raw -vs- jpeg, I'm finally convinced

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-27-2008, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

I did not miss them. The point I was making was that I think the jpeg could have been fixed just like the RAW. What I would like to see is a picture that was fixed in RAW, and could not have been fixed in jpeg.

Look in the post your photos forum, for my post

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/228838-post1.html

Next time I go out I'll shoot RAW+ and see if I can get a few more feathers.

This might be the only time where RAW would be a definite plus because all the detail is down in the mud.

I am a long term JPEG shooter and supporter, and I find that the real issue is getting the shot right in the first place. Normally that works, but my littke black friend here might prove to be the exception.

The only other time I shot RAW was going after a whooping crane. That shot seems a little better in RAw than JPEG , but my closest shot was 1/16 of the frame shot at 1600. I think raw helped there a little. also see below

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/208249-post1.html

PentaxPoke · 04-27-2008, 06:59 PM

Wow that black bird is beautiful. If RAW would help you pull out more feathers where jpeg would not, I'm sold! I'll be interested to see your results.

PDL · 04-27-2008, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

I did not miss them. The point I was making was that I think the jpeg could have been fixed just like the RAW. What I would like to see is a picture that was fixed in RAW, and could not have been fixed in jpeg.

See post #16 in this thread.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/25998-jpeg-raw...tml#post230231

The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

Arpe · 04-28-2008, 01:42 AM

The best example of when to shoot raw, imo, is getting the white balance right. Sometimes, shooting jpegs, I've set it for one condition, then forgotten to change it for vastly different conditions, and try as I might, I cannot get the jpeg to look right. With the raw file the wb setting at the time of shooting doesn't matter. However I still mainly shoot jpeg.

PentaxPoke · 04-28-2008, 08:49 AM

PDL convinced me. Link here:http://https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/25998-jpeg-raw-both-2.html

**Lowell Goudge** · 04-28-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

Wow that black bird is beautiful. If RAW would help you pull out more feathers where jpeg would not, I'm sold! I'll be interested to see your results.

Thanks,

Regarding the RAW vs JPEG, and saving images, the reason I posted this is it is the real exception.

I normally take the approach of getting the JPEG perfet, i.e. lighting and contrast. This is a really bad subject because the bird really is black. I think the only way to do anyting, is shoot raw in this case, and use the extra resolution (12 bits vs 8) to try for a little more detail.

Normally JPEG suites me fine specifically when the detail is spread over the entire dynamic range. like the shot below. I don't have any issue with this, and it is right out of the camera, except for resizing.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/187646-post19.html

But when detail is all really confined within 1 stop at either endo fht e dynamic range, raw may be a better option. I'm inclined to think next time, I'll push the raw button as a back up on the black birds. (by the way, I don't really have a problem with the shot). My next one will be in flight head on. That will take some time.

With respect to the general issue, if properly exposed, I also have not had any problem making color corrections in JPEG

arbutusq · 04-30-2008, 09:09 AM

The reasons to shoot raw for me are NOT to correct for poor white balance or exposure (although raw is the best for that) I try to nail everyhting in the camera. For me it is about creative controll and achieving certain looks in my images.

With jpeg I'm stuck with the camera's interpretation of a scene. With raw I can bring out shadow detail, recover extreme highlights, or change the look of a photo to suit my creative vision (such as it is)

Now I can achieve much of this on a jpeg, but the results from a raw file are higher quality and in LR are just as quick.

heatherslightbox · 04-30-2008, 09:31 AM

I'm making more of an effort to shoot in RAW these days, but I've noticed that when I pull the RAW images up in either Picasa or Irfanview, it doesn't read the EXIF info. If I pop the memory card back into the camera and pull up the same image that way, the EXIF info shows up just fine.

What's the deal?

Thanks!
Heather

maxwell1295 · 04-30-2008, 10:35 AM

Originally posted by hwblanks

I'm making more of an effort to shoot in RAW these days, but I've noticed that when I pull the RAW images up in either Picasa or Irfanview, it doesn't read the EXIF info. If I pop the memory card back into the camera and pull up the same image that way, the EXIF info shows up just fine.

What's the deal?

Thanks!
Heather

Irfanview loses EXIF data when you convert from RAW to JPEG, but the data is there with JPEGs straight from the camera. I'm pretty sure you can see the EXIF data prior to doing the conversion. You may have to download the EXIF plug-in from the Irfanview website (if you haven't done so already).

IMO, Irfanview does a much better job with RAW images than UFRaw does (I use GIMP for editing), but losing the EXIF data upon conversion is a turnoff. Raw Therapee doesn't seem to work as well as Irfanview either. It's good enough that I'm not going to concern myself with the EXIF data and just try to get the cleanest images possible to work with.

Gooshin · 04-30-2008, 11:57 AM

i cant believe this thread is at 7 pages...

Mark Castleman · 04-30-2008, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer

RAW is fine if your not shooting 3 or 4 hundred shots a day.

Good workflow software like Lightroom or Aperture will make that much easier. I use Aperture and I don't even look at what format files are in as I have images that are jpeg, RAW and tiff coming from various sources, the program treats them all the same and I can always go back to the original if I mess things up. I always looked on the RAW vs jpeg decision as the same as deciding to Kodachrome Professional rather than Ektachrome from the drugstore. Both did the job, but one gave me more quality than the other. Neither could make a bad photo into a good one.

PentaxPoke · 05-01-2008, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Canada_Rockies

You can do a test yourself that will prove it. Take a photo with an incorrect white balance, RAW + jpeg. Use a Tungsten white balance under fluorescents, or outdoors. You can "save" the image (it was actually never lost) with RAW, the jpeg will be so out to lunch it will be virtually unusable.

The other reason to use raw was mentioned, but kind of got lost in the discussion - Every time you modify the jpeg and save it (unless you "save as") more of the image data is discarded. It is part of the jpeg compression process - it removes data when it saves the file.

If you, however, are perfectly happy with your jpegs, by all means stay with them. Pentax produces some of the nicest looking jpegs available.

This is a very, very personal decision. I come from over 40 years of working with film, and am used to the negative being the first step in the process. I also use slide film, and print from that. I always have the original slide to go back to (if I can find it in the cubic meter of photo detritus that I never get around to cataloging properly) and reprint it. I am also astonished that one 4 Gb card, about the size of my big toe nail, can hold six and three quarters of a roll of film (6.78 X 36 exposures) or more, that I don't feel at all limited.

My long winded take on the subject.

Canada,

I owe you an apology. I did the test myself by forcing a very bad white balance, and you were right. Here are the results of my test:
RAW vs jpeg WB test - a set on Flickr

**Canada_Rockies** · 05-01-2008, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by PentaxPoke

Canada,

I own you an apology. I did the test myself by forcing a very bad white balance, and you were right. Here are the results of my test:
RAW vs jpeg WB test - a set on Flickr

Yeah, that's the kind of thing I found out myself. With my Klutzy luck, the bad balance would be on the only shot that mattered on the whole card. No apology is necessary.

05-01-2008, 04:21 PM	#102
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Originally posted by Canada_Rockies You can do a test yourself that will prove it. Take a photo with an incorrect white balance, RAW + jpeg. Use a Tungsten white balance under fluorescents, or outdoors. You can "save" the image (it was actually never lost) with RAW, the jpeg will be so out to lunch it will be virtually unusable. The other reason to use raw was mentioned, but kind of got lost in the discussion - Every time you modify the jpeg and save it (unless you "save as") more of the image data is discarded. It is part of the jpeg compression process - it removes data when it saves the file. If you, however, are perfectly happy with your jpegs, by all means stay with them. Pentax produces some of the nicest looking jpegs available. This is a very, very personal decision. I come from over 40 years of working with film, and am used to the negative being the first step in the process. I also use slide film, and print from that. I always have the original slide to go back to (if I can find it in the cubic meter of photo detritus that I never get around to cataloging properly) and reprint it. I am also astonished that one 4 Gb card, about the size of my big toe nail, can hold six and three quarters of a roll of film (6.78 X 36 exposures) or more, that I don't feel at all limited. My long winded take on the subject. Canada, I owe you an apology. I did the test myself by forcing a very bad white balance, and you were right. Here are the results of my test: RAW vs jpeg WB test - a set on Flickr Last edited by PentaxPoke; 05-01-2008 at 09:53 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG	sterretje	Pentax DSLR Discussion	9	04-13-2010 02:06 AM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh?	Raptorman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	12-22-2009 11:49 AM
raw+ jpeg	houstonmacgregor	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	2	01-02-2009 08:07 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
raw vs .jpeg ????	nathancombs	Post Your Photos!	1	10-15-2007 09:30 PM

04-27-2008, 06:21 PM	#91
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by PentaxPoke I did not miss them. The point I was making was that I think the jpeg could have been fixed just like the RAW. What I would like to see is a picture that was fixed in RAW, and could not have been fixed in jpeg. Look in the post your photos forum, for my post https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/228838-post1.html Next time I go out I'll shoot RAW+ and see if I can get a few more feathers. This might be the only time where RAW would be a definite plus because all the detail is down in the mud. I am a long term JPEG shooter and supporter, and I find that the real issue is getting the shot right in the first place. Normally that works, but my littke black friend here might prove to be the exception. The only other time I shot RAW was going after a whooping crane. That shot seems a little better in RAw than JPEG , but my closest shot was 1/16 of the frame shot at 1600. I think raw helped there a little. also see below https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/208249-post1.html

04-27-2008, 06:59 PM	#92
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	Wow that black bird is beautiful. If RAW would help you pull out more feathers where jpeg would not, I'm sold! I'll be interested to see your results.

04-27-2008, 09:23 PM	#93
PDL Pentaxian Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: PNW USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,128	Originally posted by PentaxPoke I did not miss them. The point I was making was that I think the jpeg could have been fixed just like the RAW. What I would like to see is a picture that was fixed in RAW, and could not have been fixed in jpeg. See post #16 in this thread. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/25998-jpeg-raw...tml#post230231 The Elitist - formerly known as PDL

04-28-2008, 01:42 AM	#94
Arpe Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: New Zealand Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,452	The best example of when to shoot raw, imo, is getting the white balance right. Sometimes, shooting jpegs, I've set it for one condition, then forgotten to change it for vastly different conditions, and try as I might, I cannot get the jpeg to look right. With the raw file the wb setting at the time of shooting doesn't matter. However I still mainly shoot jpeg.

04-28-2008, 08:49 AM	#95
PentaxPoke Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Oklahoma Posts: 1,411	PDL convinced me. Link here:http://https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/25998-jpeg-raw-both-2.html

04-28-2008, 05:40 PM	#96
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by PentaxPoke Wow that black bird is beautiful. If RAW would help you pull out more feathers where jpeg would not, I'm sold! I'll be interested to see your results. Thanks, Regarding the RAW vs JPEG, and saving images, the reason I posted this is it is the real exception. I normally take the approach of getting the JPEG perfet, i.e. lighting and contrast. This is a really bad subject because the bird really is black. I think the only way to do anyting, is shoot raw in this case, and use the extra resolution (12 bits vs 8) to try for a little more detail. Normally JPEG suites me fine specifically when the detail is spread over the entire dynamic range. like the shot below. I don't have any issue with this, and it is right out of the camera, except for resizing. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/187646-post19.html But when detail is all really confined within 1 stop at either endo fht e dynamic range, raw may be a better option. I'm inclined to think next time, I'll push the raw button as a back up on the black birds. (by the way, I don't really have a problem with the shot). My next one will be in flight head on. That will take some time. With respect to the general issue, if properly exposed, I also have not had any problem making color corrections in JPEG

04-30-2008, 09:09 AM	#97
arbutusq Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Vancouver BC canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 380	The reasons to shoot raw for me are NOT to correct for poor white balance or exposure (although raw is the best for that) I try to nail everyhting in the camera. For me it is about creative controll and achieving certain looks in my images. With jpeg I'm stuck with the camera's interpretation of a scene. With raw I can bring out shadow detail, recover extreme highlights, or change the look of a photo to suit my creative vision (such as it is) Now I can achieve much of this on a jpeg, but the results from a raw file are higher quality and in LR are just as quick.

04-30-2008, 09:31 AM	#98
heatherslightbox Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Gainesville, FL Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,599	I'm making more of an effort to shoot in RAW these days, but I've noticed that when I pull the RAW images up in either Picasa or Irfanview, it doesn't read the EXIF info. If I pop the memory card back into the camera and pull up the same image that way, the EXIF info shows up just fine. What's the deal? Thanks! Heather

04-30-2008, 10:35 AM	#99
maxwell1295 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Long Island, New York Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,703	Originally posted by hwblanks I'm making more of an effort to shoot in RAW these days, but I've noticed that when I pull the RAW images up in either Picasa or Irfanview, it doesn't read the EXIF info. If I pop the memory card back into the camera and pull up the same image that way, the EXIF info shows up just fine. What's the deal? Thanks! Heather Irfanview loses EXIF data when you convert from RAW to JPEG, but the data is there with JPEGs straight from the camera. I'm pretty sure you can see the EXIF data prior to doing the conversion. You may have to download the EXIF plug-in from the Irfanview website (if you haven't done so already). IMO, Irfanview does a much better job with RAW images than UFRaw does (I use GIMP for editing), but losing the EXIF data upon conversion is a turnoff. Raw Therapee doesn't seem to work as well as Irfanview either. It's good enough that I'm not going to concern myself with the EXIF data and just try to get the cleanest images possible to work with.

04-30-2008, 11:57 AM	#100
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	i cant believe this thread is at 7 pages...

04-30-2008, 12:51 PM	#101
Mark Castleman Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Westminster, Colorado Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 298	Originally posted by Fl_Gulfer RAW is fine if your not shooting 3 or 4 hundred shots a day. Good workflow software like Lightroom or Aperture will make that much easier. I use Aperture and I don't even look at what format files are in as I have images that are jpeg, RAW and tiff coming from various sources, the program treats them all the same and I can always go back to the original if I mess things up. I always looked on the RAW vs jpeg decision as the same as deciding to Kodachrome Professional rather than Ektachrome from the drugstore. Both did the job, but one gave me more quality than the other. Neither could make a bad photo into a good one.

05-01-2008, 08:54 PM	#103
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by PentaxPoke Canada, I own you an apology. I did the test myself by forcing a very bad white balance, and you were right. Here are the results of my test: RAW vs jpeg WB test - a set on Flickr Yeah, that's the kind of thing I found out myself. With my Klutzy luck, the bad balance would be on the only shot that mattered on the whole card. No apology is necessary.