burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Yes. Scroll to the top of this page, click 'Search' and read some of the threads of the same name. A quick Google search showed that this topic has been beaten to death 1,330,000 times, all over the Internet.

Here's my last take on it:

It's a lot like Slides vs Color Negatives...

Slide film required precise metering, color control using filters over the lens to compensate for the light source, and proper composition only in the viewfinder. Processing slides was a tightly controlled process with rigid time, temperature and agitation requirements. JPEGs require precise metering, and color control using white balance settings, but you have much finer control over processing subtlety by using the camera menus. Slide film and JPEGs both have a latitude of about +1/3 stop, -1/2 stop (if you want maximum quality). So in both cases, you have to be careful and precise... at the camera!

Color Negative film required precise processing and color analysis on sophisticated machines (or a lot of trial and error!) to get the color right in printing. But having a negative gave you a LOT more latitude. In the lab where I worked, we could optically print or scan Kodak Portra 160 exposures from +2.5 stops to -2 stops, and still produce salable prints. Raw digital files also require processing and color "analysis" on a calibrated and custom-ICC-profiled monitor. They have around +2 stops to -1.67 stops of latitude. But labs don't process raw files.

The point is, this is an old, old, old scenario. Nothing has changed except the tools, and the granularity of control. A photographer still has the same responsibilities, in the same places, except for this: Responsibility for adjusting raw images is in the photographer's lap, now. The lab is generally just an output device on a street corner, like the HP Laserjet in the middle of an office.

The question boils down to, "Do I have the practical time and circumstances to control everything at the camera, the way I want to or need to, or should I control most of the finer points back at the computer?"

That answer is different for every person and every situation. If I'm working in raw mode, it's because the scene brightness range is quite dynamic, or the light is changing rapidly, or the subject is moving quickly from bright to dark areas, or because I know I'm going to spend a LOT of energy to get an exhibition-quality image. If I'm using JPEGs, it's because the lighting is fixed, controlled, precisely measured, and custom white-balanced, OR, I'm using my iPhone. In JPEG mode, the images I'm making are probably for simple, practical uses, such as a training program or a catalog or eBay post, and not a photo exhibition.

Life, and photography, are full of little trade-offs. Use the right tool for the circumstance.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Here's another one:

BOTH raw and JPEG capture and their subsequent workflows have value. I use both, for COMPLETELY different reasons.

There are many controllable situations where raw capture is a complete waste of time and money, and many more where raw capture is absolutely essential to getting the image.

In some situations, JPEG capture at the camera is essential, for legal reasons or to meet policy restrictions of an organization. In many commercial applications, the lighting is controlled, and the client needs it NOW, so JPEG rules. In photojournalism, getting the scoop on a major story may mean capturing a JPEG and bouncing it to a smartphone via Wifi or Bluetooth. From there it can be emailed to an editor in seconds, or uploaded to a server over VPN.

In other situations, JPEG processing in camera is so inferior to post-production of a raw image that it makes no sense to save anything but the raw file. Bright daylight with no clouds? I'm recording raw images, and probably using ETTR and EBTR tactics to maximize dynamic range. Post-processing is required to tame that, and compress it to a range I can fit on paper.

It isn't raw *vs.* JPEG. It is raw *AND* JPEG. Advanced photographers know the advantages, limitations, and uses for both workflows and file types. They've also tested ALL the menu settings on their cameras, so they know how to get the most out of that JPEG processor.

Kuzano

The reason (perhaps the only reason) that many people encourage shooting RAW only is that they don't have to learn all there is to know about the functions of their camera's. Much of the finer capabilities of the camera take place in the Image Processor, while RAW is not even processed through the Image Processor. A camera set to shoot only RAW requires only rudimentary capacity of the device. Consequently those people should be able to buy cameras that only Capture RAW and forego the cost of the Image Processor and it's quite involved pre-processing programming. Such cameras however would reduce the income stream for camera manufacturers, so not likely to happen. A camera that only captures RAW would be a much simpler device and sell for less as a result. Run that one by Nikon, Canon or any of the other mfrs.

In fact, shooting RAW only sets your camera as simply a proprietary mfr capture device. The processing is all done via the computer and many hours spent there for the most part. If your desire is to spend less time in the field capturing images, and a lot more time at your computer, trying to get post processing to produce great images, count on a huge learning curve to get there. Once you load your RAW images into the computer, you depart somewhat from the field of photography and become a Graphic Artist with questionable photographic intent.

So, RAW may just be for you, or you may actually prefer to get high quality images SOOC by spending your time learning to use all the camera functions you paid for.

The question of more data in a RAW file is valid to some degree. However the argument for post processing JPEGs does not fall far from RAW.

In fact, a lot of truly horrible images are produced by the power of processing RAW files, even after the horrendous learning curve for post processing RAW, or even JPEG to a lesser degree.

Did RAW and Processed with Adobe Photoshop for five years before finding that the current level of the Image Processor could produce quality images, and my current camera has 7 custom profiles I can set before going out shooting. I shoot NO RAW!!!

TheDman Loc: USA

I'm confused; are you trying to tell us to learn more or learn less?

BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

Here's the thing: once you learn how to take pics using varied camera settings, if you're a curious or ambitious learner you WILL want to move on to the finer points of processing. Lightroom Classic to me has the best file organization and collection of image tweaking tools to start with before you expand your repertoire to Photoshop, etc. Once I understood my camera settings so I could shoot more intuitively, I started to learn LR. Though I am nowhere being an expert, I can't believe how it improved my final output to jpg or other format for sharing or printing. And there are SO many online support and instruction pages and videos for all sorts of photographers, including, of course, this forum

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

RAW AND JPEG ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. JPEG AND TIFF ARE THE SAME SORT OF THING.. JPEG is a lossful compression algorithm that is widely supported., tiff, also compresses, but is lossless.

You already shoot raw, and your camera processes it into a jpeg. If it is a great shot, then you are done!

However, if you have a great shot with a challenging loss of detail in highlights or shadows, then adjusting the jpeg will have an effect, but severely limited when compared what can be coaxed out when adjusting the RAW file. ( the photo still has to have been exposed decently- (No pure blacks or burned out highlights) . The raw capture keeps every nuance captured in a digitized capture in a number of 12 or 14 bits and these different colored but very similar pixels are thus available to adjust. These nuances are detail- not always apparent at first glance, but there. SO if you only save JPEG's... the compression algorithm (Which is all that JPEG is,) has not only made its enhancements, ADjustments automatically, but compresses the file size of the image by dropping the data to 8 bits, and applying something called pixel averaging, and it does a pretty darn good job at compressing, but unarguably has wiped out these sightly different colored pixels forever.

ie; bits are the places of a number that is describing the pixels color- it is a logarithmic scale and across each channel so times three. Why file size is so much larger. Bigger numbers are more accurate (https://laurashoe.com/2011/08/09/8-versus-16-bit-what-does-it-really-mean/)

Pixel averaging makes a swath of pixels that are only slightly different, and makes them the exact same color. The more compression that is applied, the wider the gamut is selected and pixel averaging applied. Everytime you process a jpeg, and save as a jpeg, this pixel averaging is again applied to an image that has already had a round of pixel averaging permantly applied each successive image save has applies further loss of detail.

http://www.microscope-microscope.org/imaging/image-resolution.htm



JPEG should be considered the finished dish- the last step or very close to it, RAW is the groceries- groceries never look like the finished dish, and why the two are not comparable.

AZ Dog Loc: Peoria, AZ

I do not shoot raw as I don't want to do all the processing. Another thought on processing is that the person doing it is altering it in a way that he thinks is right. This is not always right. Two people can see things differently.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If the camera weren’t processing something when saving raw files, you would have no viewable image on the rear screen, no preview image in your computer OS, and mirrorless cameras would not exist.

Every raw file contains raw data, at least one small JPEG, and the EXIF data about the camera settings.

TheDman Loc: USA

Whatever way the photographer wants to alter his photo is right to him, and that's all that matters. Anyone else's opinion doesn't matter.

MMunsey

I too resisted shooting in RAW until I grasped the real advantages (well, a few anyway). As you gain confidence shooting in Manual mode you’ll begin to see the creative possibilities that this opens up to you. So you’ll begin to experiment to learn more. And then you’ll start wondering why your images don’t come out of your canera looking like you think they should. Answer: because you’re letting the engineers at the manufacturer decide what adjustments to make in converting your RAW file into a jpeg. As you can imagine, they want to sell lots of cameras, so they’re not likely to push the limits much. They’re going for averages so as to make the most people happy so they don’t complain that their new camera is broken, etc.

Learning how to process your RAW files 1) will take time, and 2) never really ends. You check your local adult ed program for classes in Lightroom and/or Photoshop or Photoshop Elements (PSE). As you’ve probably heard Adobe has a
Photographers subscription for $9.99/month for Lightroom, Photoshop and Bridge. Most of us likely balked at this notion at firsf but I know I was never going to buy the software - too expensive. With this program I’m always working with the latest version.

A word about PSE. You can think of it as Photoshop lite, but it’s still very powerful and you have to purchase the software. It’s a little more user friendly and it doesn’t have some features. I mention this because though a number of people are fans of Lightroom I do not find it to be very intuitive whereas PSE & Photoshop I did. So I just wanted to make sure you know of this option. Whatever direction you decide to go, give yourself time. You can and should take classes and watch tutorial videos on YouTube, but if you only follow an instructor’s directions and don’t work through it on your own, and fail and start over and over and over you’ll struggle to remember what you did.

If I haven’t scared you into never shooting RAW then picture this (ha, ha...photography pun): Ansel Adams took 15 years working in the darkroom on Moonrise Hernandez, New Mexico before he got what he wanted. So post processing has a long and noble history even if sometimes it feels like hitting yourself with a 2x4 - it feels so good when I stop. Join the party.

Kuzano

I'm telling you if you shoot and process RAW, you'll spend a lot more time (and money) in front of your computer becoming a Graphic Artist.

If you spend that time learning as much as possible about configuring your camera, you'll spend a lot more time capturing images that need little or no post processing.

One thing you may learn if you carefully read posts is that in many photographic venues, Professionals do NOT shoot RAW when they can produce marketable images SOOC. If money is your goal, RAW can slow down your work flow and thus your income.

You take if from there. If you are grabbed by the fantasy of post processing ALL your work and spending most of your time in front of the computer...Shoot RAW.

If a faster work flow and sooner to market is your goal, DON'T shoot RAW. Anywhere the action is too fast for the "writes to the memory card".... Sports, fast paced events with rapid turn around required on images, races, Air Show events and many more, RAW will simply slow you down or cause you to miss shots.

Be very careful about what the down side of RAW is, before you spend many hours learning to process RAW, money spent on learning seminars, and doing the work flow to completed images. In many venues of photography RAW is counter productive to income.

I am saying, learn all the features of your camera well, and the result may be finished, marketable images SOOC.

kdogg Loc: Gallipolis Ferry WV

Back in the film days everyone basically shot raw. the difference came when you either took them to the drugstore,dropped them off and a week later picked up your finished prints and negatives. Or you had a darkroom and processed your film and printed them yourself. That being said if you shoot RAW you fall into the latter category if you shoot JPEG you fall into the former. When shooting JPEG your camera is like the drugstore only faster because it is digital. RAW is as if your had your very own darkroom and did all the processing yourself, you have infinite control of your image and how it turns out. Personally I shoot RAW = JPEG fine that way all the bases are covered. If I want to share online quickly and without out using a computer to post process I can use the JPEG. When I want to get the most out of an image I use the RAW file and let MY vision be the one that I print.

Kuzano

Your first paragraph is the most over spoken phrase of BullShit uttered by those who succumb to RAW, befoe they actually learn photography! The camera manufacturers have done a superb job of giving us camera controls that do not dictate what or how the engineers control your image output. You should get newer camera's as you are reciting platitudes of at least a decade old excuses to shoot RAW.

TheDman Loc: USA

But then I'll have to spend a lot of time learning how to configure my camera. So how is that different from spending a lot of time learning how to use Photoshop? Photoshop is far more powerful. If I'm going to spend time learning something, I'd rather learn the best tool. And when I'm out shooting I want to shoot, I don't want to spend a half hour per shot changing settings (settings that I don't even know I need until after I see the shot!).




I made good money last year selling shots that were shot in raw.

MMunsey

Mr. Kuzano - I related an opinion based on my experience and information gathered to this point in my journey. I’ve never thought I had it all figured out or that there weren’t many other ways people might view this. Thanks for sharing yours, but going forward should you have a comment you care to relate on something i’ve posted could I ask you to remember this: what I said may have pissed you off, but I promise you I did not sit down to write with pissing you off anywhere on my list if objectives.