you are actually using the camera-generated jpg so it will be identical.




I agree with all this, but would like to say that I consider tiff to be an overrated format and jpg to be an underrated format. Yes, software throws data away in generating a jpg. Having control over the compression of the jpg makes that unimportant since low compression, although it still throws away data, can produce a jpg that has high quality and the differences between that and a tiff are not really visible in many cases. Of course that only applies to the computer generated jpg, which can still be superior to the camera generated jpg due to the increased resolution of the adjustments in the computer software over the coarse camera settings.

Any photo that I think will have value after I am out of the picture gets saved as a jpg. Mainly because my family doesn't know how to use photo software and wouldn't know how to convert raw data to a viewable image. The only time I use tiff is when I want to do numerical analysis of the image.

btbg

I do open the file using the embedded jpeg data. That is the whole point. You can get exactly the same as the jpeg would have been plus the ability to process. So, why would anyone not shoot raw.

As to tiff being overrated. The press at work has to have a tiff in order to accurately reproduce color. So, if I have to email a jpeg to work then someone else has to convert it to a tiff. that tends to cause a color shift. If you want to do a test, open a jpeg with a lot of dark blue in it and convert it to a tiff. You will likely see a shift in color to more of a purplish blue color. That's what happens with our press if it is given a jpeg it will have a distinct color shift. The only way to ensure that color rendition is accurate is to produce a color matched tiff to begin with. Otherwise someone else who never saw what the shot should have looked like has to decide if the colors are right or not, or if they are lazy and just send the jpeg straight to the press the color could be really bad.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

OK, my problem then is the phrase 'open the file'.

That means, to me, importing the file to LR because that's my primary first stop when I get the photo onto my computer. If I 'open the [raw] file' with IrfanView, I see the embedded jpg. In LR I see the image resulting from demosaicing the raw data from the file.

So I think to be clear, the phrase should be 'open the file with...'

A couple decades ago I heard that printers would demand tiff files. I have not heard that recently. That may be in part because I don't send things out to printers very often and the printers I do use aren't picky (or maybe I'm not picky enough). It may also be partly because probably 99% of images are viewed online rather than printed. Of course if your printer needs a tiff, there are ways to transmit that outside of email. I suppose at this point we might get some responses from people who print.

srt101fan

You said "Keep in mind that the individual did not ask "Is there any advantage to shooting in raw if the image is never going to be post processed." Because then the answer is no and there is nothing to cause the thread to go on for 38 pages. He said if there is no intention of post processing. That qualifier is a very different thing. The answer then becomes yes, because there are advantages to raw, and some time at a later date intention might change."

You misinterpreted the OP. In a later post he said "Mwsilver on Page 1 and Bill_de on page 27 recognized exactly what I was asking and why."

The Msilver comment he references (the second post in the thread!): https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-1.html#14194665

The Bill_de comment he is referring to: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-787932-27.html#14204245

I choose to believe the OP; you choose not to. C'est la vie!

You can have the last word (I know you'll take it anyway! )

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

OP states "...no intention of altering..."
Poster qualifies later that he is talking about the time when the photo is taken. That is when he is deciding to shoot raw or jpg.
Poster later states that the purpose of the query was '...which was superior/inferior... and why"

That last statement shows that the original post was not clear. If he wanted to know which was better, why didn't he say so initially? As it is, we are left to guess his intention. After all UHH is full of threads about the superiority or inferiority of raw and jpg.

It is not clear to me that the two replies actually recognized what he was talking about.

Overall, I get the impression that he wants to know whether he should shoot raw as a matter of course. Is there an advantage in doing so even if he doesn't want to do any postprocessing?

I believe he should shoot raw as a matter of course even if he doesn't want to postprocess.

I do so. The reason is that it doesn't cost me anything to do so (although some will argue that it costs me $10/month for the Adobe Photography package and that there is a small cost for increased storage capacity). All my photos go into Lightroom. The reason for that is that my memory, as it ages, makes it difficult to find photos in my photopile. Lightroom makes it possible through the use of keywords and collections. In addition, I rename the useless camera file names to be more meaningful (hopefully making it possible for my family, who do not use Lightroom, can find my images when I'm out of the picture). I can do that when importing to Lightroom or even after importing to Lightroom. Once the images are in the Lightroom catalog, I can edit them or not. I can export them as a jpg or not. But unless I can find them a couple years down the road, they are useless to me.

If I never edit them, shooting raw wouldn't matter. But just before exposure, when I have to make the choice between raw or jpg or raw+jpg, I don't know whether the resulting image will need to be edited or not. I discount the fact that probably 75-90% of my photos are cropped (a form of processing) because that can be done without losing much on a jpg. But IF I want to edit them, I have the raw file for maximum flexibility in editing. Whether or not the image will need postprocessing is a decision that will be made AFTER the exposure has taken place and most likely after the data have been downloaded and the scene is no longer in front of the camera.

Miker999

I shoot in both. That way I have the RAW in case I messed up my shot and need to try and salvage it.

therwol Loc: USA

I would never have my camera generate .tiff files. I don't see any advantage over RAW, and if anything, the files are larger. On the other hand, when I was scanning my negatives and slides, I scanned as 16 bit .tiff (48 bit color). Nearly all of my older negatives and most of my slides required a lot of work to clean them up, often more than I would want to do in one sitting. I could open and save those files over and over without having to worry about any loss of quality that might occur with jpegs. The last step would be to convert to jpeg, but I also kept the edited .tiffs.

Blenheim Orange Loc: Michigan

People are pointing out the short comings of in-camera JPEG processing, but I don't see anyone attacking JPEGs nor saying all crappy things about them. We all use JPEGs all the time.

Whether a person saves raw files to the card or just JPEGs, processing is required for the image to be finished. The question is where and how the raw data gets processed into a finished image.

I don't think it is true that the people who are explaining a demonstrating the benefits of working with raw files are suggesting that others are idiots because they don't work with raw files.

Nobody is against JPEGs. Nobody is insisting that everyone work with raw files. However, is someone asks "what are the advantages of working with raw files" there is nothing wrong with an extremely knowledgeable person, Ysarex is the best example, taking the time to answer that question. But the OP merely wanted confirmation for his own bias, and deceptively framed the question to get the answer he wanted. That does a disservice to the other members. What is wrong with people having the opportunity to learn all that they can on this topic so they a make their own intelligent decisions?

The two file types are different in kind and the question "which is better, JPEG or raw?" is nonsensical. The questions are what file types are you writing to the card, and where and how is the raw data being processed into a bitmap image.

btbg

When I'm not physically at my desk at work I open all of my files with my Nikon software so that the raw files and jpeg files are identical. That way if no edits are needed all I have to do is save a jpeg file and email it. If I need to make any edits other than the most basic then I transfer the files to photoshop. I do not use lightroom because the newspaper does not have anyplace to keep a library, so realistically I can't use lightroom for work.

Also, to be clear, I'm not talking about a printer. I'm talking about a newspaper press. Sorry that was not made clear. As to ways to transmit tiffs outside of email, yes, there are, but when you are on location email is often the fastest, sometimes the only available choice. Yes, on line images look best as jpegs, and so typically our newspapers use tiffs for print, then convert them to jpegs for on line viewing.

When I have to email jpegs the story will most likely go online first and then in print later, so someone in the office will have to convert the file to a tiff for the press or if they fail to do that the color will be off. Hope that makes my statements more clear.

btbg

I don't shoot tiffs either. I convert to tiffs rather than jpegs if I am in the office. Jpeg if I have to email. I do not see a practical reason for shooting in tiff either.

btbg

correct.