If there is a thread about this already, please just let me know. I searched but my search for "raw" didn't work, maybe because there are too many threads containing that word.
In a comment to a post I made with my new T2i, someone mentioned that he doesn't shoot raw anymore and that no one agrees with that. I'm wondering if everyone here does shoot raw or if there are other people who don't, and what the reasoning is for those who don't. Thank you very much for any input.
Posted by Zack Schnepf on January 14, 2011 at 7:33 PM
Yes! There are way too many advantages to shooting raw, I can't imagine not shooting raw. The only reasons I can possibly see for shooting jpegs are file size and maybe the ease of internal camera processing. One other reason I just thought of is speed for action shooters. Some cameras can shoot faster in burst mode and can shoot more images in sequence when shooting jpegs. Those are not compelling reasons for me as I shoot landscape.
Posted by Glenn Starr on January 14, 2011 at 7:41 PM
Barbara,
I do both but maybe this will answer your question. When I'm using my camera to specifically to capture images to either improve my skills, hang on my wall with pride, or maybe even sell someday, I shoot RAW. RAW gives you the maximum amount of control over your image in post processing. It does require time, skills with the software, be it Elements, Lightroom or Photoshop. If I'm with family taking snapshots I often use jpeg because my pro camera and lens will beat any point and shoot any day of the week in this environment. Also, family outings usually mean lots of shutter clicks so spending hours at the computer doing PP just isn't a good time investment. For me, it really comes down to how am I going to use the end product and is the quality increase/control worth the time.
Hope this helps.
Posted by Keith Bauer on January 14, 2011 at 7:49 PM
Hi Barbara: I shoot RAW 100% of the time if my intention is to capture images that I hope to sell or print for my own enjoyment. If I know that I'm taking pictures that don't fit that I MIGHT shoot JPEG's. There are simply far too many advantages to RAW. Yes, there is overhead as well including larger file sizes and RAW processing. For me the overhead is not even remotely a consideration.
Posted by Brad Hill on January 14, 2011 at 8:06 PM
Hey Barbara,
If you look at the serious practitioners of almost all the sub-disciplines in photography, virtually all of them shoot raw images. The exception to this "rule" are those photographers where their workflow is primarily dominated by speed-to-output more than ultimate image quality- such as photo-journalists or some sports photographers shooting for daily newspapers. In these cases getting a good (but not necessarily technically great or "massaged" to extract maximum quality from the file) image to press FIRST can be the key to success.
One other point to consider: because of the improvement of the image processing software built into current DSLR's, you'll find that the gap in image quality between in-camera produced JPEG's and well-processed image files is not as large as it used to be. This is especially true if the camera's custom image functions that impact JPEG production (such as tone-curves, shadow/highlight controls, etc.) are set correctly.
Finally...one thing to remember with in-camera JPEGs - regardless of the quality of them, they're still 8-bit image files and will not hold up well to editing in Photoshop or other image editors (e.g., contrast adjustments, etc.) as 16-bit files (such a PSD or TIFF files) derived from raw captures).
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 14, 2011 at 8:34 PM
I shoot 100% raw - just way too many quality advantages over jpeg as already mentioned.
If I happen to shoot something that requires lots of jpegs where quality isn't the most important factor then I still shoot raw but use one of two utilities on my Mac to pump out "default quality" jpegs. That way: 1) I don't need to remember to re-set the camera back to raw when I get serious; 2) I've still got the raw version or every frame in case some image needs or deserves special attention.
I think there's actually an advantage to the amount of time it takes to properly process a raw file - I am a lot more careful to only work on the shots with the greatest potential and don't waste my time on marginal shots where the focus or exposure was so compromised it would take a lot of effort and still wouldn't look all that nice when I finished. If it is quick and easy to get to the "finished" state for an image there is more risk that lower quality images will make it to your web site or critique posting site.
100% of the time - this gives me the most "information" wo work with in processing.
Even if you don't want to learn to process raw files, Shoot BOTH RW and JPEG for now and keep the RAWS around for later, when you have acquired the skills.
You'll then be going back thru old files, and re-processing many.
I promise you will be glad you shot and kept RAWS!
Sandy
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 14, 2011 at 9:21 PM
100% as with the others....RAW is the way to go as it gives you the most control. You can always get the same result that a .jpeg would get you, but if you take a .jpeg you can't get what a RAW would give you (if that makes sense).
Sometimes you can get lucky with the .jpegs when the parameters are right. If you look in my gallery you will find an image of a Bittern that was accidentally taken as a .jpeg and it worked out for me but most of the time you won't be that lucky.
Now, to confuse you a little bit, Mike Moats (who is a pro photograper and extremely talented) NEVER shoots RAW. .Jpeg only for him...thinks RAW is a 'waste of time' (to paraphrase!) So there are SOME people out there with different opinions...
Posted by Bill Chambers on January 14, 2011 at 9:32 PM
I shoot everything in RAW - 100%. I shoot 95%-99% landscapes, so if there's some possible reason avians and fauna folks have not not shooting it, I may be unaware. I can't even imagine not shooting RAW.
Posted by Mike Moats on January 14, 2011 at 9:53 PM
Hey Barb, I'm the odd man out here as I only shoot jpegs, and I would think most would agree that my image quality is excellent. If you see me at an art show or one of my workshops you will see jpegs that have been blown up to 24 X 36 and they are very impressive. So I don't care what the tech sheets say, I've seen what jpegs can produce and I have no problems with them.
I don't debate the fact that the raw file holds more information for processing, but a jpeg saved at the largest size has plenty of info to produce good quality images. I only shoot macro and do not deal with the problems of high dynamic range that landscape and wildlife photographers have to deal with when having to make adjustment for these problems. So for landscape and wildlife it makes more sense shooting in RAW.
With macro if the image is shot with the proper focus and exposure there is very little adjustments that have to be made other then some tweaks to the saturation, contrast, and sharpening.
So depends what type of photography you're after.
Posted by Eva McDermott on January 14, 2011 at 10:38 PM
I shoot 100% RAW Barbara because you can do so much more with the file if you need to. I think I mentioned that in one of your earlier posts. Even if you do not do anything with it today, save the RAW files for when you improve your Photoshop skills. I regret I did not for the first few years I started my digital work after 25+ years of prior film work. There is a lot of information in a RAW file including some camera settings which can be modified (white balance, exposure, etc.).
Generally speaking, I shoot too many images for dealing with raw. I prefer shooting images vs manipulating on computer. My Nikons do just fine in jpeg mode.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on January 15, 2011 at 4:49 AM
Barbara, every single digital camera on the planet shoots a RAW image every time you press the shutter. Every time. RAW is the data coming off the sensor, plain and simple. So even a Casio point and shoot camera shoots RAW. On most cameras, the instant that 12 or14-bit RAW file is captured, the built-in software in the camera applies some degree of saturation and sharpness, then compresses the file down to an 8-bit JPEG (translation: the camera throws away picture data to get it down to a jpeg) and writes that JPEG to the memory card. Obviously on cheaper cameras all you CAN access is the processed JPEG. But on our DSLRs, you get the wonderful ability to write that RAW data to your memory card so YOU can do all the post processing of Sharpness, Saturation, whatever, and you have all of the data to work with. That's why many of us only shoot RAW, so we get the whole shebang. That makes perfect sense when shooting landscapes, right? Why on earth work with a squished JPEG? I haven't shot a JPEG in years. HOWEVER, before the JPEG shooters start pummeling me, if I shot sports or news or weddings or anything else where there was a lot of images and I needed to turn them over in a hurry, I'd shoot nothing but JPEGs. Who wants to deal with RAW files when you have 1200 images to process?
BTW, as others have posted, shooting JPEGs and printing the images large is totally doable. If you are really careful and manage to get a landscape perfectly exposed using ND grad filters or even shooting bracketed images to blend, a JPEG will probably print as well as the RAW file processed through Photoshop if the outcome is the same. That means being extremely good at setting that up, like most large format shooters are. I'm not, so for landscapes I shoot Raw so I have room for editing exposure, etc.
If you do shoot JPEG, Canon has all those Picture Styles that boost color, etc. Problem is, those changes get baked into the image. Sometimes that's OK, but I'd rather have the control of the image, hence, I shoot RAW only. Picture Styles do NOT get applied to RAW images, you have to do all the work yourself!
Hope all this yakking I did makes sense!
Posted by Bob Miller on January 15, 2011 at 5:14 AM
Hey Troup-
I tend to agree. 90% of the images I shoot need nothing more than a slight tweak.
But- when that ONE that is important needs more than a minor tweak you're screwed.
When you're paid to get it right the first time it's good to have insurance..
Posted by dan elster on January 15, 2011 at 7:23 AM
I shoot jpegs 100%of the time now. I think file size and processing time are significant factors to consider. Like Mike Moats, I do lots of art festivals and sell prints 20x30 and bigger....and my image quality dazzles people.
I can't stand post processing...and I felt like I was wasting tremendous amounts of time in the past... I usually tweak nothing more than contrast, levels and sharpening, all easily accomplished with a jpeg. As long as I'm careful not to keep resaving a jpeg over and over, I see no evidence of jpeg compression.
I've met lots of photographers in my booth at shows, at gallery showings, etc and many of them want to hear about my large prints and my process in producing them. When I tell them, they are often quite surprised, and sometimes disappointed that I'm not spending hours on the computer tweaking images. They've read in magazines and been told 100's of times you gotta do this and that in RAW to make a decent print....It's just not true.
Too much post processing sucks all of the fun out of photography.
All of this being said, if I were a landscape shooter, I might reconsider.
Posted by John Tobias on January 15, 2011 at 9:02 AM
I shoot jpegs 90% of the time. Mainly, because I am shooting for fun and small publications. But mostly, because I don't like/fully understand how to process RAW.
Posted by Vincent Nobel on January 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM
I shoot RAW and convert over to jpeg. Having shot RAW for over 100 weddings this workflow in PS was quicker when processing hundreds of images (prior to lightroom) My fine art images are all shot in RAW. I'll spend about 30 SECONDS!!! making raw adjustments before bringing the photo into PS and NIK. I don't really see how shooting raw adds significant time to your fine art workflow unless you're shooting for quick output for say a publication with deadlines etc.. If you get it right in the field you're spending less than 5 minutes total on an image raw or jpeg. I just prefer the added control of RAW instead of letting the camera do it.
Our shooting is outcome-driven Barbara. We shoot so many different types of photography and have to consider who will be using the files and how. For our own recreational use and potential sale as nature prints, yeah, we shoot RAW because no one is paying us at the moment. We plan to spend lots more time at the computer than actually capturing the shots, and there's no penalty other than indoor time. It's just the nature of the beast.
But when a client puts us on the clock the ultimate consideration is the file format they want and need. Might be jpeg, might be tiff, but it's never RAW. To effectively use our and the client's time, we shoot in the format they have paid us for. Part of that is capturing things correctly right off the bat so format won't matter. But part of it also is recognizing conditions which require post processing even if you're not being paid for it. When conditions get tough I'll identify them to the client and try to get paid for image processing time, but if they won't bite I have to shoot RAW anyway and post-process before converting to their format.
Some of our shoots require downloading from the card and burning a disc on our laptops right there in the field, then passing off the disc to the client with zero processing. Some of our shooting is classified subjects in classified facilities, and we don't even get to do the downloading. We hand the cards to security personnel who download them to company servers and erase the cards before they give them back to us. Part of the "ceremony" of leaving at the end of the shoot is handing over our camera bags so they can examine each and every chip. Laptops not allowed, BTW.
There are lots of other instances where RAW just doesn't cut it. It has its photo advantages, but you can't fall back on it as a crutch. You have to figure out how to get the shot right at the time of capture because you'll have absolutely no opportunity to process afterward.
In an interesting "aside" our professional photo lab accepts only jpegs for printing. They don't want tiff and they certainly don't want RAW. We tend to shoot TIFF in the studio and convert to jpeg, but that's very controlled lighting. On location and for outdoor shoots my wife prefers tiff and I prefer RAW, but they'll be jpegs when they leave us.
BTW- It hasn't been mentioned, but you can do amazing things with jpegs in Bridge by opening them in Camera Raw. No it's not RAW capture, but it's so darned close most folks will never know. That's handy for situations when you shot jpegs for whatever reason, but discover they need serious processing once you chain yourself back to the computer.
Posted by Mike Moats on January 15, 2011 at 10:53 AM
Thanks Dan for confirming what I said. Despite what you read on the internet, jpegs will produce excellent images and print to large sizes without any problems, and you can do processing beyond just minor tweeks.
I get the same response that Dan gets at my art shows when photographers come into my booth and start asking questions about the process of my images, and they are blown away by the quality as they have heard that you can't get quality and large size prints from jpegs.
Bill Fortney who has many been a pro photographer for tons of years, has many photo books published, the founder of the Great American Photo Workshops, worked a year for the Washington Redskins football team, and now works for Nikon. Bill's latest book, which is"America From 500 Feet 2" which is a landscape book shot while flying in, handgliders,ultralights, planes helicopters. He told me that all the images were shot in jpeg, and it's all landscapes,
Posted by Mike Moats on January 15, 2011 at 12:23 PM
Here is a question that maybe some of the more techy photogs would know. When you are done processing with the raw file and save to jpeg, why does the image still look the same. If it goes from the raw to the jpeg and is crompressed throwing out all this information then why does it still maintain the same look as it did before you save it from the processed raw file?
If the jpeg compression is throwing out all the info that people say it is, then why is no one concerned about the loss of colors and details when you save the processed image from the raw file to jpeg for printing. Like Hank mentioned, his printer and I know of many others that only except jpegs. My art consultants I work with only want jpegs for their printers.
Posted by Brad Hill on January 15, 2011 at 12:58 PM
Hey Mike,
I'm not sure I qualify as a "techy" photog, but here's a few comments...
The loss in colour when converting from a 16-bit image to a 8-bit JPEG is usually not visible on most monitors (it's a limitation of the monitor not being able to represent all the colours found in the original 16-bit image).
In terms of what a commercial printer or consultant or layout artist want as a file: it's totally dependent on the software they use and are comfortable with (and even their ability in Photoshop) and what the final output is for (e.g., a printed brochure vs. a PDF for online viewing). For example, if a magazine does their layout work in Adobe InDesign an the end result is PRINTED output like a glossy brochure, odds are they'll want a 16-bit TIFF or PSD file, tho' they CAN work with JPEGs. Also, some printers and/or layout artists will do some editing to the image because they know how their particular workflow "reacts" to images - if they are editing it (beyond cropping or res. reduction) they usually want a TIFF or PSD file. Just this week I was working with a magazine that does very high quality work and they absolutely required 16-bit files. In their workflow they turned the files over to their imaging department that optimized the image for their workflow.
BUT, if the final output is simply a PDF for online distribution (and this is becoming more and more common) it's absolutely ridiculous to ask for a 16-bit file of any kind - monitor differences between audience members will make a WAY bigger difference than will whether the creator of the document began with a 16-bit file or a good JPEG. The biggest issue here is really the colour space of the original file, not bit depth - it should be sRGB (as opposed to Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB) as sRGB is optimized for viewing on a RGB monitor.
Back to the printing issue: another issue is the type of printing process used by the printer. If they're using a digital printing process they're likely using software that will directly convert RGB files to CMYK "behind the scenes" (using software like ImagePrint). In these cases JPEGs make work fine. But if they're in a workflow that uses a 4 (or more) colour offset press, they will almost always convert your RGB images to CMYK manually, and colour consistency is maximized is one starts with a 16-bit Adobe RGB file in the first place (Adobe RGB was initially developed for the print industry and was developed with the primary goal of converting well to CMYK).
I am surprised you shoot JPEGs, but if you're happy and successful with the results then that speaks for itself. The main reason I'm surprised has to do with the narrower dynamic range of an 8-bit JPEG compared to a RAW capture (even if one does NO HDR work or XDR work with the RAW image). I have to admit I'm not too familiar with your work (sorry!), but with what I shoot (mostly wildlife) I shudder at the thought of losing shadow and/or highlight detail (or, at least data from those tonal regions that I can later work with). You've already addressed the processing issue (i.e., you said "...with the proper focus and exposure there is very little adjustments that have to be made other then some tweaks to the saturation, contrast, and sharpening") but the increased ability/flexibility in post-processing with a raw file is something I would never want to give up (to me the creative process is a continuum from exposure to final output and all aspects of it are enjoyable - the last thing I'd want to do is to turn over half of those decisions to my camera).
Cheers...just my 2 cents worth...
Brad
Posted by David Bostedo on January 15, 2011 at 2:19 PM
One thing most folks haven't mentioned is white balance. While tools like ACR can modify the white balance on RAW and JPG, it works much better (in my opinion) in RAW. And if you have difficult lighting circumstances - multiple sources of different colors -- it can really help. (Of course most of us just use the one big source most of the time!)
Could you white balance the JPGs? Sure.
Would they be good? Sure.
Would anyone really be able to tell? No.
Would YOU know that the image might have been a little bit better? Yes.
That line of thinking applies to lots of things about images, and that's why I shoot RAW. But I'm not trying to sell photos and I actually really LIKE working in photoshop. So I don't have the same considerations as other people...
Could you white balance the JPGs? Sure.
Would they be good? Sure.
Would anyone really be able to tell? No.
Would YOU know that the image might have been a little bit better? Yes.
Those are good criteria. They're YOUR images, so it's up to you. Selling the images adds another layer of criteria, but if they aren't encompassed in your criteria, you can always sell cars or something.
I can't shake our pro lab's requirement for jpegs. We've had them produce 40"x48" canvases, and even rezzing up like that, the results are simply brilliant. Since they make their living on the quality of their results just as we do, I'm sure they'd use something other than jpeg if they saw advantages. That single point made us hesitate in taking them on in the first place because our previous lab insisted on tiffs. Test prints confirmed their quality, so we quite worrying about it. Four years of consistent sales later, we still haven't seen a single print large or small that's suffered.
It sounds as though at least some of the available processing benefits available for RAW files might be somewhat nuanced. Am I misinterpreting the responses to think that?
If the difference between JPG and RAW processing are nuanced, does one become more able to see what could be done with a RAW file compared to a JPG file over time?
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 15, 2011 at 6:37 PM
Here's an easy test you can do on your own.
Set your camera to capture raw plus jpeg.
Go out and shoot a bunch of those white egrets and ibises in bright contrasty light.
Do your best processing on both the raw and jpeg versions and see what you can do to hold on to highlight and shadow detail at the same time in a single image.
Posted by Brad Hill on January 15, 2011 at 7:19 PM
Barbara,
In response to your last two questions (are the some of the differences nuanced and does it take time to see the differences between RAW and JPEG?):
1. You'll get a range of answers here - I certainly don't think the differences are nuanced at all - I think they're dramatic. But what's critical is what YOU think - I agree with Richard's approach directly above.
2. Yes, there is a learning curve when it comes to processing RAW files and over time you WILL be able to squeeze more and more quality out of your raw conversions.
At the end of the day you have to decide if the extra effort and time involved with shooting RAW is worth it for you.
This has been so awesome and informative. Thank you all for the information.
Richard and Brad, I did set my T2i to shoot JPG + RAW right at the start, like Richard, Sandy, Eva and maybe others told me to do.
I'm working through issues like too many images (because I still take too many shots of each subject to try to be sure to get a sharp one) and the resulting file management on the camera and transferring to the computer. I have no problem working through those issues if it seems likely that I will actually be able to learn RAW processing well enough for it to make a real difference in my images.
So far when I look at the images the only immediate difference I see is that the RAW images look darker (not in a bad way) than the JPG images. But I think from what you all have said that the differences are not necessarily visible until you do the processing and that when you do the processing you have much more embedded in the file to work with.
So right now I have another series of LBH images from yesterday (earlier, more light than the day before) from which to choose one and do my second RAW file processing. I also, completely amazingly to me, have some other birds, smaller birds, to work with, but I want to do the LBH first to compare it with the first one.
Thank you again, everyone!
Posted by Brad Hill on January 15, 2011 at 8:17 PM
Barbara,
You said:
So far when I look at the images the only immediate difference I see is that the RAW images look darker (not in a bad way) than the JPG images. But I think from what you all have said that the differences are not necessarily visible until you do the processing
You're looking at a PREVIEW of the raw image which, depending on what you're using to view it, is very likely an embedded JPEG anyway! Many image browsers - especially older ones - do just an awful job with their previews of a RAW image. You can't really see a RAW file - only a preview of it or a derivative when you convert it. And you definitely have to spend some time converting them (to some form of 16-bit output) before you'll appreciate the quality...
Cheers...
Brad
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 15, 2011 at 9:16 PM
Sharpness: Use your tripod! Shoot wide open in aperture priority. Make sure the active AF sensor is on the part of the subject you want to be sharp. The tripod will keep the camera from moving; the high shutter speed you get from shooting wide open will keep the subject from blurring.
Raw conversion: if PSE allows turn off the Automatic setting and use the defaults. You want to understand exposure and you will learn that by looking at the unmodified histogram from the raw file in ACR. Use the Exposure, Recover, Fill, Black, and Brightness sliders (or the subset of them that you get in PSE) to adjust the histogram. Generally you want the histogram to be well distributed over the entire range without spilling past either end (clipping of highlights or shadows).
Make your raw vs. jpeg comparisons from the same image - not from comparing the same species shot at different times.
Posted by Vincent Nobel on January 16, 2011 at 11:23 AM
Can someone provide examples of raw vs jpeg and the difference in image quality. Just curious!
Can someone provide examples of raw vs jpeg and the difference in image quality. Just curious!
Me too!
From the prints I see coming out of pro labs, I suspect we're all amateur printers and photo processors compared to the real pros who make their living at it. I certainly count myself as an amateur, but there are processing techniques, equipment or even software among the pros that haven't "filtered down" to us amateurs yet. Their results defy all claims against jpeg.
Sit down with an experienced graphic artist and watch them use Photoshop, and you'll learn startling things about the other 95% of Photoshop that photographers never use. Perhaps the same is going on among professional printers. My instinct tells me that we amateurs are selling ourselves short in terms of jpeg processing and printing capabilities, especially for markets that require jpeg.
In any case, I'll return to my point that format choice is outcome driven. If you never need jpegs, good on ya. If you do need them when time or processing opportunity are limited, best not become dependent on RAW as a crutch for inadequate shooting techniques.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 16, 2011 at 12:43 PM
Hank - I agree with pretty much everything you said, except from a little different point of view though. You're talking about expert processors and printers using JPGs. Perhaps they don't want RAW because of the variety of file types and possibilities, and using JPG simply creates a very good very professional flow, without unnecessary variety. (They have the same time issue that everyone has I'd imagine - so shortening their workflow is still important.) There's no reason you couldn't process your own RAW and then give them JPGs, and still achieve slightly better results.
That being said, as far as something that's easy to see the in particular, I'm thinking of images with slightly overexposed areas, and the ability in RAW to pull a little detail out of those areas. Once a RAW file is converted to a JPG or TIFF, anything that's pure white is stuck as blown-out. In RAW, tweaking the exposure and recovery before the file is processed will let you extract a bit more detail.
I've pondered along the same lines David, but the telling point for me is that they don't want tiffs either.
Posted by David Bostedo on January 16, 2011 at 5:16 PM
...they don't want tiffs either.
Well for me, it's either RAW or JPG. I don't bother with TIFFs since they are much larger and I don't see an advantage I care about between 16-bit TIFF and JPG. Every now and then I'll spot a problem that 16-bit can solve, but very rarely. Maybe they've got a similar idea?
(Some may be using TIFF for the lossless compression. As for the lossless vs. lossy, there's a thread on here where I posted some examples of where I saved over and over to see what difference it made. Saving at or near 100% quality (12 in PS) it takes many many saves to see any noticeable degradation - saving at 30% or something low and it happens very quickly. As long as I'm saving at 12 in PS, I don't worry at all about JPG re-save degradation.)
Posted by Mike Moats on January 16, 2011 at 7:11 PM
I've asked this question at some of my boot camps because I get a lot of tech geeks and also here but have not yet had anybody take a stab at it. I don't know the answer so it's not a trick question I'm throwing out here.
When you shoot an image with the camera, it starts out as a raw file and if you are set to jpeg, then the camera compresses the file down throwing out information from colors, details, and exposures.
Now lets say you are doing your post processing on a raw file and like in Hank's situation the printer says he only takes jpegs and you have to convert your raw file to a jpeg.
So now by converting the processed raw file to the compressed jpeg, it is throwing out colors, details, and exposure, the same as the camera does when you shoot and save to jpeg.
So when printed it should not look good because of the loss of info from the jpeg compression.
If it does match up to the raw file of your original, then that tells me that the compression was not all that significant of an issue.
If it does match up to the raw file of your original, then that tells me that the compression was not all that significant of an issue.
I'm always alert to jpegs because I need them so much. In "the good old days" jpegs were awful, but have exhibited improvements in recent years that are almost completely unheralded with the simultaneous emergence and improvments in RAW processing.
The operative word for me is "significance." Are the differences significant enough to force me to use RAW at the huge cost of unpaid processing times on every shoot, even when jpegs are the contracted results? Or are the jpegs good enough for the needs of my clients, and especially for the professional lab for my wife's studio work? I stand ready to use RAW any time I can't surmount lighting or other issues with shooting technique, but I'm not going to let myself form the habit of using it for everything. I can't afford to, and neither can my wife.
It hasn't come up that I recall, or at least I haven't tipped my hand, but my preferred method is simultaneous capture of RAW and the largest jpegs. I sort the jpegs and pass them along directly, while holding the RAWs in reserve to cover my screw ups. I can't tell you how many times those RAW files have saved my hiney when I messed up the shot. But they're definitely second stringers for me in the larger scheme. Even in shoots requiring direct handover of the files, I go ahead and shoot simultaneous capture so the eventual image processor has them for a fallback, too. But I also bracket like crazy on such shoots, because many of the GAs I work with won't even open a RAW file.
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 16, 2011 at 8:49 PM
The value of shooting in raw is having all the captured data available when you make adjustments. Having 16 bits of color data allows for more extreme adjustments in tonalities. Working in raw allows some data to be retrieved from the brightest parts of the exposure.
Once the adjustments have been made then that extra bit depth can be discarded as it doesn't matter when your final output is an 8 bit file for printing or web presentation.
Shooting in jpeg means that you are giving up most of the control to the presets of the camera software unencumbered by the thought process. If you are satisfied with that I have no personal problem. But you could still shoot in raw (to have all the data available if some day you want to use it) and just use some automated raw conversion to pump out jpegs without human intervention or supervision.
Posted by Mike Moats on January 16, 2011 at 9:03 PM
Hey Richard, I understand about the raw file having more information then the compressed jpeg out of the camera, but would you not be concerned that if you were going to a printer that required jpegs, that when you take that full size raw file and convert it to a jpeg, that the compression creating the smaller file would throw out information in color, details, and exposure that would cause the print to look poorly.
I'll let Richard answer for himself, but in our experience those aren't issues at all with conversions to jpeg and saving. Maybe with subsequent saves in jpeg, but not the first time around. Though our lab requires jpegs, my wife does all her shooting in tiff and converts. Of course, we have our monitors calibrated to the lab's specs, and a high portion of her shooting is under controlled studio lighting. But come to think of it, she does a lot of outdoor portraiture under natural light (with strobe fill) too, and hasn't encountered issues there either.
Your turn to share experiences Richard, and sorry for jumping ahead in line!
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 16, 2011 at 9:56 PM
I understand about the raw file having more information then the compressed jpeg out of the camera, but would you not be concerned that if you were going to a printer that required jpegs, that when you take that full size raw file and convert it to a jpeg, that the compression creating the smaller file would throw out information in color, details, and exposure that would cause the print to look poorly.
Not at all as long as I did the jpeg compression. Jpeg compression works by finding nearby pixels that have similar RGB values and replacing a group of similar pixels with a single average value of RGB. If you have to store 100 triplets of RGB info to show every pixel individually in a 10x10 block you save a lot of file space if you can represent the black with one RGB triplet. If the image has lots of smooth areas with little detail and little transition in color then you can compress the file a lot and still have it look pretty good. If you have a lot of fine texture (feathers or fur or an expanse of autumn trees) then jpeg compression doesn't work well and the averaging is applied to pixels with more variation in them and looks bad. The jpeg quality slider controls the tradeoff of how wide of a range you are willing to compress into a single vale in order to shrink the file size.
If you keep the jpeg quality slider at the right on the maximum quality setting then very little of this compression occurs, the file size stays relatively large, and there's little visual loss in perceived image quality.
So, give the printer the highest quality jpeg possible and as long as the printer doesn't compress it further for some workflow reason it should look fine.
Posted by Mike Moats on January 16, 2011 at 10:12 PM
Thanks Richard, I think when we talk about saving as a jpeg it would always be at the highest level. But why is the compression such an issue to photographers when they save from raw to jpeg in the camera, but not an issue when you save the processed raw file to a jpeg. It seems that the compression at any point would cause problems, and if its not an issue outside of the camera, why is it more of an issue in the camera, it still compression either way. I think what your saying is the compression is different out of the camera then in the camera.
Posted by Richard Ditch on January 16, 2011 at 10:59 PM
But why is the compression such an issue to photographers when they save from raw to jpeg in the camera, but not an issue when you save the processed raw file to a jpeg. It seems that the compression at any point would cause problems, and if its not an issue outside of the camera, why is it more of an issue in the camera, it still compression either way. I think what your saying is the compression is different out of the camera then in the camera.
Exactly - they are different things.
Raw original -> controlled conversion in 16 bits -> controlled tonal adjustment in 16 bits -> conversion to 8 bits -> controlled jpeg compression
vs.
Image capture -> uncontrolled conversion in camera + conversion to 8 bits + uncontrolled jpeg compression
You are fixated only on the jpeg compression and ignoring raw conversion and tonal adjustments in 16 bits with human oversight and tailoring of parameters at each step to the individual needs of each image.
If you shoot under mostly the same conditions (limited tonal range in soft light) then you don't really need all the individual control if you are happy with th results you are getting.
But if you shoot a variety of subjects with a wide range of tones and colors in a range of lighting conditions without the opportunity to fine tune shooting parameters then the extra data and extra control of working with a raw file has a substantial payoff in final image quality.
Posted by Mike Moats on January 17, 2011 at 5:13 AM
Thanks Richard, that's the first time anyone had an answer for that question.
Posted by Nancy de Flon on January 17, 2011 at 9:28 AM
Barbara, thank you for starting this great discussion! I shoot RAW + jpgs, because the latter are handy for certain purposes, such as if at my day job I'm asked to shoot an event for the national newsletter or a portrait of a new employee for the press release. But in addition to all the reasons already given for shooting RAW, I find myself becoming increasingly interested in B&W, and the color-to-B&W processing capability in RAW is superb. It offers much more subtlety and variations over using the saturation slider on a jpg.
For anyone out there who hasn't used RAW and wants a good introduction, Charlotte Lowrie teaches a 4-week online course at BetterPhoto.com. She is an excellent teacher and this is where I got my Intro to RAW. No, I get no commission for recommending this course, I just thought it was excellent.
You raise a great point about B&W conversions Nancy.
My wife has found the same thing, but can't anticipate when a client will decide on B&W versus color. As a consequence she continues to shoot tiffs, but for B&W conversions she opens them in ACR for a first pass. In her experience she can't tell those from RAWs, but certainly loves the controls in ACR when fine gradations in skin tone are at stake.
Barbara, thank you for starting this great discussion!
I'm so glad it's been helpful to other people. That's really the advantage of message boards/forums is that many times what one person needs to know is also something that's helpful to other people to discuss, and when the experts discuss a topic most everybody learns something.
Posted by David Thomas on January 27, 2011 at 2:43 PM
As a relative newcomer here, and one who shoots almost exclusively JPEGs, I find this discussion fascinating and useful.'
I have a question for Mike Moats: What program do you use for "processing" your JPEGs? Does the program make a difference? I probably should not admit it, but I use Picasa3. It's certainly easy, but I'm ready to graduate to something better if it can improve my results.
RAW is about control and lattitude to substitute your own decisions for those of the programmers who wrote your camera's software.
I always find food analogies work well to make the point: If you're happy with what you're getting at the drive-thru window, pick your favorite JPEG option from the menu and enjoy. If you want to cook and flavor your own meals, shoot in RAW.
Guy
Posted by Bruce Painter on January 28, 2011 at 10:47 AM
A question just came to mind while reading this thread. If you do shoot in camera JPEG then it is loaded onto your computer are we not then dealing with a second generation JPEG. My thinking is that the camera converted and saved the first generation to your memory card then when it is copied to the computer and saved there that would be the second time the JPEG was saved.
Posted by David Bostedo on February 8, 2011 at 9:28 PM
My thinking is that the camera converted and saved the first generation to your memory card then when it is copied to the computer and saved there that would be the second time the JPEG was saved.
That's not correct Bruce. Here's how it works :
-- Your camera takes the uncompressed image data converted from raw and applies the JPG compression algorithm to shrink the file size, and saves this data as a JPG. It's now a digital file - just a string of 1's and 0's.
-- When you copy the file to your computer, it just copies the entire file directly - all the 1's and 0's are identical, so nothing has changed.
-- If you open the file, the data is uncompressed, so you see the full res image again - but here's the kicker, it's not identical to your original image data. It has lost some small amount of the original information - hence the term "lossy" for compression of this type.
-- If you then save the file, the JPG compression algorithm is run again on that data in order to create the new file
So you have three sets of data at this point :
1) The original uncompressed image data
2) The original JPG data in your camera or on your hard drive. They're identical.
3) The newly saved file, which has been passed through the JPG compression more than once.
Now here's the thing - while the JPG algorithm changes your data, when you use a high quality setting it's very very good, and the changes it makes are very very minimal. Saving at 12 in PS, or 100%, or highest quality, you have to save something over 10 times for miniscule changes to barely be visible. (That's somewhat image dependent of course.)
Posted by Bret Edge on February 18, 2011 at 11:33 PM
All RAW, all the time. Not much else to add that hasn't already been said.
Posted by Jim Goldstein on February 19, 2011 at 12:18 AM
I shoot 100% RAW and its a wasted opportunity to not shoot RAW.
I've written extensively on the subject on my web site and invite you to read my full thoughts there. One aspect that is missing from this thread is a full discussion to the larger negative impact of JPEG compression as you edit JPEG files in Photoshop. Post-processing a RAW file is lossless where as each and every edit to a JPEG file forces a re-save of the image and an incremental loss of data. Each save degrades the image and to see a range of impact of such saves see the JPEG Compression article linked below. The more complex editing you conduct on a JPEG the greater the degradation.
Note whether you actively "save" or not each edit of a JPEG file (curves, levels, saturation, sharpening, etc.) creates an incremental save and thus an incremental degradation to the JPEG file.
Discussion
56 repliesIn a comment to a post I made with my new T2i, someone mentioned that he doesn't shoot raw anymore and that no one agrees with that. I'm wondering if everyone here does shoot raw or if there are other people who don't, and what the reasoning is for those who don't. Thank you very much for any input.
I do both but maybe this will answer your question. When I'm using my camera to specifically to capture images to either improve my skills, hang on my wall with pride, or maybe even sell someday, I shoot RAW. RAW gives you the maximum amount of control over your image in post processing. It does require time, skills with the software, be it Elements, Lightroom or Photoshop. If I'm with family taking snapshots I often use jpeg because my pro camera and lens will beat any point and shoot any day of the week in this environment. Also, family outings usually mean lots of shutter clicks so spending hours at the computer doing PP just isn't a good time investment. For me, it really comes down to how am I going to use the end product and is the quality increase/control worth the time.
Hope this helps.
If you look at the serious practitioners of almost all the sub-disciplines in photography, virtually all of them shoot raw images. The exception to this "rule" are those photographers where their workflow is primarily dominated by speed-to-output more than ultimate image quality- such as photo-journalists or some sports photographers shooting for daily newspapers. In these cases getting a good (but not necessarily technically great or "massaged" to extract maximum quality from the file) image to press FIRST can be the key to success.
One other point to consider: because of the improvement of the image processing software built into current DSLR's, you'll find that the gap in image quality between in-camera produced JPEG's and well-processed image files is not as large as it used to be. This is especially true if the camera's custom image functions that impact JPEG production (such as tone-curves, shadow/highlight controls, etc.) are set correctly.
Finally...one thing to remember with in-camera JPEGs - regardless of the quality of them, they're still 8-bit image files and will not hold up well to editing in Photoshop or other image editors (e.g., contrast adjustments, etc.) as 16-bit files (such a PSD or TIFF files) derived from raw captures).
Cheers...
Brad
If I happen to shoot something that requires lots of jpegs where quality isn't the most important factor then I still shoot raw but use one of two utilities on my Mac to pump out "default quality" jpegs. That way: 1) I don't need to remember to re-set the camera back to raw when I get serious; 2) I've still got the raw version or every frame in case some image needs or deserves special attention.
I think there's actually an advantage to the amount of time it takes to properly process a raw file - I am a lot more careful to only work on the shots with the greatest potential and don't waste my time on marginal shots where the focus or exposure was so compromised it would take a lot of effort and still wouldn't look all that nice when I finished. If it is quick and easy to get to the "finished" state for an image there is more risk that lower quality images will make it to your web site or critique posting site.
Even if you don't want to learn to process raw files, Shoot BOTH RW and JPEG for now and keep the RAWS around for later, when you have acquired the skills.
You'll then be going back thru old files, and re-processing many.
I promise you will be glad you shot and kept RAWS!
Sandy
Sometimes you can get lucky with the .jpegs when the parameters are right. If you look in my gallery you will find an image of a Bittern that was accidentally taken as a .jpeg and it worked out for me but most of the time you won't be that lucky.
Now, to confuse you a little bit, Mike Moats (who is a pro photograper and extremely talented) NEVER shoots RAW. .Jpeg only for him...thinks RAW is a 'waste of time' (to paraphrase!) So there are SOME people out there with different opinions...
I don't debate the fact that the raw file holds more information for processing, but a jpeg saved at the largest size has plenty of info to produce good quality images. I only shoot macro and do not deal with the problems of high dynamic range that landscape and wildlife photographers have to deal with when having to make adjustment for these problems. So for landscape and wildlife it makes more sense shooting in RAW.
With macro if the image is shot with the proper focus and exposure there is very little adjustments that have to be made other then some tweaks to the saturation, contrast, and sharpening.
So depends what type of photography you're after.
BTW, as others have posted, shooting JPEGs and printing the images large is totally doable. If you are really careful and manage to get a landscape perfectly exposed using ND grad filters or even shooting bracketed images to blend, a JPEG will probably print as well as the RAW file processed through Photoshop if the outcome is the same. That means being extremely good at setting that up, like most large format shooters are. I'm not, so for landscapes I shoot Raw so I have room for editing exposure, etc.
If you do shoot JPEG, Canon has all those Picture Styles that boost color, etc. Problem is, those changes get baked into the image. Sometimes that's OK, but I'd rather have the control of the image, hence, I shoot RAW only. Picture Styles do NOT get applied to RAW images, you have to do all the work yourself!
Hope all this yakking I did makes sense!
I tend to agree. 90% of the images I shoot need nothing more than a slight tweak.
But- when that ONE that is important needs more than a minor tweak you're screwed.
When you're paid to get it right the first time it's good to have insurance..
I can't stand post processing...and I felt like I was wasting tremendous amounts of time in the past... I usually tweak nothing more than contrast, levels and sharpening, all easily accomplished with a jpeg. As long as I'm careful not to keep resaving a jpeg over and over, I see no evidence of jpeg compression.
I've met lots of photographers in my booth at shows, at gallery showings, etc and many of them want to hear about my large prints and my process in producing them. When I tell them, they are often quite surprised, and sometimes disappointed that I'm not spending hours on the computer tweaking images. They've read in magazines and been told 100's of times you gotta do this and that in RAW to make a decent print....It's just not true.
Too much post processing sucks all of the fun out of photography.
All of this being said, if I were a landscape shooter, I might reconsider.
But when a client puts us on the clock the ultimate consideration is the file format they want and need. Might be jpeg, might be tiff, but it's never RAW. To effectively use our and the client's time, we shoot in the format they have paid us for. Part of that is capturing things correctly right off the bat so format won't matter. But part of it also is recognizing conditions which require post processing even if you're not being paid for it. When conditions get tough I'll identify them to the client and try to get paid for image processing time, but if they won't bite I have to shoot RAW anyway and post-process before converting to their format.
Some of our shoots require downloading from the card and burning a disc on our laptops right there in the field, then passing off the disc to the client with zero processing. Some of our shooting is classified subjects in classified facilities, and we don't even get to do the downloading. We hand the cards to security personnel who download them to company servers and erase the cards before they give them back to us. Part of the "ceremony" of leaving at the end of the shoot is handing over our camera bags so they can examine each and every chip. Laptops not allowed, BTW.
There are lots of other instances where RAW just doesn't cut it. It has its photo advantages, but you can't fall back on it as a crutch. You have to figure out how to get the shot right at the time of capture because you'll have absolutely no opportunity to process afterward.
In an interesting "aside" our professional photo lab accepts only jpegs for printing. They don't want tiff and they certainly don't want RAW. We tend to shoot TIFF in the studio and convert to jpeg, but that's very controlled lighting. On location and for outdoor shoots my wife prefers tiff and I prefer RAW, but they'll be jpegs when they leave us.
BTW- It hasn't been mentioned, but you can do amazing things with jpegs in Bridge by opening them in Camera Raw. No it's not RAW capture, but it's so darned close most folks will never know. That's handy for situations when you shot jpegs for whatever reason, but discover they need serious processing once you chain yourself back to the computer.
I get the same response that Dan gets at my art shows when photographers come into my booth and start asking questions about the process of my images, and they are blown away by the quality as they have heard that you can't get quality and large size prints from jpegs.
Bill Fortney who has many been a pro photographer for tons of years, has many photo books published, the founder of the Great American Photo Workshops, worked a year for the Washington Redskins football team, and now works for Nikon. Bill's latest book, which is"America From 500 Feet 2" which is a landscape book shot while flying in, handgliders,ultralights, planes helicopters. He told me that all the images were shot in jpeg, and it's all landscapes,
If the jpeg compression is throwing out all the info that people say it is, then why is no one concerned about the loss of colors and details when you save the processed image from the raw file to jpeg for printing. Like Hank mentioned, his printer and I know of many others that only except jpegs. My art consultants I work with only want jpegs for their printers.
I'm not sure I qualify as a "techy" photog, but here's a few comments...
The loss in colour when converting from a 16-bit image to a 8-bit JPEG is usually not visible on most monitors (it's a limitation of the monitor not being able to represent all the colours found in the original 16-bit image).
In terms of what a commercial printer or consultant or layout artist want as a file: it's totally dependent on the software they use and are comfortable with (and even their ability in Photoshop) and what the final output is for (e.g., a printed brochure vs. a PDF for online viewing). For example, if a magazine does their layout work in Adobe InDesign an the end result is PRINTED output like a glossy brochure, odds are they'll want a 16-bit TIFF or PSD file, tho' they CAN work with JPEGs. Also, some printers and/or layout artists will do some editing to the image because they know how their particular workflow "reacts" to images - if they are editing it (beyond cropping or res. reduction) they usually want a TIFF or PSD file. Just this week I was working with a magazine that does very high quality work and they absolutely required 16-bit files. In their workflow they turned the files over to their imaging department that optimized the image for their workflow.
BUT, if the final output is simply a PDF for online distribution (and this is becoming more and more common) it's absolutely ridiculous to ask for a 16-bit file of any kind - monitor differences between audience members will make a WAY bigger difference than will whether the creator of the document began with a 16-bit file or a good JPEG. The biggest issue here is really the colour space of the original file, not bit depth - it should be sRGB (as opposed to Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB) as sRGB is optimized for viewing on a RGB monitor.
Back to the printing issue: another issue is the type of printing process used by the printer. If they're using a digital printing process they're likely using software that will directly convert RGB files to CMYK "behind the scenes" (using software like ImagePrint). In these cases JPEGs make work fine. But if they're in a workflow that uses a 4 (or more) colour offset press, they will almost always convert your RGB images to CMYK manually, and colour consistency is maximized is one starts with a 16-bit Adobe RGB file in the first place (Adobe RGB was initially developed for the print industry and was developed with the primary goal of converting well to CMYK).
I am surprised you shoot JPEGs, but if you're happy and successful with the results then that speaks for itself. The main reason I'm surprised has to do with the narrower dynamic range of an 8-bit JPEG compared to a RAW capture (even if one does NO HDR work or XDR work with the RAW image). I have to admit I'm not too familiar with your work (sorry!), but with what I shoot (mostly wildlife) I shudder at the thought of losing shadow and/or highlight detail (or, at least data from those tonal regions that I can later work with). You've already addressed the processing issue (i.e., you said "...with the proper focus and exposure there is very little adjustments that have to be made other then some tweaks to the saturation, contrast, and sharpening") but the increased ability/flexibility in post-processing with a raw file is something I would never want to give up (to me the creative process is a continuum from exposure to final output and all aspects of it are enjoyable - the last thing I'd want to do is to turn over half of those decisions to my camera).
Cheers...just my 2 cents worth...
Brad
Could you white balance the JPGs? Sure.
Would they be good? Sure.
Would anyone really be able to tell? No.
Would YOU know that the image might have been a little bit better? Yes.
That line of thinking applies to lots of things about images, and that's why I shoot RAW. But I'm not trying to sell photos and I actually really LIKE working in photoshop. So I don't have the same considerations as other people...
Those are good criteria. They're YOUR images, so it's up to you. Selling the images adds another layer of criteria, but if they aren't encompassed in your criteria, you can always sell cars or something.
I can't shake our pro lab's requirement for jpegs. We've had them produce 40"x48" canvases, and even rezzing up like that, the results are simply brilliant. Since they make their living on the quality of their results just as we do, I'm sure they'd use something other than jpeg if they saw advantages. That single point made us hesitate in taking them on in the first place because our previous lab insisted on tiffs. Test prints confirmed their quality, so we quite worrying about it. Four years of consistent sales later, we still haven't seen a single print large or small that's suffered.
If the difference between JPG and RAW processing are nuanced, does one become more able to see what could be done with a RAW file compared to a JPG file over time?
Set your camera to capture raw plus jpeg.
Go out and shoot a bunch of those white egrets and ibises in bright contrasty light.
Do your best processing on both the raw and jpeg versions and see what you can do to hold on to highlight and shadow detail at the same time in a single image.
In response to your last two questions (are the some of the differences nuanced and does it take time to see the differences between RAW and JPEG?):
1. You'll get a range of answers here - I certainly don't think the differences are nuanced at all - I think they're dramatic. But what's critical is what YOU think - I agree with Richard's approach directly above.
2. Yes, there is a learning curve when it comes to processing RAW files and over time you WILL be able to squeeze more and more quality out of your raw conversions.
At the end of the day you have to decide if the extra effort and time involved with shooting RAW is worth it for you.
Cheers...
Brad
Richard and Brad, I did set my T2i to shoot JPG + RAW right at the start, like Richard, Sandy, Eva and maybe others told me to do.
I'm working through issues like too many images (because I still take too many shots of each subject to try to be sure to get a sharp one) and the resulting file management on the camera and transferring to the computer. I have no problem working through those issues if it seems likely that I will actually be able to learn RAW processing well enough for it to make a real difference in my images.
So far when I look at the images the only immediate difference I see is that the RAW images look darker (not in a bad way) than the JPG images. But I think from what you all have said that the differences are not necessarily visible until you do the processing and that when you do the processing you have much more embedded in the file to work with.
So right now I have another series of LBH images from yesterday (earlier, more light than the day before) from which to choose one and do my second RAW file processing. I also, completely amazingly to me, have some other birds, smaller birds, to work with, but I want to do the LBH first to compare it with the first one.
Thank you again, everyone!
You said:
You're looking at a PREVIEW of the raw image which, depending on what you're using to view it, is very likely an embedded JPEG anyway! Many image browsers - especially older ones - do just an awful job with their previews of a RAW image. You can't really see a RAW file - only a preview of it or a derivative when you convert it. And you definitely have to spend some time converting them (to some form of 16-bit output) before you'll appreciate the quality...
Cheers...
Brad
Raw conversion: if PSE allows turn off the Automatic setting and use the defaults. You want to understand exposure and you will learn that by looking at the unmodified histogram from the raw file in ACR. Use the Exposure, Recover, Fill, Black, and Brightness sliders (or the subset of them that you get in PSE) to adjust the histogram. Generally you want the histogram to be well distributed over the entire range without spilling past either end (clipping of highlights or shadows).
Make your raw vs. jpeg comparisons from the same image - not from comparing the same species shot at different times.
Me too!
From the prints I see coming out of pro labs, I suspect we're all amateur printers and photo processors compared to the real pros who make their living at it. I certainly count myself as an amateur, but there are processing techniques, equipment or even software among the pros that haven't "filtered down" to us amateurs yet. Their results defy all claims against jpeg.
Sit down with an experienced graphic artist and watch them use Photoshop, and you'll learn startling things about the other 95% of Photoshop that photographers never use. Perhaps the same is going on among professional printers. My instinct tells me that we amateurs are selling ourselves short in terms of jpeg processing and printing capabilities, especially for markets that require jpeg.
In any case, I'll return to my point that format choice is outcome driven. If you never need jpegs, good on ya. If you do need them when time or processing opportunity are limited, best not become dependent on RAW as a crutch for inadequate shooting techniques.
That being said, as far as something that's easy to see the in particular, I'm thinking of images with slightly overexposed areas, and the ability in RAW to pull a little detail out of those areas. Once a RAW file is converted to a JPG or TIFF, anything that's pure white is stuck as blown-out. In RAW, tweaking the exposure and recovery before the file is processed will let you extract a bit more detail.
Well for me, it's either RAW or JPG. I don't bother with TIFFs since they are much larger and I don't see an advantage I care about between 16-bit TIFF and JPG. Every now and then I'll spot a problem that 16-bit can solve, but very rarely. Maybe they've got a similar idea?
(Some may be using TIFF for the lossless compression. As for the lossless vs. lossy, there's a thread on here where I posted some examples of where I saved over and over to see what difference it made. Saving at or near 100% quality (12 in PS) it takes many many saves to see any noticeable degradation - saving at 30% or something low and it happens very quickly. As long as I'm saving at 12 in PS, I don't worry at all about JPG re-save degradation.)
When you shoot an image with the camera, it starts out as a raw file and if you are set to jpeg, then the camera compresses the file down throwing out information from colors, details, and exposures.
Now lets say you are doing your post processing on a raw file and like in Hank's situation the printer says he only takes jpegs and you have to convert your raw file to a jpeg.
So now by converting the processed raw file to the compressed jpeg, it is throwing out colors, details, and exposure, the same as the camera does when you shoot and save to jpeg.
So when printed it should not look good because of the loss of info from the jpeg compression.
If it does match up to the raw file of your original, then that tells me that the compression was not all that significant of an issue.
I'm always alert to jpegs because I need them so much. In "the good old days" jpegs were awful, but have exhibited improvements in recent years that are almost completely unheralded with the simultaneous emergence and improvments in RAW processing.
The operative word for me is "significance." Are the differences significant enough to force me to use RAW at the huge cost of unpaid processing times on every shoot, even when jpegs are the contracted results? Or are the jpegs good enough for the needs of my clients, and especially for the professional lab for my wife's studio work? I stand ready to use RAW any time I can't surmount lighting or other issues with shooting technique, but I'm not going to let myself form the habit of using it for everything. I can't afford to, and neither can my wife.
It hasn't come up that I recall, or at least I haven't tipped my hand, but my preferred method is simultaneous capture of RAW and the largest jpegs. I sort the jpegs and pass them along directly, while holding the RAWs in reserve to cover my screw ups. I can't tell you how many times those RAW files have saved my hiney when I messed up the shot. But they're definitely second stringers for me in the larger scheme. Even in shoots requiring direct handover of the files, I go ahead and shoot simultaneous capture so the eventual image processor has them for a fallback, too. But I also bracket like crazy on such shoots, because many of the GAs I work with won't even open a RAW file.
Once the adjustments have been made then that extra bit depth can be discarded as it doesn't matter when your final output is an 8 bit file for printing or web presentation.
Shooting in jpeg means that you are giving up most of the control to the presets of the camera software unencumbered by the thought process. If you are satisfied with that I have no personal problem. But you could still shoot in raw (to have all the data available if some day you want to use it) and just use some automated raw conversion to pump out jpegs without human intervention or supervision.
Your turn to share experiences Richard, and sorry for jumping ahead in line!
Not at all as long as I did the jpeg compression. Jpeg compression works by finding nearby pixels that have similar RGB values and replacing a group of similar pixels with a single average value of RGB. If you have to store 100 triplets of RGB info to show every pixel individually in a 10x10 block you save a lot of file space if you can represent the black with one RGB triplet. If the image has lots of smooth areas with little detail and little transition in color then you can compress the file a lot and still have it look pretty good. If you have a lot of fine texture (feathers or fur or an expanse of autumn trees) then jpeg compression doesn't work well and the averaging is applied to pixels with more variation in them and looks bad. The jpeg quality slider controls the tradeoff of how wide of a range you are willing to compress into a single vale in order to shrink the file size.
If you keep the jpeg quality slider at the right on the maximum quality setting then very little of this compression occurs, the file size stays relatively large, and there's little visual loss in perceived image quality.
So, give the printer the highest quality jpeg possible and as long as the printer doesn't compress it further for some workflow reason it should look fine.
Exactly - they are different things.
vs.
You are fixated only on the jpeg compression and ignoring raw conversion and tonal adjustments in 16 bits with human oversight and tailoring of parameters at each step to the individual needs of each image.
If you shoot under mostly the same conditions (limited tonal range in soft light) then you don't really need all the individual control if you are happy with th results you are getting.
But if you shoot a variety of subjects with a wide range of tones and colors in a range of lighting conditions without the opportunity to fine tune shooting parameters then the extra data and extra control of working with a raw file has a substantial payoff in final image quality.
For anyone out there who hasn't used RAW and wants a good introduction, Charlotte Lowrie teaches a 4-week online course at BetterPhoto.com. She is an excellent teacher and this is where I got my Intro to RAW. No, I get no commission for recommending this course, I just thought it was excellent.
My wife has found the same thing, but can't anticipate when a client will decide on B&W versus color. As a consequence she continues to shoot tiffs, but for B&W conversions she opens them in ACR for a first pass. In her experience she can't tell those from RAWs, but certainly loves the controls in ACR when fine gradations in skin tone are at stake.
I'm so glad it's been helpful to other people. That's really the advantage of message boards/forums is that many times what one person needs to know is also something that's helpful to other people to discuss, and when the experts discuss a topic most everybody learns something.
I have a question for Mike Moats: What program do you use for "processing" your JPEGs? Does the program make a difference? I probably should not admit it, but I use Picasa3. It's certainly easy, but I'm ready to graduate to something better if it can improve my results.
I always find food analogies work well to make the point: If you're happy with what you're getting at the drive-thru window, pick your favorite JPEG option from the menu and enjoy. If you want to cook and flavor your own meals, shoot in RAW.
Guy
Bruce
That's not correct Bruce. Here's how it works :
-- Your camera takes the uncompressed image data converted from raw and applies the JPG compression algorithm to shrink the file size, and saves this data as a JPG. It's now a digital file - just a string of 1's and 0's.
-- When you copy the file to your computer, it just copies the entire file directly - all the 1's and 0's are identical, so nothing has changed.
-- If you open the file, the data is uncompressed, so you see the full res image again - but here's the kicker, it's not identical to your original image data. It has lost some small amount of the original information - hence the term "lossy" for compression of this type.
-- If you then save the file, the JPG compression algorithm is run again on that data in order to create the new file
So you have three sets of data at this point :
1) The original uncompressed image data
2) The original JPG data in your camera or on your hard drive. They're identical.
3) The newly saved file, which has been passed through the JPG compression more than once.
Now here's the thing - while the JPG algorithm changes your data, when you use a high quality setting it's very very good, and the changes it makes are very very minimal. Saving at 12 in PS, or 100%, or highest quality, you have to save something over 10 times for miniscule changes to barely be visible. (That's somewhat image dependent of course.)
Check out this discussion which has some examples.
I've written extensively on the subject on my web site and invite you to read my full thoughts there. One aspect that is missing from this thread is a full discussion to the larger negative impact of JPEG compression as you edit JPEG files in Photoshop. Post-processing a RAW file is lossless where as each and every edit to a JPEG file forces a re-save of the image and an incremental loss of data. Each save degrades the image and to see a range of impact of such saves see the JPEG Compression article linked below. The more complex editing you conduct on a JPEG the greater the degradation.
Note whether you actively "save" or not each edit of a JPEG file (curves, levels, saturation, sharpening, etc.) creates an incremental save and thus an incremental degradation to the JPEG file.
RAW vs JPEG: Is Shooting Raw For Me?
Examples of a range of JPEG degradation based on number of saves.
JPEG Compression: Data Loss & Image Impact
--P
Happy shooting, and be safe out there,
--P