JPEG vs. RAW (Page 17): RAW and JPEG. Photography is how I journal our travels. Most shots are for remembering our experiences. When we hike I love to document the trail. When culling...

jwohlhueter

RAW and JPEG. Photography is how I journal our travels. Most shots are for remembering our experiences. When we hike I love to document the trail. When culling after a trip I save the RAW files of the best shots. Maybe 1 out of ten. The RAW files are too large to keep them all.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ysarex wrote:

You sharpened the camera JPEG, and increased the contrast but did nothing to increase the fine detail rendition which is still noticeably less than the processed raw file. In blowing highlights with the contrast increase you in fact trashed some of the detail that was in the camera JPEG. Fine detail rendition in this case is a function of the CFA demosaicing and once that's done it's no longer adjustable -- PS can't improve it.

I refuse to entertain any discussion or comparison of fine detail without full disclosure of how any JPEG was originally stored. ALL of my cameras allow choices ranging from 1/4 (or less) to full resolution when saving a JPEG. Unless full resolution was selected to begin with, there is no valid comparison. Many folks either acknowledge saving reduced resolution images to begin with or demonstrate that they have no clue that there is a difference at all.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

larryepage wrote:

I refuse to entertain any discussion or comparison of fine detail without full disclosure of how any JPEG was originally stored. ALL of my cameras allow choices ranging from 1/4 (or less) to full resolution when saving a JPEG. Unless full resolution was selected to begin with, there is no valid comparison. Many folks either acknowledge saving reduced resolution images to begin with or demonstrate that they have no clue that there is a difference at all.

The original camera JPEG was created at the highest quality setting the camera provides. The sharpness setting on the camera was +2 out of a range to +4 and noise reduction was off.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ysarex wrote:

The original camera JPEG was created at the highest quality setting the camera provides. The sharpness setting on the camera was +2 out of a range to +4 and noise reduction was off.

I have found that my in-camera sharpness adjustments are all subtractive...maximum setting represents originally sensed definition, and other settings reduce from that...such as for portraits. I've found no evidence that any in-camera settings artifically enhance sharpness beyond natural levels, at least for the cameras that I own.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

larryepage wrote:

I have found that my in-camera sharpness adjustments are all subtractive...maximum setting represents originally sensed definition, and other settings reduce from that...such as for portraits. I've found no evidence that any in-camera settings artifically enhance sharpness beyond natural levels, at least for the cameras that I own.

This is a Fuji camera and the default sharpness setting is 0. The positive range is to +4 and I'm not sure if the negative range is to -3 or -4 as I never use it. + sharpness does precisely that and adds sharpness to the JPEG.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ysarex wrote:

This is a Fuji camera and the default sharpness setting is 0. The positive range is to +4 and I'm not sure if the negative range is to -3 or -4 as I never use it. + sharpness does precisely that and adds sharpness to the JPEG.

I have found that the "0" position on all of my Nikons reduces sharpness like a focus-controlled portrait lens would do. The effect is clearly visible when looking at images fully expanded and can be seen to go away when sharpness is moved all the way up. I do not ever see artifacts that would be attributed to "over sharpening" in post-processing software.

My only experience with a Fuji camera was with an S3 Pro that I bought in 2005 and no longer own. I didn't know enough when I did own it to check all this kind of stuff out...

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

larryepage wrote:

I have found that the "0" position on al... (show quote)

This is a much more contemporary Fuji -- XT-2 and 0 I am sure is the default sharpness setting. In any case the issue in the comparison was the rendition of fine detail which is subtly different than sharpness and is a function of the CFA demosaicing.

Tom70 Loc: NY

Raw or jpeg is the personal taste of the photographer so there is NO right or wrong, if the photographer likes what he/she gets it can't be wrong.
I personally only shoot JPEG, I was taught 70 years ago, to always get the best shot possible without outside help , yes some shots may need a push in one way another, but that just means I have to do better. When shooting 50 to 100 photos a day I do not have enough time to review & adjust, so I still strive to get the best out of my camera.
If you like to use raw and adjust, enjoy, go for it, as mentioned above no right or wrong just personal taste

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Ysarex wrote:

This is a much more contemporary Fuji -- XT-2 and 0 I am sure is the default sharpness setting. In any case the issue in the comparison was the rendition of fine detail which is subtly different than sharpness and is a function of the CFA demosaicing.

Hmmm...interesting. I don’t think any of my cameras have enough processing power to do actual sharpness enhancement.

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

larryepage wrote:

Hmmm...interesting. I don’t think any of my cameras have enough processing power to do actual sharpness enhancement.

(Download)

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

Bridges wrote:

I shoot RAW almost 100% but I know a lot of people still shoot JPEG. Just a quick poll to see how many are in each camp, and to ask those who shoot both what determining factor makes you shoot one way or the other?

I shoot 100% JPEG. The results suit me fine. My cameras do a great job and I don’t need to make many changes after the fact.

Ralanco19

Very much agree. Except for some special shots of a professional requirement for high dynamics and accurate colors, etc., today you have the ability to get excellent JPEGs, requiring only a little stop in Post (all images benefit from some minor post work), and less and less need for the extreme additional data in RAW files for highly presentable on-line showings, and even prints. Not so, years ago. But today you can choose to really concentrate on the fun of composing and being a master of technical skills in making lots of great images In_Camera to enjoy and share, or a slave to many hours as a graphics artist behind the computer screen … and not even care if you have become a technically competent photographer or not, since you can correct nearly any/every sloppy shot in Post. The choice is yours. Be a photographer, or be a graphics artist and computer nerd. JPEGs are so good these days, and camera’s so good at doing their part of processing a technically well taken image, that RAW really isn’t often necessary. Photographer or Graphics Artists. Whichever you enjoy most, today you really do have an equal choice … and 98% equally acceptable possible results, JPEG or RAW. Me. I have enjoyed becoming a better and better photographer In-Camera over the past 8-10 years, with less and less time required behind the screen. It’s nice to have that choice … and with today’s level of camera technologies, it is a very viable choice.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

srt101fan wrote:

Ah, so we finally get to the crux of the matter: ... (show quote)

“for some scenes RAW is better than JPEG,”

But of course.

And for many scenes the end result is the same.

There are reasons to shoot raw. And reasons to shoot JPEG.
And I don’t need 40 Megbyte raw files of my grandkids with dirt on their faces.

I also believe the community would be better served by an honest conversation about the advantages and disadvantages of each, rather than the dogmatic advocating of adherence to one format or the other.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

CHG_CANON wrote:

The RAW has to be edited, one (anyone) can easily edit the RAW creating a clear visual difference vs the camera's JPEG. The difference should be obvious, but there's no way to say if the photographer did a better or worse job in the editing. We'd need to two actual examples, although any two should easily and clearly disprove your assertion.

Even so - is not beauty still in the eyes of the beholder?

11bravo

BebuLamar wrote:

I shoot RAW + JPEG so I have both. I rarely use the JPEG but it's convenient when my wife want the pictures right away. I don't shoot in continuous mode so I never run out of buffer nor running out of space on memory card.

jpg's for instant gratification, RAW for PP after l return home. But traveling for 2 months, I need something for proof of life, and after humping mountains all day, PP is LAST thing on my mind.