RAW versus JPEG

[richardkm]

There's a lot of discussion over whether to record images in raw or jpeg, well here are two images for comparison. Okay, okay, I know they're not wildlife, but the extremes of contrast on the dog's coat is good for comparison.

Firstly the jpeg:



now the raw:



Apart for resizing, I've done nothing to these images, but look at the extra detail in the blacks, especially around the eyes on the raw image. Decide for yourself, I know which I prefer to use.

[nightshade]

Hi Richard I was not sure is this a reply to this thread
RAW v JPEG

[matt_xyz]

to an extent I am a RAW cynic in that I think the benefits are minimal. That said, I do now acknowledge there are benefits and I do now shoot entirely in RAW.

This debate will run and run. As I say, RAW does provide benefits but in my opinion they're not as great as some would have you believe.

Matt

[rolf]

That's a very noticable difference Richard, didn't know it would be that clear cut, will have to do some comparisons myself with the E-500, .

[glsammy]

If I saw that much difference in my shots I'd always shoot in Raw. I haven't so I don't! My own test show minimal differences, and only at maximum magnification, which is hardly ever used.

[Roy C]

I shoot RAW only and have done for a while - I am not good enough to get the exposure spot on every time so RAW gives me a bit of latitute. Also, for Landscapes I find blending a couple of exposures of the same image invaluable. Adjustments in RAW and then 16 bit Tiffs are not destructive but trying to edit a jpeg is very dodgy as far as I am concerned.

[ollyk]

Originally Posted by Roy C

I shoot RAW only and have done for a while - I am not good enough to get the exposure spot on every time so RAW gives me a bit of latitute. Also, for Landscapes I find blending a couple of exposures of the same image invaluable. Adjustments in RAW and then 16 bit Tiffs are not destructive but trying to edit a jpeg is very dodgy as far as I am concerned.

I am new to the world of RAW, as the 20 second between shots of my old P&S was rather off putting to say the least! I have been shooting RAW & JPEG on my 350D and noticed the hystograms are quite different for identical images! I am sure contrast is compressed in JPEG which seems to result in a loss of detail in shadow!

So I am slowly becoming a RAW convert - just gotta learn how to manage the files now!

[paulthomas]

My view is that apart easy white balance correction, you're only going to get a noticable benefit in shooting RAW if your camera has a rubbish JPEG engine. I've shot using a RAW+JPEG recording mode and haven't found the "developed" RAW files to be any better than the JPEGs even when pixel peeping. I have a sneeking suspicion that there's this old film-based mindset which somehow needs a "magic" extra step to create a photograph. It takes all sorts I suppose

[Roy C]

Originally Posted by paulthomas

I have a sneeking suspicion that there's this old film-based mindset which somehow needs a "magic" extra step to create a photograph. It takes all sorts I suppose

Wrong in my case as I only started photography two years ago when I retired and have only used digital.. I have the the Canon 350D and 30D Cameras maybe you are right and they are not very good at processing jpegs as you say.
Although I only shoot in RAW I would never knock anyone who prefers Jpegs only - best of luck to you all which ever method you use. As I stated in my previous post I do not consider myself a good enough photographer to shoot jpeg only. You are obviously very good and can get away it, well done you. Maybe I will become that good one day.

[matt_xyz]

Originally Posted by Roy C

I do not consider myself a good enough photographer to shoot jpeg only. You are obviously very good and can get away it, well done you. Maybe I will become that good one day.

I think the point that Graham and I made in previous threads on this topic (there have been at least two!) is that 95% of the adjustments that can be made in RAW can also be made in JPEG (with the obvious exception of white balance). Images taken in JPEG fine can have levels adjusted to a very similar degree as RAW images and differences between the two will often be minimal (assuming you can even spot the difference, I often can't) even when viewed at 100%.

In my experience it's normally the increase in noise which limits the extent to which a badly underexposed RAW or JPEG image can be rescued rather than any lack of detail in the JPEG shadows.

Matt

[marksimms]

Hi all,
I have just registered on the website as I have been reading this forum as a lurker for the past couple of weeks and decided it seems a nice, friendly & focused (pun not intended) community.

I am a wedding photographer by trade and an avid amatuer nature photographer (although I have a long way to go to reach the standard of some of the shots posted on here!)

I swear by RAW, it is just so much more versatile than JPG ever will be, even the most finely rendered, minimally compressed JPG. You see, the problem with JPG is the loss of dynamic range, with RAW, dynamic range (that is, details that you cant really see) is preserved. With JPG, the way they can compress it with no discernable loss of quality is to `do away` with this "invisible" data, this generally manifests itself in dark areas/shadows and also at the other end in the blown out highlights. With RAW, you generally get at least 1 stop of invisible latitude either way so can recover some of the data in those shadows or highlights without increasing the noise too substantially. With JPG, what you see if what you get.

JPG processing routines, especially in DSLRs, are weighted towards speed over quality. I know I can utilise a lot better sharpening routines in Post-processing than my camera can on-the-fly.

Another problem with JPG is a lot of cameras have built-in noise reduction, whilst this can improve the initial quality of a JPG viewed direct from the camera, on closer inspection you will find a lot of details blurred or smoothed, again this is because the routine is geared towards speed and not qaulity. NR is something that I would rather decide on during post-processing although to be honest, even shooting at ISO1600 on my Canon 5D noise is pretty well controlled and whilst may not stand upto the most avid "pixel-peeper" (those of us who zoom in to 100% to look at the super fine details) I have prints I have run off at ISo1600 or even the extended ISO3200 where it cannot be detected even on close examination, I am referring to 8x10 size prints here as well.

The downside of RAW? Storage space! RAW files are big and for me, shooting roughly 800 images at a wedding I can expect to use at least 10GB of storage cards. Another downside is my buffer is only limited to around 18 shots on a burst before it starts to slow down, with JPG the buffer isnt a problem and I can hold down the shutter button until the CF card fills up.

Anyway, this is the take of someone who religious uses RAW day-in, day-out and hope it adds something towards this already interesting topic on conversation!

[paulthomas]

Ken Rockwell has some interesting thoughts on RAW vs JPEG here which debunks some of the myths surrounding resolution, dynamic range, JPEG compession and so on.

[glsammy]

I think this is the link Paul was referring to.: RAW vs JPG.

[Roy C]

It is easy to find links by so called experts that advocate RAW as well as them that advocate Jpeg - just do a Google for RAW v Jpeg and you could spend the next week reading them all. What makes Ken Rockwell right and others experts wrong?

As far as I am concerned the RAW file is my digital negative. In the days of film how many people would throw away the negative and keep the print as their master?.

At the end of the day it is up to the individual as to which mode they shoot in but I would say that if you do not feel there are any advantages of shooting in RAW then RAW is not for you.
If you need to ask if you should shoot in RAW then, again, RAW is not for you.
If you are concerned about file sizes and storage space again RAW is not for you.
If you are worried about processing RAW files, again, RAW is not for you.
If you do not like spending a lot of time processing a file then you can let the Camera do it for you by shooting in Jpeg.

I respect anyone who chooses shoots Jpeg only - the best of luck to you. By the same token I would expect the 'Jpeggers' to respect those that choose to shoot in RAW.

[Oy]

I shot JPG for years - and was very happy with the results.

That was when my main end product was showing photos on the internet and producing the occasional 10x8" print.

Now that I am producing A3 prints on a regular basis and the occasional 30x20" print I can see the value of RAW more and now shoot RAW only.

[steveo]

i've recently been converted to shooting in RAW. i think it was after spending a day on dartmoor and coming back with a lot of jpg shots either under or overexposed. due to shadows.

now i take an extra 2gb memory card shoot mostly in RAW and make adjustments on the PC. although i still have a lot to learn as far as photoshop goes.

[cherrybee]

Well after trying Raw this last week and getting a free program that lets me change the white balance and other things I have fimally decided to go back to jpg.I have nothing as such against RAW and I would probably use it in some circumstances,mainly when a subject does not move.This is because I have missed shots because of the delay when it is being written to the card.and I have ended up with more blurred shots than usual.I think both jpg and Raw have their place in photography.I don't mind the extra time processing but it is very slow but as my hubby says I love my computer so much I am glued to it anyway so it doesn't really matter after all practice makes perfect.I am not giving up on it altogether I am just going to choose the time when I think it will work for me

[Boddie]

I shoot in large JPEG and RAW - just in case

[cherrybee]

Originally Posted by Boddie

I shoot in large JPEG and RAW - just in case

I think I would if it was easy to switch but I have to go into the menu each time to change it

[eeyore]

this is one of those debates which is destined to run and run (like film vs digital), my take is that at the end of the day they are all tools for getting a good picture and it is the end result that matters not the process

Arguing which is "better" is like arguing whether boddies Merc is better than my (work) 4x4 - on the motorway his would win hands down but take it across a muddy field and you are looking at an altogether different result (as we proved the other month )

I generally work in jpeg fine because i need a fast deep burst with swift buffering and write speeds and i cant afford the top pro spec dslrs that deliver that with raw, plus when doing sport or events coverage need to get pics to picture desks asap and dont have time to faff with raw conversion - however if i am covering a wedding or similar or shooting in conditions in which exposure is very difficult I will switch to RAW.

simliarly there are occasions when i wil switch my DSLR for a film body or a medium format , and others where i will chose an inconspicuous digi compact.