RAW versus JPEG in Photography

[Marcus-SanDiego]

If anyone wants to discuss the virtues and drawbacks of each format, this is the place to do it.

[Marcus-SanDiego]

When I first starting shooting (August 2011), I was unsure about JPEG v. RAW. As a result, I took shots with both formats. A couple of things were really obvious to me. One, the RAW image almost invariably looked flat compared to the JPEG file. Two, the JPEG file (at 100%) almost invariably had artifacts in it. No matter how much you try, you are not going to turn jagged edges into sharp, crisp lines. The best I could do was smooth them out. But that merely gave it a softer look. (Additionally, I cannot undo sharpening that has been done in camera; the detail spectrum of the RAW file is simply not available to those who choose to have the camera generate a JPEG file.)

As for RAW, the flat look was easily dealt with in post. Not only did I have more control over color and white balance (which is especially useful in a location like Antelope Canyon), but the detail was preserved in the RAW file, even if it did start out with a flatter look.

I shoot, almost exclusively, landscapes. Most of my images will be printed big. I'm not willing to take a chance on starting out with a JPEG that the camera has already applied an algorithm to. That processing in camera throws out details that were not used in the JPEG conversion. Those details can NEVER be recovered. Were they details that I may have wanted? What could I have done with those details if I had left the image in RAW? These are all questions rendered moot by turning your files over to in-camera processing.

[UdubBadger]

feel free to move my reply from the other thread here. :)

[wsmeyer]

Can we expand this into general file formats for photography? I think a more interesting discussion is the file options once you transfer to your computer.

DNG vs CR2 / NEF and other camera RAW formats

Embedding a copy of the original file in DNG

PSD vs TIFF for PhotoShop processed files.

At what point in your process do you make your first backup?

[UdubBadger]

From the other thread:


Agree that not everyone needs to shoot RAW. And for certain genres (sports shooting comes straight to mind), it would be a nightmare if you are trying to speed through a scene.

But whether you're a hack or a professional, if you're shooting a static scene (like a landscape), it rarely makes sense to shoot JPEG. It does make sense, though, if it's for personal use and you're going to post your photos online.

Again, plenty of good points but they don't apply to everyone in every condition. At work we shoot JPG small because of a file size issue. Much like an action shooter or someone just snapping a few pics of their cars (like Joop) who isn't going to process them much, it can very much work out in their favor. The algorithm you (and I) don't want to mess up the RAW images for further processing is actually doing these people a favor and essentially very lightly processing the image for them. Correct?



Your comment about making the adjustments in camera before you click is interesting. That's just tweaking ahead of the photo rather than after it's been captured. I always wish those tweaking ahead of time all the best. It's simply more difficult to get the settings just right, looking at a 3-inch screen, than it is using my computer and monitor at home.

I can appreciate where you are coming from as you have said many times, you shoot landscapes but not everyone does and that isn't the full range of photography that everyone uses day to day. You shoot exclusively in natural light, so I understand that condition is forever changing... but a huge majority also shoot with strobes in both changing and constant lighting conditions (such as what Casey and I do) as well as in natural light that is constant such as mid day sun (like Jon). By setting your WB to "Flash" you are doing a good majority of the work right there in securing the images color balance in camera when shooting with strobes, as the same when you shoot "sunny" or "shade" or "florescent" when in those conditions. With jpg, you can still adjust these settings manually, just not with the preset functions that appear when working with RAW. If you set them before hand and shoot jpg, and us a custom with a grey card and histogram, that's about as close to perfect as you can get and in controlled lighting probably the optimal way to shoot.


Additionally, how in the world does the photographer have the time to make micro adjustments in camera, when the conditions are so dynamic? I don't have the time to make the fine-tune adjustments in the field when the conditions warrant my 100% attention to what's going on in front of the lens. With the RAW file, I'm simply not going to have to worry about missing shots in the field. I can make the fine-tune adjustments at home -- to the winning image that I captured (because I didn't miss it due to twiddling with the settings in the camera menu).

Again I understand your mentality but I also see it coming from someone who shoots something very specific with very specific requirements. I've read your write ups about how to catch a flare at the right minute you might only have 10-15 sec windows. That totally understandable why you would want to do most of the work after the fact so you don't screw up something you can't go back and fix with the actual scene because you were distracted. But again that isn't how or what everyone requires to shoot, especially just a hobbyist who wants to shoot his car as in Jon's case.

Jon has a lot to learn, but he has time. He has time to line up his images scenery by moving the car around, moving the tripod around and refining images by doing it over and over changing things till it looks right. Jon will have time to decide that it's a cloudy day instead of a bright sunny one so he can set his white balance accordingly. Jon will have time to learn how to look through the lens and start seeing the smaller details of his shots (like trees coming out of sunroofs and such) and get better at the basics. He will also have time to learn LR/PS and how to get more out of his images. My point was that while he is learning, his results might look just as good if he shot in jpg and learned how to work his images in camera more so that just relying on PS as so many people do and end up using it as a crutch.

With that being said, once Jon begins to master those skills, he will undoubtedly benefit from shooting in RAW to then take his photos to the next level.

And FYI, I know you (Mark) won't take any of this discussion as mean or in the wrong way but just wanted to let everyone else know its not meant in that fashion. It's just a debate from 2 photographers with different points of view and reference. :)


- Goin' H.A.M. Mobile

[Johnmadd]

I'm here soaking up knowledge. I am a sponge :)

[C Withers Media]

I shoot RAW which means I am uploading .NEF files. I am often metering light by feel or in my head and not on the camera. If I am a little off either direction, I prefer the flexibility of being able to easily correct a file without losing compressed data from the decisions the camera made.

There is no right or wrong in this debate.

and the bottom line is and always will be. If you photograph a turd in RAW or in JPEG, its still just a turd. Even if you wrap it in gold foil by using photoshop, it's still a turd.

Composition, Framing, and how you use the light is what is going to set your image apart regardless of saving format.

[UdubBadger]

Well said


- Goin' H.A.M. Mobile

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Can we expand this into general file formats for photography? I think a more interesting discussion is the file options once you transfer to your computer.

DNG vs CR2 / NEF and other camera RAW formats

Embedding a copy of the original file in DNG

PSD vs TIFF for PhotoShop processed files.

At what point in your process do you make your first backup?

Great idea to expand into other formats. I will chime in tomorrow. I ultimately import from NEF to DNG. More tomorrow.


Sent from my ZHPMafia.com iPhone

[spoonerDee]

I shoot RAW which means I am uploading .NEF files. I am often metering light by feel or in my head and not on the camera. If I am a little off either direction, I prefer the flexibility of being able to easily correct a file without losing compressed data from the decisions the camera made.

There is no right or wrong in this debate.

and the bottom line is and always will be. If you photograph a turd in RAW or in JPEG, its still just a turd. Even if you wrap it in gold foil by using photoshop, it's still a turd.

Composition, Framing, and how you use the light is what is going to set your image apart regardless of saving format.

True, a bad photo is a bad photo regardless. But most of the debates are about the abilities and "needs" of fine tuning pictures in certain formats.

I'm an exclusive RAW shooter. To me if you're a point and shooter (your average vacationer snapping family pics) just stick with the Jpegs. If you see it more serious and as a hobby, the benefits from RAW are amazing. Before I had a DSLR I took thousands of pictures (strictly hobby) and edited tons of photos, but was always left wanting.

The first time I edited a raw photo in light room and saw what control I had I was floored. A photo that I took that looked good, once "edited" looked amazing. I tried the same thing in Jpeg files and couldn't get anywhere near the level of enhancement.

[JupiterBMW]

Perhaps we can generalize this for the super newbies... What is RAW? What are the differences vs JPG and the benefits/drawbacks of each...

[UdubBadger]

VERY generalized...

RAW large files - think of these as a digital negative. It usually contains a wider dynamic range (color range) than a jpg, which is already processed with presets.

Maybe this will help?


RAW

Benefits

Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, colour saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that produce raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This results in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:

Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying gamma correction, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.
Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction
JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats typically use lossless compression or high quality lossy compression.
Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent". As well, the user can typically see a preview while adjusting these parameters.
Camera raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information, not the gamma-compressed 8 bits stored in JPEG files (and typically stored in processed TIFF files); since the data is not yet rendered and clipped to a colour space gamut, more precision may be available in highlights, shadows, and saturated colours.
The colour space can be set to whatever is desired.
Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera.
The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the colour gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts.
Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in fewer visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization.
All the changes made on a raw image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged.
To some extent, raw-format photography eliminates the need to use the HDRI technique, allowing a much better control over the mapping of the scene intensity range into the output tonal range, compared to the process of automatically mapping to JPEG or other 8-bit representation.

Drawbacks

Camera raw file size are typically 2–6 times larger than JPEG file size.[12] While use of raw formats avoids the compression artifacts inherent in JPEG, fewer images can fit on a given memory card. However, the large sizes and low prices of modern memory cards mitigate this.
Most raw formats implement lossless data compression to reduce the size of the files without affecting image quality. But some others use lossy data compression where quantization and filtering is performed on the image data.[13][14] Several recent Nikon cameras let photographers choose between no compression, lossless compression or lossy compression for their raw images.
The standard raw image format (ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP) is not widely accepted. DNG, the potential candidate for a new standard format, has not been adopted by many major camera companies. (See "Standardization" section). Numerous different raw formats are currently in use and new raw formats keep appearing, while others are abandoned.[15]
Because of the lack of widespread adoption of a standard raw format, more specialized software may be required to open raw files than for standardized formats like JPEG or TIFF. Software developers have to frequently update their products to support the raw formats of the latest cameras but open source implementations like dcraw make it easier.
The time taken in the image workflow is an important factor when choosing between raw and ready-to-use image formats. With modern photo editing software the additional time needed to process raw images has been greatly reduced but it still requires an extra step in workflow.

[JupiterBMW]

There we go. Thanks. You pros can resume your insanely technical back and forth now. :biggrin

[UdubBadger]

Hahaha well don't get my position wrong. I think RAW blows jpg out of the water which is why I also shoot it. My point is only that JPG can be advantageous to certain people in certain situations, thats all. I believe someone learning both basic photography principles and post production editing can benefit from shooting jpg before diving into needing to spend hours upon hours editing photos that are likely more "turd-esque" than not when looking back at them. When you have a firm grasp on how to control both the camera and the lighting on set, then RAW will become the file of choice.

My dealership has me shoot jpg to both conserve space and so they don't have to pay me to edit all the photos, I get paid for what goes into the camera in the 1st place.

[JupiterBMW]

Hahaha well don't get my position wrong.

To be honest, I haven't read any of this thread yet as the posts are all very long and I haven't had time to digest. I just noticed there weren't any basic descriptions of what each format said. I'm very OCD, I want to know all the little details about everything, I want to know exactly what I'm doing when changing a setting, etc etc etc...

Either way, you guys are ridiculously good at what you do. I'll be reading and practicing as much as I can. :thumbsup

[Marcus-SanDiego]

Hahaha well don't get my position wrong. I think RAW blows jpg out of the water which is why I also shoot it. My point is only that JPG can be advantageous to certain people in certain situations, thats all. I believe someone learning both basic photography principles and post production editing can benefit from shooting jpg before diving into needing to spend hours upon hours editing photos that are likely more "turd-esque" than not when looking back at them. When you have a firm grasp on how to control both the camera and the lighting on set, then RAW will become the file of choice.

Good point.