Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Some Observations on the RAW vs JPEG Dispute
Page <<first <prev 10 of 15 next> last>>
Jul 6, 2021 18:22:09   #
srt101fan
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
When you expose for success in JPEG, you are underutilizing the potential of your RAW files; and therefore, underachieving as a RAW photographer.

When you expose for success in your RAW, you are creating near worthless JPEGs; and therefore, you're self-defeating the idea of a quick-share of the JPEG.

The logical approach is to maximize the success of one, not fail in both.


Here we go generalizing again.....🙄

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 18:22:49   #
IDguy Loc: Idaho
 
olemikey wrote:
Jpegs from current cameras are much better than in days gone by. A good byproduct of your method is a lot less memory/storage needed for the whole process!!


They are still 8 bit vs. 12 or 14 bit. If you are interested in color details or increasing dynamic range RAW is the choice. jpeg fine for snapshots.

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 18:24:10   #
Tote1940 Loc: Dallas
 
Thank you for excellent review
I think that main problem is defining before pushing button what will image be used for and how much are we willing to invest in time effort and money to get there
Problem is that retrospectively my aims often change.
Photos I took as snapshots years later or by sheer luck become more interesting.
With film specially negative film you can always go back and rescan as TIFF, do a better job of cleaning, exposure, curves etc then Photoshop to desired degree.
With digital no such possibility; JPEG are fine for snapshots but have defined sharpening, saturation, curves etc.
Problem with RAW is large files; currently shooting RAW+ JPEG and for those I do not care much , delete RAW
Same problem I had with video; at what speed to record, many years later regret using slow speeds to save tape

Reply
 
 
Jul 6, 2021 18:24:48   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Whether you're successful or not, you'll never actually feel the joy of accomplishment unless you shoot in RAW.

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 18:37:29   #
pecohen Loc: Central Maine
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
To achieve freedom and happiness, the photographer must grasp this basic truth: the RAW file gives you control over your image, the JPEG gives control to the camera. RAW lets you decide this most basic question of photography: are you the finger or the button?


Let me rephrase that : the RAW file gives you control over your image, accepting only JPEG from the camera demands you flawlessly control the camera and the lighting.

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 18:40:39   #
Tote1940 Loc: Dallas
 
Yes and poor second chance

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 18:42:43   #
CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City
 
Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. RAW explains the future of digital photography, creating a better understanding of the edit practices that merge software with light to form a new vision of the world.

Reply
 
 
Jul 6, 2021 19:12:04   #
DaveyDitzer Loc: Western PA
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Raw isn't just a file format, it's a way of life. RAW gives a sense of purpose and a sense of belonging to a worldwide community of photographers, all dedicated to maximizing the pixel resolution of their cameras.


I have to believe your tongue is firmly lodged in your cheek!

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 19:27:52   #
chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
Delderby wrote:
Forget losing data - Raw to JPG means discarding un-necessary (unwanted) data. The necessary (wanted) data can be fully edited.


...I get the feeling you don't understand some things. None of that *discarded* data is "unwanted"...it is data necessary to fully use the software as intended. Like color or dynamic range information completely gone when the camera processes a RAW file and turns it into a jpeg. If the operator is reasonably adept then *most* of his/her images will be completely usable and not need the help enabled by the RAW file...but when you *need* the help and you're processing a jpeg, it ain't gonna be there for you. My RAW workflow is no different than when I'm working 10k jpegs, it's a load-in situation...takes more time with RAW...but when the images are loaded-in, there's virtually no difference in how I process photos. So, yes, you can process jpegs...you just can't go where there is no data. <shrug>

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 19:28:10   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I have to believe your tongue is firmly lodged in your cheek!

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 19:30:24   #
chasgroh Loc: Buena Park, CA
 
IDguy wrote:
They are still 8 bit vs. 12 or 14 bit. If you are interested in color details or increasing dynamic range RAW is the choice. jpeg fine for snapshots.


...succinct and to the point.

Reply
 
 
Jul 6, 2021 19:41:01   #
ab7rn Loc: Portland, Oregon
 
pecohen wrote:
This is a topic that I re-visit with some trepidation since I have learned that there are such strong feelings about it. And let me add that I am not telling anyone they have to shoot RAW or do any post-processing; if you are happy with your photography as it is then fine, you should stick with what you know and what you are happy with. But some people may be on the fence about the topic and wondering whether it is worth the time, effort and money that is associated with the switch. And I recently had some experience with this issue that may help in making that evaluation.

It may help to let you know that what renewed my interest in photography was precisely the new possibility of post-processing images on my PC. That new interest began a bit before there were digital cameras, so at first and for quite a few years I was editing JPEG files and initially these came from scanning photos taken with a film camera. The results, even with the early digital cameras, really look pretty inadequate today, but it was new technology and I enjoyed the process. I recently went through some of these old images; most are not worth spending time on.

But somewhere in the late 1990's, years before DSLRs were on the market, I bought an Olympus 2500L. For the day, that was a fairly high-end digital camera. Except that it would only create JPEG images, it would probably qualify as a decent bridge camera today. I found some images that I shot at Yellowstone National Park with that camera. I was busy with other things at the time so I'd never done anything with them.

Editing these old JPEG photos was a good reminder of why I should shoot RAW. Shooting RAW forces me to edit, but editing, for me, is a vital part of the photography process and I will do it whether I shoot RAW or JPEG. Editing these old JPEG images did remind me that the end results will often be better when you start with a RAW image, but really, I was quite aware of that. What I was less aware of was how much easier the job of editing tends to be using RAW sources. Editing these old JPEG images took much more time and effort than they would had they been RAW files. And I found myself resorting to editing techniques I'd not much used for many years; somehow easier techniques with today's great software just did not do the job when starting with JPEG source.

If you are interested, I put these photos into a short slideshow and posted them at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJcPA_78j5M
This is a topic that I re-visit with some trepidat... (show quote)


All of this reminds me of whether to develope your own or send the film out.
Bill

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 19:48:40   #
BebuLamar
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I have to believe your tongue is firmly lodged in your cheek!


You have never heard him speaks.

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 20:27:59   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 
ab7rn wrote:
All of this reminds me of whether to develope your own or send the film out.
Bill



RAW ≈ doing it yourself and JPEG ≈ sending it out?????

Reply
Jul 6, 2021 20:54:40   #
Sidwalkastronomy Loc: New Jersey Shore
 
DaveyDitzer wrote:
; somehow easier techniques with today's great software just did not do the job when starting with JPEG source.

If you are interested, I put these photos into a short slideshow and posted them at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJcPA_78j5M


I don't know why this issue is described as a dispute. These are tools. Do we dispute a flat head screw driver vs. a Phillips head?[/quote]
a small flat head can be used in a Phillips screw. lol

Reply
Page <<first <prev 10 of 15 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.