Raw or JPEG (Page 6): Don't ever change that! The real advantage of shooting in RAW is that processing can be done strictly by inspection. Shooting in JPEG means the configuration is...

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

amehta wrote:

Keep at it, and pay attention to the results, and it will get more intuitive. With post processing it is getting better for me, but I still have to do each picture separately and try different values.

Don't ever change that!

The real advantage of shooting in RAW is that processing can be done strictly by inspection.

Shooting in JPEG means the configuration is done before the picture data is recorded. It also means that parameters are set from a menu with very course granularity. And the software is not optimized for the best image, but rather for the fastest production.

With RAW you have the option, with each and every image, to set parameters with very fine granularity based on the effect. You can always try a little more, or set it for a little less, and determine not just what is close enough but precisely the right amount. And the algorithm used by your software will be optimized for the highest possible quality of the image, and will never be concerned with getting the maximum number of frames per second as it is with camera firmware.

If producing a pretty picture is the only goal, JPEG might well do. If you need the prettiest picture, shoot RAW.

And configure the processing for each image individually. Typically do that, save the configuration to be processed later, and only when ready to do all images at once is it time for a batch process to be run while you can be doing something other than waiting between images.

Racmanaz Loc: Sunny Tucson!

I wonder what Ken Rockwell thinks now from his thoughts about raw vs jpg back in 2009?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

TheDman wrote:

When your camera stores a photo as a jpg, it automatically applies certain presets to the image like color temperature, sharpening, contrast/saturation, etc. These are all baked into the file before you even pull it off the camera. With RAW, you get to change all of this after the fact, and you get much more data to work with. This prevents banding or posterization in cases where edits are more extensive.

But remember that I can adjust my camera to do these things to my tastes. And they are mostly reversible in PP. I agree that RAW has more Data, but I, for one, am happy for the camera to discard the data which it considers to be irrelevant. The info that a camera uses to produce a JPG will include some to overcome abberrations inherent in the camera - not sure that happens with the RAWs? I have not come across banding or posterization - but there again my PP is not particularly heavy.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

mwsilvers wrote:

Straight out of the camera with only occasional minor tweaking on a small number of photos I'd go with jpeg. If you will be doing any significant post processing, especially on a large number of your images, than raw is the way to go. If you mess up a shot in a cathedral you'll have a much greater chance of salvaging it if it was shot taken in raw than in jpeg. Just take enough SD cards.

With an EVF you would have an immediate view of the pic just taken - so you would know straight away if you had messed up.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

RAW.

Teacher22 wrote:

Just wondering Raw Or JPEG shooting on an upcoming Europe trip.....I have the equipment to do both and could possible be able to display or sell some of those photos. I would be interested in your professional opinion.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Teacher22 wrote:

Just wondering Raw Or JPEG shooting on an upcoming Europe trip.....I have the equipment to do both and could possible be able to display or sell some of those photos. I would be interested in your professional opinion.

Raw gives you the most options. Jpgs will leave you with some images that are not great.

As far as raw+jpg - exposure priorities are often different - you have more dynamic range and lattitued, allowing you to underexpose more (compared to a jpg) in order to preserve highlight information. So if you shoot raw+jpg and end up with "properly" exposed jpgs you might still have unrecoverable highlight detail that will be permanently lost.

If you are bringing a computer, better to load any of the quick jpg converters - some will access the embedded jpg preview, others will actually process a decent quality jpg. Or use Picasa or other application that allows some light editing.

When you come home you will be glad you have raw files of your trip.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Delderby wrote:

With an EVF you would have an immediate view of the pic just taken - so you would know straight away if you had messed up.

EVF reflects jpg preview, not the raw data. In high contrast situations, a jpg may appear overexposed, but if you shoot the raw correctly, it will be fine or appear slightly underexposed.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Delderby wrote:

But remember that I can adjust my camera to do these things to my tastes. And they are mostly reversible in PP. I agree that RAW has more Data, but I, for one, am happy for the camera to discard the data which it considers to be irrelevant. The info that a camera uses to produce a JPG will include some to overcome abberrations inherent in the camera - not sure that happens with the RAWs? I have not come across banding or posterization - but there again my PP is not particularly heavy.

Generally you cannot "reverse" camera settings like sharpening, contrast, and a small color space like sRGB - you cannot put back data that shooting a jpg removes.

You seem to be happy with jpg - so I take back all of the advice I provided in other responses - shoot jpg and continue to be happy. For you, there is no point in shooting raw. :)

johnst1001a Loc: West Chester, Ohio

I would do both. Many times the jpeg comes out just fine, no tinkering. if you shoot raw, and it is in neutral mode, often times you have to play with the photos to get more brightness, sharpness, contrast.

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

Gene51 wrote:

Generally you cannot "reverse" camera settings like sharpening, contrast, and a small color space like sRGB - you cannot put back data that shooting a jpg removes.

You seem to be happy with jpg - so I take back all of the advice I provided in other responses - shoot jpg and continue to be happy. For you, there is no point in shooting raw. :)

I do occasionally use Raw - but I am happy in the knowledge that I can adjust my jpgs or tifs for sharpen, blur, contrast, tone, hue, etc. if necessary. There are posts that say I can't, which may just confuse those with even less knowledge than myself.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

camerapapi wrote:

This is a very controversial area of photography and as such opinions will vary although I am afraid there will be a bias toward RAW files. Not all cameras shoot a good JPEG file but in general modern JPEG files are of excellent quality.
Dynamic range has been always better with RAW but many cameras can open the shadow areas and many softwares do the same with little concern for noise.
RAW needs special software to edit and the file requires lots of manipulation to make it the way you want your final picture to look. JPEG files are smaller, little manipulation is needed and they are also of excellent quality for enlargements. Straight out of camera a JPEG looks much better than a RAW file.
JPEG are universal files meaning that they are recognized by all editing softwares. It is what professional labs print and it is what your monitor see best. My eyes cannot see the differences between a RAW file and a JPEG when it comes to quality.
One peculiarity of a JPEG file is its looseless compression and you should always use with your JPEG LARGE and FINE. To remedy that I use a copy of the file to edit and the original one is saved as a TIFF, a lostless file.
Although RAW is a very popular file I know many professionals using JPEG, including excellent wedding photographers. I shoot the majority of my files as JPEG in the sRGB color space, especially with my Olympus mirrorless camera.
I am sure the Nikon D4 is an excellent professional camera. I find most interesting that the default file type from the factory is a JPEG and sRGB the color space, which is the color space your monitor sees best and the one that color labs print. The sRGB color space has millions of colors that neither you nor anyone else can see. Adobe RGB and ProPhoto have trillions of colors that no human eye can see either. Once you have edited your RAW file you need to make it a JPEG in the sRGB color space for the web or for printing. After so much work I just always wondered what happened to the original file when compression to a JPEG and the compression of the color space took place. To me it is obvious that something had to give.
Both are different files and in my humble opinion JPEG has the advantage of being usable straight out of camera. I use RAW at times but I have never made a RAW file any better than my JPEGs although I am sure there will be many RAW files users that will differ.
Be confident, both files are excellent and the selection of one or the other depends on individual needs.

This is a very controversial area of photography a... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup:

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Jackinthebox wrote:

You can not make a .tif out of a .jpg
You make a .tif out of a raw.
tif for large prints.

You can make a .tif out of a .jpg!! It just makes a larger file.

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

[quote=SonyA580]

camerapapi wrote:

I have never made a RAW file any better than my JPEGs

First, you have to understand I am a PP junkie. I like the computer work almost as much as the camera work and I can honestly say I have made quite a few raw files better than any jpg could have ever been. The ability to change white balance, and (most important) dynamic range, allow me to produce pictures no camera jpg could ever match.

I seriously doubt that you can create a picture from raw that no camera jpg could ever match. Maybe you cannot get as good a .jpg as you can create from your raw files, but there are photographers that can!!

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

Bill Houghton wrote:

I saw something about white balance which to me was very misleading. I have found that with today's software, there isn't much you can't do in a JPEG then you can do in RAW and that includes resetting the White Balance.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

pithydoug Loc: Catskill Mountains, NY

CaptainC wrote:

This is just my opinionobviously at odds with the... (show quote)

Sorry but too much PP'ing in specific cases. There are times I am shooting snapshots where people want quick and dirty. I'll use raw and small jpg. I can without even playing with LR, post some pictures. In the odd case where someone thinks the snapshot is of value, I'll grab the raw and PP. While I do have terabytes of space, I don't need to clog it with throw away raw files and have to go back and erase. I love LR but it is not always the ideal workflow in some cases.

I am earthly but not into extraneous LR work.