JPEG or RAW « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Nikon Software

JPEG or RAW

(204 posts) (69 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1…567…9 Next »

Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi all,

@Gareth Lightroom shares the same RAW engine as Photoshop and it's terrific. NX2's is likely a tiny bit better, but I'm just not fond of the interface, but full ACR 6.3 has a ton of tools to work the images.

@Tao Nik's Viveza has some great tools as a plug in, and I use the Nik Efec Pro a lot, but I will also add that if Paint Shop Pro had a better RAW converter/interface, it would certainly be high on my list of must have/must recommend software. I upgrade on every rev since it is so inexpensive, and there are jewels in every version. The black and white conversion is hard to beat.

My best,

Mike

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I have used almost every technique known to man to get as tack sharp an image as possible, including large format. Recently I spent $1,700 in an Aperature 3, RAW, etc. "upgrade". My analysis of that"upgrade" is that it WASN"T. If you are very close, JPEG fine large will give you great results. I also have a Nikon F5 with pro lens if I want to go that route. But having read each and every note on this subject here, and some are very good, some wandering far off the topic, I still conclude with a DSLR Nikon and a good subject and good lens, etc. that JPEG fine large is still the most practical, way to go. To me RAW is fishing for the right exposure. I am way beyond poor light metering, white balance, color issues. I have pursued RAW way far enough. I will not use it probably ever again.
If you are shooting RAW my suggestion is go get top shelf film gear like I have and use it. In digital, I think JPEG rules. I do think that advances in DSLR cameras will continue to be really a great improvement. From my D100 days, DSLRs are on a roll. But RAW???
Spare me the details of how great it is. Bob Shell, Senior Editor of Shutterbug Magazine concluded he had a preference for JPEG. After you get a good image though, save it to a file where it won't be subsequently saved in the original form. Convert some of your best to TIFFS.

Posted 2 years ago #
kyoshinikon

preferred member
Joined: Jan '10
Posts: 1,200
offline

Today I shot jpeg... and regretted it. No details to pull out in the white!

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Beating a dead horse...

Posted 2 years ago #
Treckie

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 561
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
Beating a dead horse...

DITTO

Posted 2 years ago #
spraynpray

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,514
offline

Here's a radical thought: If others want to shot JPEG's, let 'em!

Posted 2 years ago #
Correlli

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 264
offline

I wonder if in other computer related forums people also discuss about what format to use:

"I always use .txt for my text files."

"Why, rtf or doc are much better as you got more possibilities to format your text."

"But I don't need that, I get the text right while I type it"

...

I don't think it does matter what format you use. But it is important that people know why they use whatever they do. Discussions like this help me to get information about why people use one or the other format. This might influence what format I use. But at the end of the day we look at an image and not at a file format...

Posted 2 years ago #
rbid

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 344
offline

Another interesting link that talks about RAW advantages: Expose (to the) Right
@spraynpray: Agree with you.. I use NEF but all JPEG-gers are always welcome :)
@Correlli: Yes, you are right.. the photo is the important, not the format it came... but if the format used helped in getting better results why not give a chance?

Posted 2 years ago #
Correlli

preferred member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 264
offline

rbid said:
@Correlli: Yes, you are right.. the photo is the important, not the format it came... but if the format used helped in getting better results why not give a chance?

Absolutely! This is what I meant by getting the right information to make your choice. Btw, I started with JPEG, but when I remembered what I did with my b&w negatives in the darkroom (dodging, burning etc) and read about the advantages of RAW (from my point of view!) I switched to RAW and never looked back...

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

Advantages of RAW are all in manipulation of the image. All publishing, etc. is JPEG. If you are very close in a JPEG exposure, RAW is pretty much of little value. I have called a batch of the best known photographers and that seems to be the summary conclusion.
I for one am not "fishing" for the right exposure. A JPEG fine large converted to a TIFF is very streamlined.

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Proof is in the pudding and you never post photos, so your points don't really have the conclusiveness that you insist that they do.

Posted 2 years ago #
Super Shooter

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 277
offline

DaveJ is really Ken Rockwell

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
Proof is in the pudding and you never post photos, so your points don't really have the conclusiveness that you insist that they do.

Regardless of if DaveyJ is right or wrong in his preferences (the entire idea of which is stupid because facts are facts and the ongoing opinion battle in here doesn't change facts) what do you expect him to prove with posted pictures? Note how well qualified his statement is.

As an empiricist RAW lover myself I sincerely doubt you (or anyone else) can meet the Pepsi challenge you yourself invoke and prove him wrong through any series of posted photos, or mathematical proofs.*

*So long as the set size is bound. With an infinite set one could theoretically prove an opinion wrong, but that's really a topic for a different forum.**

**Well, technically speaking I think one could prove ALL opinions wrong at the same time. ;)

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

Im just curious to see how his highlights and shadows look. Im also wondering if he's ever been forced to shoot under less than ideal lighting conditions.

Posted 2 years ago #
Testing123

preferred member
Joined: Oct '10
Posts: 232
offline

SquamishPhoto said:
Im just curious to see how his highlights and shadows look. Im also wondering if he's ever been forced to shoot under less than ideal lighting conditions.

I still believe you are not taking his (large) qualifying remarks into due account. Your first point doesn't matter because that aspect of the issue is clearly one of opinion, and the second one is well covered by his exemptions.

RAW is, without legitimate challenge, always at least the equal in quality to JPEG assuming a RAW processing engine with the distortion, aberration, vignetting, and dynamic range compression (D-lighting I believe Nikon calls it) abilities of your particular body.

That is a fact. All else is opinion and I don't see where DaveJ crossed the line into making factually incorrect statements.

I mean, I could make a factually correct statement which could only be demonstrated by shooting the moon with a 36000mm f/1.0 lens. Does the inability for one to provide such a photo somehow steal the mantle of truth from the statement?

Posted 2 years ago #
SquamishPhoto

preferred member
Joined: Feb '10
Posts: 1,076
offline

I dont think you realize just how long he's been going on about this. Im well aware that this mostly about opinion, but when someone derides using RAW as simply "fishing for the right exposure" I think its justifies a little curiosity into why he sees it this way. I know he shoots wildlife in particular and I can tell you from experience that most wildlife shots dont happen at the location that you would necessarily want them to happen and as a result its rarely under the lighting conditions that you would like them to be. Consequently shutter speed can become something one is incapable of dropping(ie birds in flight) and the consequences of the compromises made to maintain the shutter speed are much easier to deal with using a RAW file and using creative post work in PS(something I know he also seems to despise) . Left with such dilemas its a pretty distinct advantage to be shooting in RAW. When the "right exposure" is close to impossible without certain compromises, being able to selectively pull better detail from shadows is where it wins for me. I can't imagine he doesn't ever run into similar scenarios and I know that he says he uses his D300 over his D700 for most of his photos, so nailing the "right exposure" can be difficult even at the native ISO of 200.

You're right, it really is a matter of opinion and preference and thats really why Im curious to see his pictures. If he didn't push his opinion so much and so regularly I wouldn't be curious, but he does so I am.

Posted 2 years ago #
randomnut

member
Joined: Jan '11
Posts: 11
offline

I always shoot raw these days. Reason being is I will ALWAYS open them up on my iMac and tweak them, even if only slightly. I don't try and get them spot on in-camera each time, as I don't see the point trying to identify and correct issues on a small 3" screen when I can do it on a 27" later.

I'd much much rather just have all the data there since I will open them in Lightroom anyway. Even with the correct settings no DSLR i've tried get's the right kind of 'pop' from colours I am after and I have to increase vibrance in post prod.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

I actually agree with DaveyJ's remarks.

In my average situations my first inclination is to under expose to keep highlights and let the darks go dark. What SquamishPhoto is talking about with mixed or low light, I always shoot Raw. If there is fast movement that I'm shooting, it is always Raw. Probably 90% of my photos are Jpeg - more so because I like the Nikon color and settings I have.

Here is my personal distinction when I shoot Raw: I generally underexpose 1/3 - 2/3's a stop. My D300 is almost always about 1/3 under anyway so I can sometimes get away with a full stop. With Jpegs I can fill or bump the exposure that small amount no problem and shadows come back easily. If my over/under exposures exceed more than 2 stops either direction, I shoot raw.

All of us shoot differently. Personally I watch exposure and histograms non-stop and rarely have a file I can not work with. Working with a file, takes me less than 5 minutes and I rarely ever have to move out of Lightroom. It works for me.

Raw is easier to edit for sure. My edits, are rarely that extensive, so Jpeg works most of the time for me. There is a reason why there are two settings. I just tend to use both, with one more than the other.

I am rather baffled why anyone really thinks there needs to be a debate here. It is just two tools in a box.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

I'm getting a Nikon D3s this week, just in time for my upcoming session with a model this coming Saturday (April 2nd). I see that there are three NEF formats to choose from on the D3s:

1. Uncompressed 12/14-bit NEF (RAW)
2. Compressed 12/14-bit NEF (RAW, Lossless compressed): approx. 60-80 percent
3. Compressed 12/14-bit NEF (RAW, Compressed): approx. 45-60 percent

I've never shot RAW before. Which format does everyone recommend? How is write speed affected by the different NEF formats? I'll be shooting with Speedlights powered by a high-voltage Quantum Turbo, so the recycle times will be darned quick, therefore, I'll be shooting successive frames pretty rapidly. Also which CF card does everyone recommend for the D3s? I only want to buy SanDisk. Does it really matter between the 30MB/s and 60MB/s cards, as far as the buffer goes?

1. Ultra 4GB (30MB/s)
2. Ultra 8GB (30MB/s)
3. Extreme 4GB (60MB/s)
4. Extreme 8GB (60MB/s)

Thanks!

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Didn't you just get an F6 last week and now you're buying a D3S this week too?
Your girlfriend broke up with you didn't she? ;^P

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

NikoDoby said:
Didn't you just get an F6 last week and now you're buying a D3S this week too?
Your girlfriend broke up with you didn't she? ;^P

Ha! She has no idea that a used F6 costs a helluva lot more than a used N90. Also, she has no idea what a "D3s" is, or that a still camera could possibly cost THAT much!!!

Posted 2 years ago #
NikoDoby

The Terminator
Joined: May '09
Posts: 6,598
offline

Put a ring on that girl already and stop pussyfooting around.

Posted 2 years ago #
DaveyJ

preferred member
Joined: Jun '10
Posts: 452
offline

I do not post photos on the Internet. My photos are taken for two reasons. Documentary for existing scenes of public and private land and water is one. I have always made those images available to the owner or the public lands manager at high resolution with no need to credit me. My farm has now four generations of photo documentation, and that is my second use. Much of my photography is under harsh field conditions. It is late March 2011 as i write this and a John Deere tractor sinks maybe 2 inches into about 2.5 foot of snow. Today we are cutting firewood to 30" length. There is sawdust, blowing snow, etc. The photos I took this morning have pretty good detail in highlights and shadow area. In the past I have used even large format for this work. I also am not on the Internet 24-7 and by this hour I usually have a day's work pretty much done. One of the world heavyweight boxing champions trained this way for his best competitions ever. I think most of you would be amazed at how difficult such conditions are. I also try to spend my extra time trying to do the right thing by the amazing forests and soils,etc. and that does give me plenty enough to do. I greatly appreciate that Nikon Rumors members have been so generous with their photo postings. I also feel bad that I do not have the time and the built in protection I believe such postings might require. Even logging onto Nikon Rumors requires that I go many miles out of my way to check the latest developments in what for me has been almost a life long hobby and my images are a for me a professional tool. There are very important to what I do. My slidesound shows have been my way of sharing with the public. Forgive me for my input to the RAW versus JPEG issue without providing rafts of photos to illustrate my point. One of my biggest endeavors has been to assist amateurs to take better photos. I do not try to operate in a vacuum. I also appreciate that Nikon Rumors I believe to be one of the single best Internet sites. I do think each of these site members does carefully considerable both equipment and technique. I have gained much on this site that I did not know or appreciate to the extent that I should have. I still test RAW every once in awhile and I have some pretty elaborate gear to do that. I am particularly interested in image permanence and photo albums and notebooks. Again, my apologies on not providing enough proof. As a scientist I do feel that the proof is in the pudding. Perhaps in the future I will acquire high speed and be able to download high res photos. Finally let me say that some of the posts on this site have been awesome. But for me now it is back to work.

Posted 2 years ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

@studio460 - I have moved most of my cards to the Extreme 4GB (60MB/s) with one 8GB if I need to shoot rapid stuff. For fun I was shooting a friend's son's Baseball practice and shot at Compressed 12/14-bit NEF with the 4gb and filled it really fast and had to delete photos.

As for the compression on Raw I have always set it to 14-bit (more color info) with AdobeRGB and Lossless compressed. Many I have talked to, say they use the same settings. There must be a difference between all three but I have no clue. It seems to be the middle ground and I have never been disappointed with using that setting.

Posted 2 years ago #
studio460

preferred member
Joined: May '10
Posts: 1,231
offline

NikoDoby said:
Put a ring on that girl already and stop pussyfooting around.

I bought her a ring several years ago--round, one-carat, 'G'' in color. It has one inclusion, but it's located under the prong--you never see it!

DaveyJ said:
Again, my apologies on not providing enough proof. As a scientist I do feel that the proof is in the pudding. Perhaps in the future I will acquire high speed and be able to download high res photos. Finally let me say that some of the posts on this site have been awesome. But for me now it is back to work.

I don't think you have to apologize for anything. Your arguments seemed clear and made a good case for shooting .JPG. I enjoyed reading your posts a lot.

Posted 2 years ago #