I started shooting RAW from day one, and have never looked back. I like the control I get over my images you just can't get from shooting JPEG. Besides, has anyone really thought how bad and technically inferior the JPEG format really is. I mean really, 8 bit color (most applications don’t support the 12 bit format), that’s it? Not to mention the JPEG compression algorithm is very destructive, and you lose a lot of data. If I want a compressed image, I can use a Zip compressed TIFF. The Zip algorithm is far less destructive, lossless if I am not mistaken.
JPEG or RAW
(204 posts) (69 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
That offends me so much Niko... the nerve! :)
RAW is fine, except that I can't tell the difference at 50% magnification... which is about where my 6mp D40 displays on my 24 inch iMac monitor. If I shoot in raw, and immediately make a JPEG conversion, I get better results from the RAW version than I do from the identically post processed JPEG version (I've actually done this). I have to look pretty closely though.
At 100%, my 6mp D40 images only shows about 1/3 the total image. On my 12 mp D90, its even lower. At 100%, the RAW is slightly better... but when I look at the entire image on screen, the differences get very subtle, and its hard to call out one as any better than the other.
The big gotcha in my argument is that I don't tend to mess with the color of my shots in post... Unless I'm trying to show something that was never there in the first place (in which case I'll throw in a quick shout out to Veviza). When I shoot with the wrong white balance... its really obvious that I got it wrong. So I mash a few buttons and turn a few knobs and reshoot. For me, that's faster than messing with it in post.
I'd use RAW if there were a "standard" RAW format. It drives me bonkers that my RAW photos look different in Aperture, vs. Lightroom, vs. iPhoto, vs. Paint Shop Pro vs. my cameras LCD... I suspect that if I owned photoshop, it would look different there as well. I don't want to have to think about whether or not I should be using a different program to import a specific photo.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Anonymous
Unregistered
Posts: 51offlineI ALWAYS shoot in RAW, even if I know the final image use will be a small JPG for web use. The way I see it, RAW is like a negative or transparency is to a film camera, the unadulterated original, whereas JPG is like a print made from the original negative/transparency. Both a JPG and a print have gone through an extra step, so it is next to impossible to judge quality. When I worked in a lab, customers would bring in prints and ask why was the image off-color, too light/dark, etc. I would say to them "I can't tell from the print because your camera did not produce this print, it produced a negative from which this print was made. Let me see the negative and I can tell you if it was the camera or just a bad job of printing". To me, this same argument can be applied to RAW vs. JPG.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I shoot RAW all the time. I prefer to spend more time getting the composition right when I'm shooting rather than fiddling with exposure and white balance. I don't really shoot much at one go, so memory space and time spent on processing RAW files isn't much of an issue for me.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Wow this is an old thread to suddenly resurect.
My two cents worth. I shoot RAW, I rarely shoot high FPS so that's not a problem. On import with Lightroom I go straight to DNG. Then I start my processing. If it's going to the web I export with JPG settings appropriate for that target, which is generally lower than my camera JPG, so I have to convert anyway so no difference there.
Size on the card, or computer are non issues both have plenty of space. Time to import not an issue because as soon as the first shot is in I can start looking through to identify those shots worth working with. Generally the import is finished way before I get anywhere close to completing the first pass.
I shoot in a lot of varried light conditions and Auto usually does pretty good, but not all of the time. In those cases it's nice to be able to modify the WB, and in some cases the increased dynamic range has been helpful.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Wow, LensWork, am I your evil twin? Ditto what you said, including what you used to tell customers at the photography shop
Posted 2 years ago # -
I always shoot in raw too. I hate dealing with WB while shooting, so I much prefer to be able to make minute adjustments to WB in post. I also like the flexibility it gives you with exposure and color. The most important reason for raw that I think everyone else has glossed over is that algorithms keep improving. If you get a once in a lifetime shot, do you really want it to be a jpg? With the raw, you can reopen that raw file in a few years and get better quality out of it with newer software. Don't believe it? Try reopening some old raw files from, say, 6 or 7 years ago and seeing what you can do with them now. Especially the noisy ones.
Posted 2 years ago # -
+1, solid_liq. I don't know what it is about lightroom's new demosaic routine, but pictures seem clearer to me than they did even in lightroom 2. And with the noise reduction it's just a thing of beauty. I haven't had time to go back and try it with some high(er) ISO shots from my D100, but it's a good suggestion and I'll have to sometime.
Posted 2 years ago # -
For awhile I was shooting both D300s and now D3s in both RAW and JPEG fine optimum and then comparing images, and at low ISO it seems to me that the RAW (as interpreted in Aperture 3) are just better with more true to life colors and detail. Even when I later reduce these to lower resolution JPEG's the RAW images to start look better to me. The only time that I think that JPEG might be better is in very high ISO shots with noise. Here the in camera noise reduction seems to make the JPEGS better, whereas the RAW (NEF) images need much manipulation to get rid of the noise in post.
Now that I have 32G cards, memory is not a problem, and I shoot only RAW for low ISO and JPEG for high ISO. I set both cards to RAW on my D3s because I want a RAW backup, not a JPEG.Posted 2 years ago # -
Willis said:
"I keep hearing how RAW takes extra time and whatnot."The time premium is threefold.
1. Slower image capture - Whatever your FPS is, RAW slows it down. No big deal for people that shoot one frame at a time, but crucial to sports shooters.
2. Longer upload \ export times - Again, no big deal if you've got something else to do while this is happening.
3. Post production - Raw's big selling point is that you can correct mistakes after the fact. That's valueble, but it involves several steps. Like opening the RAW file, evaluating the exposure, deciding to adjust or not, making the adjustments, saving over \ alongside the original, move on to the next photo.Even if you identify an opportunity to make corrections, You can re-shoot the photo about as fast as you can edit it in photo-shop. The exception to this rule is the moving subject delima. But then you wouldn't be shooting RAW because it slows down your FPS. High FPS is more likely to get you a winner in that sort of situation.
Talk about a complete BS post.
1) I regularly shoot sports and dance events which require rapid fire shooting. In most cases I work in very low light requiring very high ISO with fast lenses and slow shutters just to get an image that's 2 stops underexposed, and am sometimes not allowed to use flash which is an extra challenge. Even on my D70s in RAW mode I get what I need. the main reason I lose shots, if ever, is because my camera cannot find enough contrast to focus due to low light. I have never ever lost a shot because I shoot in RAW mode. I shoot about 1,500 shots per event which spans 3-4 hours. Do the math. RAW is not a problem - in fact it's essential because it frees me to focus on the subject matter in front of the lens rather than constantly adjusting dials to get the best focus/white balance/shutter speed/ etc... which is what I'd have to do with Jpeg.
2) Upload is only a problem if your workflow is malformed. I purchase flash cards with enough capacity to hold all my shots for the evening to minimize swaps and uploads. If uploading is an issue, buy a 2nd flash card and swap when needed. Put the full card in a transmitter/computer, put the empty card in your camera and keep shooting. There's also something called "zip", perhaps you've heard of it? It puts your files into a single compressed archive for easier storage and transmission. In my case I just pop the flash card directly into the CF slot on my PC which is connected to a USB 2.0 port in the back of the computer. I can offload my entire 8 GB CF flash card in only a couple minutes. Again, I shoot 1,500 images per event. I don't lose time transmitting large batches of files regardless of file format.
3) As for post production, regardless of what image format you use, you have to analyze the photo and decide what (if any) corrections you'll need to make. the whole point of RAW is you have the 'raw' information from the camera's sensor stored in a file - the closest thing you'll ever have to the real thing at the moment the image was recorded. It's the equivalent of a camera negative, but better because you can use software to enhance or recover details whether it be color, luminance, focus, or other attributes. RAW is non-destructive. You can go back to the original data at any time. Recently I put this to good use. I shot an event back in 2006 and was contacted by the sponsors of the event if they could have a few images for publish in a magazine. Upon exhuming the photos I noticed I made some mistakes in editing the color balance the first time around. No problem, I cleared the construction history and started again from scratch with a click of a button. Since all shots were from the same venue, I was able to save my edits and apply them as a preset to all the other photos in a batch process to save time. Within a few minutes my images looked much better than the originals and I didn't lose any details along the way. Also helped that the software I used today is a couple versions newer while still supporting my old edits. Gave me the flexibility to do make better decisions the 2nd time around with a slew of new tools. I could not do any of this with JPEG.
And no - not a chance in hell you can reshoot another JPEG as fast as you can edit in photoshop. First of all, reshooting moving subjects is not an option. 2nd, if you shoot RAW, photoshop is the last program you'd edit it with. RAW is to be handled by softwares which support non-destructive workflows. Photoshop is not of that genre with respect to RAW.
JPEG is a publish format, not an edit or intermediate format. It's intended for the purpose of transmission or display as a final release print on devices where data size and transmission speeds are in limited supply - such as cel phones. But even that will dissolve over time as hardware improves. Lossless run length encoded images would be a better choice than JPEG for this purpose.
JPEG is an "approximation" of the captured image - always. It's also lossy which means every time you save the file, the image is re-quantized and approximated before image data is recorded to file. It's the digital equivalent of photocopying a photocopy. Every generation only gets worse. In some cases, JPEG quantizing can take more time than recording a RAW image straight to file.
If you're of the camp that prefers not to deal with editing of photos, fine. But don't go around spewing BS about how RAW is the problem when in fact its your own lack of knowledge.
Posted 2 years ago # -
To echo some of the other posts, so everyone knows with raw you can just several settings (exposure, wb), and that was somewhat unexciting to me.. until I tried it.
As you experts know, it's easy on raw to rattle through several combinations of WB / PictureControl+saturation / d-lighting.. the settings I liked were often not what I would've chosen at the time of the shot (sometimes an 'incorrect' setting looks more interesting than the 'appropriate' one).
Another thing I picked up, I thought I'd need to use HDR (or a graduated ND filter I don't have) to properly expose a bright sky and darker ground simultaneously, but using the color control point tool with manual d-lighting sliders, it's really convenient to fix exposures that way. For what I like to shoot and have control of, I can't go back to jpg.Posted 2 years ago # -
I shoot probably 90% Jpeg but bounce to Raw for anything "great" or when I am shooting for something particular for printing or if I am in hideous multi light situation. Taking a picture of family, friends, dogs, or the random thing around the house I have found very little reason for Raw. For the unanticipated photo I'll convert it to Dng from Jpeg. I will say the few jobs I do pick up I tend to shoot Raw just for the "in case" something isn't set right.
It seems with discussing Raw everyone seems to have issues with white balance. I'm at a loss as I rarely have any issues. (Granted the wedding shooters out there this is huge) I almost always use an Expodisk for WB or manually set the kelvin temp for the look I want so the WB isn't an issue.
Posted 2 years ago # -
You throw away so much of your information with jpeg, though, TTJ. The post-jpeg DNG conversion does nothing to bring the info back. Shooting jpeg won't hurt you much because you sound like you know what you're doing as far as white balance goes, but just in case anyone who's new to photography is trying to make the raw/jpeg decision, let me explain what happens when you save only the jpeg.
I'm sorry about the long post. To summarize for people who don't want to read: RAW lets you adjust more things after shooting so you can spend less time concentrating on white balance and perfect exposure when you're taking pictures. Jpeg is okay for more advanced photographers who know what they're doing (and actually might make more sense for more people as cameras' auto exposure and auto white balance get better), but even if you're an advanced photographer I personally can't see why you wouldn't shoot RAW.
Your sensor's data comes from the sensor in 12 or 14 bits per channel (with 4,096 or 16,384 levels, respectively). But for each photosite, most of the light is filtered out except red, green, or blue (just one color per photosite). At this point there are three storage options: RAW (NEF), jpeg, and tif. Here's what happens for each.
RAW: takes the data from the sensor with minimal processing and stores them as captured.
Advantages:
minimal data loss;
white balance can be set after the fact;
since interpolation isn't performed, it has a 3-fold size advantage over a tif with the same information;
gamma (contrast) curve isn't applied before saving file, which offers more exposure latitude (essentially, changing exposure in a raw processor is like changing ISO on the camera—if you're familiar with film it's like pushing negative film during development);
RAW converters get better and better, so pictures stored in RAW also get better as time goes by (but only if you're a procrastinator or willing to go back and reprocess them).
Disadvantages:
can complicate workflow (need a tiny shot of something to post to a blog or facebook? Raw is probably not the best option);
larger files, so camera buffer holds fewer shots and writing to card takes longer.jpeg: takes the data and applies a contrast curve to them before saving, which throws away many of the levels in the original shot. It's an 8-bit format, which means it won't have more than 256 levels per channel, but it's not as bad as that makes it sound—if white balance and exposure are correct, what's thrown away isn't all that important or noticeable. Instead of storing the actual RGB values for each pixel, it compresses the file by cutting it up into 8x8 pixel blocks and storing numbers that describe what's happening in each channel in that block. The more detail you want the numbers to describe, the more numbers you have to keep and the larger the size of the file gets.
Advantages:
simple workflow—photos can be uploaded to web as shot;
smaller file size than the other options.
Disadvantages:
if white balance is wrong, the detail in the channels that are given too much/too little weight is thrown away during the gamma curve application and jpeg compression;
if an image is underexposed/overexposed, the detail in the shadows/highlights is thrown away during the gamma curve application and jpeg compression;
because of the gamma curve and the 8-bit limitation, subtle color gradations (sunsets, for example) can posterize especially in post-processing, showing bands of color where there simply aren't enough levels to describe the gradient well.Tif: takes the data from the sensor, applies the gamma (contrast) curve as in jpeg, and stores the red, green, and blue values for each pixel (instead of 8x8 blocks in jpeg). This results in huge file sizes, but some are worried about losing info during the jpeg compression itself.
Posted 2 years ago # -
I am not a novice shooter. I know a lot of pros in photography. I also know what they shoot and how they shoot. I have used RAW plus JPEG Fine, Large very extensively. Here is my conclusions as someone who is way too serious about photography. I have shot a lot on large format. It was a point in my life. I owned some serious gear then. I used both spot meter and a very good Minolta camera for metering before shooting with the big rigs. Results? The 35mm slides and negs often beat the large format for utility. I also realized what a joke spot metering was! I have been in the field watching large fromat guys meter and by the time they have the meter average the light has TOTALLY changed! Then I switched to Nikon because of the f Mount and the lens selection. JPEGs at fine large are the most practical way to shoot there is. I use Macs. With JPEGS you'd better be close. My shots usually are. RAW only tears up lots of hard drive space and in my opinion is a great time waster. I have very large negatives and chromes and very large film scanners. The artifacts in those scans are to me unacceptable. I do not in any way share the view that film is superior to digital. I was a hold out. Film has very low utility and holds back the user. Given that you can set your DSLR camera on RAW and JPEG Fine LArge I say use that. But it is slower than JPEG Fine Large alone. And if you are that close the JPEG is very, very business like. I have Photoshop, Final Cut Pro, Aperature, Lightroom, etc., but give me a JPEG fine large and iPhoto and I can produce results very quickly. I have read every post on this topic. Most of the posters really knew the details of this issue. But I know senior photo editors who shoot almost exclusively in JPEG Fine Large, and I think Ken Rockwell's comments on the topic are very worth reading and thinking about. But if you do start using JPEG Fine Large exclusively you'd better learn the rules there. A saved JPEG gets smaller every time you save it. I save the original JPEG in a folder that does not see reuse. If I keep saving a JPEG it is constantly getting downsized. If you MUST save a JPEG you'd better convert it to a TIFF. Johnnyapple's post here better be studied very closely as he is right on about this JPEG versus RAW shooting, saving and archiving.
Posted 2 years ago # -
jonnyapple & DaveyJ - Very good and complete!
Yep I do know the limitations of Jpeg but for me it works well. I use Lightroom and other nondestructive programs to edit so I avoid the "Jpeg save" effect.
Jpegs from start to finish.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@TaoTeJared Very interesting!! Your remarks have been one reason I believe in NR as a photo site! Your exposure and geographical region is quite a way out of where I have worked and it has allowed me to see what I am missing. It is also great to compare notes with someone who has really experimented and come up with a system that works. I do admit that I am one who does not post my photos at all on NR (which sometimes would illustrate a point quite well) but I always seem to think of the NEXT image capture important event and try to get ready to do that scene, place, or person justice. Another reason I think the way I do is that some of the great scenes, people need to be recorded in their times......reminds me of the conclusion of the movie Troy.....let it be said that I lived in the time of Hector......let it be said I lived in the time of Achilles....Based in part on Homer's Illiad which I read when I was in high school. A great book, about a great time. We who photograph and video are getting to capture some really great moments.
It is how some of this may be remembered a thousand years from now.Posted 2 years ago # -
Those are spectacular sunset/sunrise shots but I cannot tell if there is some detail in the dark shadows that is lost in these JPEGS which might still be there in RAW. Only a side by side comparison would reveal the truth but beautiful none the less.
With 64GB CF cards that are very fast in my D3s and downloading using Firewire 800 onto the MAC, I see no real difference between NEF's that are 10MB each vs large fine JPEG that are 5MB each in time or processing. They are both handled easily in Aperture 3. When I compare the JPEG's to the RAW I always like the RAW better, mostly for the accuracy of color and depth of shadows. Again, the only time that the JPEG's stand out is in high ISO where at 10,000+ there is less noise in the JPEG images.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Why would anyone spend an extraordinary amount of money on decent cameras + lenses and shoot JPEG? What a waste of money aha.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Correct me if I'm wrong with this reasoning. RAW allows greater corrections and improvements then JPEG. RAW allows more intricate modifications that JPEG images don't allow. I think of RAW's greater manipulations latitude more akin to darkroom dodging and projector exposure times, with the ability to start over again on the same sheet.
BTW I'm just an hobby film photographer going digital finally. The pros need for speed and productivity will rationally cause them to compromise. Hobby photographers will try to correct less then ideal images for fun. The new D7K with twin SD card slots allow images to be saved in both JPEG and RAW formats. Yes that might reduce the max FPS, I figure get using class 6 or 10 VS class 4 cards might overcome some speed issues.
Posted 2 years ago # -
That's right, Funduro. People who shot slide film are usually just fine with jpeg because they're used to an unforgiving format. RAW is more like negative film because more extreme things can be done to it to correct exposure in the digital darkroom.
I have an uncle with a D300 who shot slide film almost exclusively in the film era and won't change to RAW despite all of my rantings about it. jpeg just makes sense to him and that's what he shoots. His pictures are still amazing, but every once in a while he's asked me to help him fix an underexposed one that the meter missed and there's only so much I could do since it wasn't saved as RAW.
I think DaveyJ and Funduro's RAW+jpeg idea is a great one if you like jpeg.
Posted 2 years ago # -
visumax said:
Those are spectacular sunset/sunrise shots but I cannot tell if there is some detail in the dark shadows that is lost in these JPEGS which might still be there in RAW. Only a side by side comparison would reveal the truth but beautiful none the less.There is little detail in the very dark areas but honestly I will burn them in anyway. Banding in skys is the largest thing I look at - most sunsets, sunrises I shoot RAW since the dynamic range is probably 200 stops (just a little exaggeration;) and you need all the data you can get. I usually underexpose everything by 1 stop and go for extremes for exposure.
I also keep my ISOs low which makes a huge difference. If I am constantly shooting ISO 600+ I will need the data from raw to compensate for the loss in color detail.
I tend to forget one key to all of this - know thy equipment. I know what the sensor in my camera can handle and am always taking "test" photos to see how it reacts. I get away with Jpeg much more than some of my friends who are not tech concerned - Cameras are just tools to them. They are more prone to edit in Photoshop and like Raw allot more. Me - I do not want to spend more than 5min a photo on the computer so I try to take it right at the time.
Not dissing Raw at all - I just don't shoot much of it.
Posted 2 years ago # -
Funduro said:
BTW I'm just an hobby film photographer going digital finally. The pros need for speed and productivity will rationally cause them to compromise. Hobby photographers will try to correct less then ideal images for fun. The new D7K with twin SD card slots allow images to be saved in both JPEG and RAW formats. Yes that might reduce the max FPS, I figure get using class 6 or 10 VS class 4 cards might overcome some speed issues.To be honest unless you have an immediate need to publish a photo, shooting both at the same time can get very confusing unless you have your workflow set up to handle it. I'm just a hobbyist (albeit a quite active one) as well and I shoot Raw when I am shooting things I know I want to add to my portfolio. I use Lightroom and Nik software which are not a photoshop program at all. I'll use photoshop elements on maybe 1 out of 50 photos for some small touch-ups.
@jonnyapple - What a perfect description!
jonnyapple said:
I have an uncle with a D300 who shot slide film almost exclusively in the film era and won't change to RAW despite all of my rantings about it. jpeg just makes sense to him and that's what he shoots. His pictures are still amazing, but every once in a while he's asked me to help him fix an underexposed one that the meter missed and there's only so much I could do since it wasn't saved as RAW.Posted 2 years ago # -
DaveyJ said:
.....let it be said that I lived in the time of Hector......let it be said I lived in the time of Achilles....Based in part on Homer's Illiad which I read when I was in high school. A great book, about a great time. We who photograph and video are getting to capture some really great moments.
It is how some of this may be remembered a thousand years from now.Well put my friend!!!
I love the Illiad! The first recorded story of western society and is just as epic as it was then. For those of us who can not accomplish with words as Homer did, please allow us to capture the moment as it was, for all to see.
Posted 2 years ago # -
@TaoTeJared. NR continues to be an inspiration! When I read the Illiad I was a farm boy. But that farm was bigger than several countries are. Reading allowed me to travel (like Walter Middy) to places I will never see. Photography can transport us very quickly to some real wonders. I also don't think I will be shooting a What Lola Wants video either. Pretty cool! Guess I better stick to
Brown Bears, eagles, and wild places. Lola around me better be asking for a Nikon DSLR for us both! That sure means Lola is out of my league.....she is going to want more than a new camera or lens!!Posted 2 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
