Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
RAW vs Jpeg (again)
Page <<first <prev 6 of 16 next> last>>
Jul 18, 2019 09:21:05   #
srt101fan
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
It's trueish. The truthiness of the assessment depends on a few factors, but for the most part, if you hit <AUTO> on the exposure adjustments and lens corrections and con't change the in-camera white balance when processing the RAW on your computer using the camera maker's software, you should end up with much the same images the JPEG from the camera with the same settings.

Of course, it begs the question of why you want images that look just like you could have created directly from the camera? If you want the flexibility, just in case, the RAW approach to <AUTO> results does offer that flexibility, along with more time, more effort, more storage needs, etc.
It's trueish. The truthiness of the assessment dep... (show quote)


Thanks CHG....

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 09:23:16   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
Which file format, JPEG or RAW, to shoot in depends on the intention of the photographer.

Besides this guide, no hard-and-fast rule exists, only interminable discussion, although definitely the photographer should make an informed decision as to the preferred file format.

If he cannot, then he may set his camera to shoot both file formats at the same time for later decision.

That's about the size of it.
johneccles wrote:
I haven't used RAW for several years but I am going to try photographing in RAW once again
Attached are two identical photographs taken through my office window, one in RAW and one in Jpeg.
In your opinion which one is better.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 09:34:29   #
NCMtnMan Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
 
There isn't any real answer to which is better since one is an image file and one is a data file. The jpg was created by your camera from what was a RAW file even though your camera didn't save the RAW file. If you don't care about having full pp control of your shot, then continue to shoot jpg. However, with RAW you can have more pp control and create the jpg that you like instead of what your camera likes.

Reply
 
 
Jul 18, 2019 10:00:35   #
catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
 
NCMtnMan wrote:
There isn't any real answer to which is better since one is an image file and one is a data file. The jpg was created by your camera from what was a RAW file even though your camera didn't save the RAW file. If you don't care about having full pp control of your shot, then continue to shoot jpg. However, with RAW you can have more pp control and create the jpg that you like instead of what your camera likes.


... wait a few minutes and your perfect answer will be nullified as if you said nothing, lol

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 10:01:35   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
johneccles wrote:
I haven't used RAW for several years but I am going to try photographing in RAW once again
Attached are two identical photographs taken through my office window, one in RAW and one in Jpeg.
In your opinion which one is better.


I was able to DL your actual RAW file, a No No on the UHH. No idea what camera brand you have and don't recognize the extension. But my Ps CS6 was able to open it. You do realize you MUST process RAW files for use. Anyway, I gave your image my standard processing, so you tell me what you think. Yours is probably a well exposed image so there should not be a lot of difference between the RAW and JPG. But try and image with extreme lighting or under exposure or WB off, then you will be happy to have a Raw file.


(Download)

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 10:06:46   #
lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA
 
rmalarz wrote:
John, here's a jpg derived from the RAW file. I'd hesitate to try to modify the jpg as that's pretty much what's there.
--Bob


See, and Bob's processing is different than mine.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 11:11:25   #
Dale Evans - Amaetur Loc: Baton Rouge, La
 
The answer is simple.

JPEG or RAW has nothing to do with looks, but instead, how the photo will be used.

If you are shooting for the Web or drugstore prints then JPEG is fine.
If you are shooting knowing that the photo will be Post Processed, then RAW is a must because when you save a RAW file all of the Image Data is saved, unlike JPEG which always throws some of that data away.

Reply
 
 
Jul 18, 2019 11:37:06   #
jaycoffman Loc: San Diego
 
I think we're getting a little off the real subject when we talk RAW vs. JPEG. It isn't a matter of which format produces the better pictures it's a matter of what you want your pictures for (a basic question we ask most new combers when they ask what should they do . . . ?

When I first discovered RAW I started shooting only in that format but I soon discovered that [possibly because I'm a bit trigger happy] it really takes a long time to post process the images. I also discovered that for some shoots it didn't matter at all--the JPEGs would have been just as good for my purposes. It seems clear to me that in almost every case you get the best image possible shooting RAW--but when does it matter?

So now I selectively choose which one I want. When I'm on a trip where I'll be using my images to illustrate stories I write about the trip I always shoot RAW. Same if I'm really playing with my camera and want to get the best images possible. Other times I just want good pictures to share with friends and hope to do it quickly (although I still do not like shooting with my phone--there are many reasons for that) so I shoot JPEG. Just did that for the local Pride Parade because all my past shots (and my wife's) are in JPEG and because I wanted to send them to several people who are interested in various aspects of the parade. I never regretted shooting JPEG because I was able to send them all out that day (and they were good pictures). Meanwhile I'm still working on the Senior Olympics pictures I shot last month in RAW because I haven't finished processing them.

So do consider what you want your images for when thinking RAW vs JPEG.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 11:38:07   #
catchlight.. Loc: Wisconsin USA- Halden Norway
 
lamiaceae wrote:
I was able to DL your actual RAW file, a No No on the UHH. No idea what camera brand you have and don't recognize the extension. But my Ps CS6 was able to open it. You do realize you MUST process RAW files for use. Anyway, I gave your image my standard processing, so you tell me what you think. Yours is probably a well exposed image so there should not be a lot of difference between the RAW and JPG. But try and image with extreme lighting or under exposure or WB off, then you will be happy to have a Raw file.
I was able to DL your actual RAW file, a No No on ... (show quote)


Its RAW data.

So the camera processed his RAW data into a Jpeg... then you decide to edit that same Raw data he mistakenly thought was an image, into a Jpeg to compare what, two Jpegs?

If your going to edit... use the RAW data. If your not going to edit, use the Jpeg out of the camera. Of course you can edit a Jpeg, but the question was about the two being compared as images. Apples and Oranges.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 12:15:47   #
williejoha
 
This topic has become a merry go round. What is there to debate? IMHO a total waste of time.
WJH

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 12:48:16   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Very good points. To illustrate that even further, I expose to the right. That along with a custom white balance that I'm not going to throw into the mix here. Now, using what I'd get if I were shooting only jpg would be a terribly pushed image, as shown in the first photograph.

However, that is the result of the camera's processing, so to speak. The RAW file when processed renders the scene as I intended it to look.
--Bob
lamiaceae wrote:
I was able to DL your actual RAW file, a No No on the UHH. No idea what camera brand you have and don't recognize the extension. But my Ps CS6 was able to open it. You do realize you MUST process RAW files for use. Anyway, I gave your image my standard processing, so you tell me what you think. Yours is probably a well exposed image so there should not be a lot of difference between the RAW and JPG. But try and image with extreme lighting or under exposure or WB off, then you will be happy to have a Raw file.
I was able to DL your actual RAW file, a No No on ... (show quote)

SOOC
SOOC...
(Download)


(Download)

Reply
 
 
Jul 18, 2019 13:16:00   #
DWU2 Loc: Phoenix Arizona area
 
That's a dramatic example of the dynamic range raw provides.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 13:25:05   #
rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona
 
Thanks, Dan. Learning some exposure techniques a few years ago really improved what I could do with a digital camera. No blown-out bright areas and control of the detail in shadows. Of course, that also includes processing techniques to accommodate the data collected at exposure.
--Bob
DWU2 wrote:
That's a dramatic example of the dynamic range raw provides.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 13:37:07   #
CaptainPhoto
 
This might help to understand the value of RAW images.

This comes from Daily Photo Tips:

Did you know that the file format you use can play a huge role in the overall quality of your images? Often overlooked, the way in which your photographs are recorded and stored can significantly affect the look of your final product.

Many novice photographers stick to JPEG formatting – however, professionals often opt to shoot RAW images. Why? Here are just a few reasons:
• Photographers can edit nondestructively with RAW file access. When editing a RAW file, you’re actually “writing” instructions on what adjustments should be made once the photograph is ready to be exported to a more manageable format. In other words, edits do not actually have an effect on the integrity of a RAW file, eliminating any fears of overwriting edits or losing access to an original image.

• RAW files have a larger tonal range as well as adjustable color space. RAW files simply capture more data than JPEGs. While an 8 bit JPEG retains 256 brightness levels, a 14 bit RAW file can retain up to 16,384 brightness levels, resulting in smoother tonal transitions. Because of the extra information the file format contains, it’s easy to make adjustments to details like white balance quickly and efficiently.

• More detail = higher quality prints. One of the major downsides of shooting RAW is the format’s massive file size. However, this allows for larger, in depth prints later down the road.

• With RAW files, photographers can restore details that might otherwise be lost. If you have a tendency to over or underexpose images, it’s possible to recover details from RAW files that might otherwise have been lost in a JPEGs limited tonal gamut.

• RAW files allow users to maintain complete control over the appearance of their images. When shooting JPEGs, the camera automatically processes image files on its own. You know better than the camera what adjustments you’d like to make to an image, and your computer’s processing capabilities far surpass those of your camera.

Adobe has two products that can handle processing RAW images:
• Lightroom allows users to import many RAW images at once, then make live edits using the Develop module. The software also allows presets that will automatically make predetermined adjustments with the single click of a button.

Photoshop allows for more in depth edits for individual photographs. Using adjustment layers to exemplify tonality, sharpness, and color, photographers can make precise changes to perfect their images.

Reply
Jul 18, 2019 13:52:12   #
davidb1879
 
Re: John Neccles (Raw versus Jpeg). I know that many skilled photographers shoot Jpegs (including Ken Rockwell). But for me I usually shoot raw because it gives me more latitude to edit my images. Davidb1879.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 6 of 16 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.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.