Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Links and Resources
‘Raw’ vs JPEG
Page 1 of 2 next>
Mar 8, 2023 14:10:07   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
B&H has an interview with a ‘pro’ who has shot JPEG exclusively for many years.

https://fstoppers.com/interview/should-shoot-jpeg-professional-photographer-623809?sc_src=email_36335&sc_lid=3704214&sc_uid=chkbWrIHEV&sc_llid=2141934&sc_customer=47D013B535EE39E08FFFF2A66DA61206E48472CD52A2846FFE9BAC1277D9A75A&utm_medium=Email%2036335&utm_campaign=Content+Newsletter&utm_source=230308_BAU_BAU_Content_Email_BAU%2020230308&utm_content=&utm_term=IMAGE+dsc09837-edit_jpg.jpg&encEmail=47D013B535EE39E08FFFF2A66DA61206E48472CD52A2846FFE9BAC1277D9A75A

I didn’t read the whole thing, but the reason seems to be mainly historical - many years ago, another ‘pro’ advised him to avoid ‘raw’ because the technology of the time handled ‘raw’ poorly. I don’t want to start a fight that would send this thread to the Attic - so please don’t do it either - but I thought this was interesting.

Reply
Mar 8, 2023 14:37:42   #
Soul Dr. Loc: Beautiful Shenandoah Valley
 
I will just say that I have been shooting with many different digital cameras since mid 1990.
I have always shot in the JPEG format.
I can post process a JPEG image in about 30 seconds or less. Nobody that has seen my images has asked if they were JPEGs.
A professional photographer, Gordon Laing shoots JPEG and gets excellent results straight out of the camera.
He has a book titled In Camera with over a hundred photos straight out of the camera.

Will

Reply
Mar 8, 2023 15:08:47   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
rehess wrote:
B&H has an interview with a ‘pro’ who has shot JPEG exclusively for many years.

https://fstoppers.com/interview/should-shoot-jpeg-professional-photographer-623809?sc_src=email_36335&sc_lid=3704214&sc_uid=chkbWrIHEV&sc_llid=2141934&sc_customer=47D013B535EE39E08FFFF2A66DA61206E48472CD52A2846FFE9BAC1277D9A75A&utm_medium=Email%2036335&utm_campaign=Content+Newsletter&utm_source=230308_BAU_BAU_Content_Email_BAU%2020230308&utm_content=&utm_term=IMAGE+dsc09837-edit_jpg.jpg&encEmail=47D013B535EE39E08FFFF2A66DA61206E48472CD52A2846FFE9BAC1277D9A75A

I didn’t read the whole thing, but the reason seems to be mainly historical - many years ago, another ‘pro’ advised him to avoid ‘raw’ because the technology of the time handled ‘raw’ poorly. I don’t want to start a fight that would send this thread to the Attic - so please don’t do it either - but I thought this was interesting.
B&H has an interview with a ‘pro’ who has shot... (show quote)

Many a "Pro" shoot exclusively in jpg. The reason however has nothing to do with RAW producing too many errors. The main reason is they found they have little reason to shoot RAW at all. The increased dynamic range isn't needed much with todays camera's, and if you actually know what your doing, it's needed even less. I agree with his advice if you don't know how to shoot and edit jpg, set your camera to do both, edit the jpg to your liking and IF you need the RAW, you have it. Eventually you will learn if you require raw or not. I've learned through experience that I've little need for raw, and jpg, even with my old, cheap camera's works just fine, and my hobby is editing more than taking pictures. RAW is indeed the last thing that makes for a good picture, regardless of what the zealots say about it.

Reply
 
 
Mar 8, 2023 15:59:07   #
Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.
 
In the past year or so I have switched from RAW to JPG mainly so I can spend less time on the computer and more time taking pictures.

Reply
Mar 8, 2023 19:15:59   #
bsprague Loc: Lacey, WA, USA
 
Do both or either, depending on the circumstances. Neither is best. Know the differences and take advantage of them where it can do something for you. Our cameras are amazing! You can even use MP4 where its useful for you! Our cameras can take 8MP stills at 30, sometimes 60, frames every second continuously.

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 06:41:00   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
Modern JPEG files are of excellent quality when the camera is properly set. Because those files are only 8 bits the best thing that could happen is to avoid manipulating the file in post or keeping editing to a minimum.

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 09:04:29   #
julian.gang
 
Mac wrote:
In the past year or so I have switched from RAW to JPG mainly so I can spend less time on the computer and more time taking pictures.


As someone who has done both, I agree!...Julian

Reply
 
 
Mar 9, 2023 09:08:00   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
camerapapi wrote:
Modern JPEG files are of excellent quality when the camera is properly set. Because those files are only 8 bits the best thing that could happen is to avoid manipulating the file in post or keeping editing to a minimum.

Or, edit in 16 or 32 bit mode. Most editors will convert an 8 bit image to 16 bit or more for editing if you really think that's what is limiting your jpg editing. No doubt many think perfection SOOC is best so editing isn't needed at all, but some of us enjoy editing or simply don't have the skills to get perfection SOOC. If you get excellent quality jpgs out of your camera, you should have no problems editing those jpgs to your hearts content.

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 09:15:03   #
rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
 
BigDaddy wrote:
Or, edit in 16 or 32 bit mode. Most editors will convert an 8 bit image to 16 bit or more for editing if you really think that's what is limiting your jpg editing. No doubt many think perfection SOOC is best so editing isn't needed at all, but some of us enjoy editing or simply don't have the skills to get perfection SOOC. If you get excellent quality jpgs out of your camera, you should have no problems editing those jpgs to your hearts content.

I typically save intermediate results - if needed - as “TIF” files. Otherwise, it is in, then done.

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 09:58:51   #
BigDaddy Loc: Pittsburgh, PA
 
rehess wrote:
I typically save intermediate results - if needed - as “TIF” files. Otherwise, it is in, then done.

I haven't used tiff files since the 1900's. Typically, if I do substantial or difficult editing and want to preserve my edits and file quality, I save in developers mode. For PS - .psd; Affinity - .afphoto; ACDC - .acdc. I'd imagine all full blown editors have the option to save edits in a developers mode, but those are the only editors I've used lately.

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 10:09:41   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
rehess wrote:
B&H has an interview with a ‘pro’ who has shot JPEG exclusively for many years.

https://fstoppers.com/interview/should-shoot-jpeg-professional-photographer-623809?sc_src=email_36335&sc_lid=3704214&sc_uid=chkbWrIHEV&sc_llid=2141934&sc_customer=47D013B535EE39E08FFFF2A66DA61206E48472CD52A2846FFE9BAC1277D9A75A&utm_medium=Email%2036335&utm_campaign=Content+Newsletter&utm_source=230308_BAU_BAU_Content_Email_BAU%2020230308&utm_content=&utm_term=IMAGE+dsc09837-edit_jpg.jpg&encEmail=47D013B535EE39E08FFFF2A66DA61206E48472CD52A2846FFE9BAC1277D9A75A

I didn’t read the whole thing, but the reason seems to be mainly historical - many years ago, another ‘pro’ advised him to avoid ‘raw’ because the technology of the time handled ‘raw’ poorly. I don’t want to start a fight that would send this thread to the Attic - so please don’t do it either - but I thought this was interesting.
B&H has an interview with a ‘pro’ who has shot... (show quote)


Dirty little secret:

Photo labs of the late 1990s and all the way through the first decade of the 2000s (and beyond) could not accept raw files. That's because they use software that is non-proprietary, and every camera that makes raw files uses a proprietary scheme to create and process raw files. No lab wanted to use software designed for cottage industry photographers. They use industrial strength, enterprise grade, database-driven applications made for working with millions of files.

In the early 2000s, that was Kodak DP2 at the company I worked for. It processed KODAK raw files, but no one else's. We used Photoshop for retouching beyond what Kodak Professional Auto Retouching Software could do. Lightroom was too new, and we weren't going to teach our color correction team more than one application.

So we asked clients for JPEG files in the sRGB color space. We would let folks submit 8-bit uncompressed TIFFs in Adobe RGB if they labeled their DVDs in red Sharpie ink, "8-bit uncompressed TIFFs in Adobe RGB." That is because we had to set DP2 manually to recognize the profile space! It strips off all profiles and headers from files to save server space. 500KB is a lot of data when you process millions of files every month!

Working pros only make money when by selling and photographing. Post processing is an EXPENSE. So there is an aversion to processing files. Especially when you get a lot of volume, creating a carefully crafted all-JPEG or mostly-JPEG workflow is to your advantage.

Now, I don't know many top-tier wedding, event, and sports photographers who would stoop to using JPEGs for everything. They might use raw + JPEG so they have an instant proof or a slide show image, but they will hedge their bets in favor of quality by including raw capture.

The same goes for photojournalists. JPEG may be a necessity for deadline work, but the raw file will be used for anything worthy of archival use or stock images.

The fact is, both file formats have their uses. I have *never* seen that there is a valid argument in favor of exclusive use of either format for everything.

For professional results, JPEG workflow often requires lighting, planning, testing, exposure control, and "pre-processing" skills that most beginners don't have, hence photo educator, Will Crockett's adage, "Raw is for rookies." It's like working with transparency film used to be... In some professional situations, you have to get the image as close to its final state or that its use will require, before you ever expose it!

Meanwhile, raw affords an order of magnitude more latitude in all directions. Raw files can be manipulated further, and with more subtlety, than JPEGs. That's both good news and bad news, because if you capture raw files, you have to post-process them. That requires practice, skill, and a carefully calibrated monitor. In other words, it adds considerable TIME to the workflow, which is EXPENSE.

In photography and life, there are lots of little trade-offs. Both raw and JPEG workflows involve some compromises, especially from a professional point of view. Which workflow is appropriate depends upon the situation.

Reply
 
 
Mar 9, 2023 11:12:57   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
Mac wrote:
so I can spend less time on the computer and more time taking pictures.



Reply
Mar 9, 2023 11:55:27   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
OMG here we go again!! The pros and cons of each have been argued many times (and will be again). Pros and cons have not changed, opinions have not changed, battle lines have solidified, and both sides are dug into their trenches. The end result will be the same. But it definitely generates income for the web site so let the games begin.

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 12:39:32   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
JD750 wrote:
OMG here we go again!! The pros and cons of each have been argued many times (and will be again). Pros and cons have not changed, opinions have not changed, battle lines have solidified, and both sides are dug into their trenches. The end result will be the same. But it definitely generates income for the web site so let the games begin.


Sadly, rolling on the floor, laughing... Heh, heh, hunh. 26 more pages?

Reply
Mar 9, 2023 12:42:32   #
JD750 Loc: SoCal
 
burkphoto wrote:
Sadly, rolling on the floor, laughing... Heh, heh, hunh. 26 more pages?
;). At least. Maybe more.

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Links and Resources
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.