[stewart_photo]

Yes you continually miss the point. It is not up to us to “Prove” anything – it is up to you to do a little work before you basically go off and tell anyone that RAW is not “better” than JPEG.
So – go here:
White Balance Follies
quote:
"These are just two simple examples of how working with a fully baked JPG file out of the camera seriously reduces the ability that one has to fix white balance and exposure problems, especially when strong adjustments are needed. There simply isn't enough information available in a JPG to do the job as well as with raw files.” (snip)

Okay, since this thread is going on and on, I'll throw my two cents into this absurd debate once again. Absurd because it really shouldn't matter to anyone, enough to actually argue about it, if others use Raw, JPEG, both or neither. Regardless, I'm not certain what the purpose of the link above is. In the first example on that page (the motorcycle), the color tones are exactly as the scene appeared in the late afternoon sun. If that wasn't the results desired, simple adjustment of white balance at the moment would have provided alternatives. In the second example (the two ladies), all I see a mistake (extreme underexposure) no even half competent photographer would have made in the first place.

But, perhaps that's the real difference between those using JPEG and the truly fanatical Raw enthusiasts. The latter depend on computer editing to compensate for limited photography skills, which is why their arguments supporting Raw nearly always focus on photography mistakes. Those using JPEG, on the other hand, possess (or, if learning, eventually hope to possess) enough skills to be confident about the results they can achieve directly out of the camera, which is perhaps why endless discussions about fixing mistakes afterwards really doesn't interest them.

As I've said before, I shoot using RAW+ (both JPEG and Raw) in truly critical situations, but often use JPEG elsewhere to allow me to use the many creative camera options available. After all, that's why I bought a camera with all those features instead of a webcam.

stewart

[arbutusq]

Stewart I can't disagree more with your assessment of a fanatical RAW shooter. I shoot RAW exclusively and i don't do it to correct for in camera mistakes.

I like the qualitative improvements I get from RAW, also the creative control. In LR it is so easy to change the look of an image (WB, one curve etc.) nondistructively to achieve my artistic goals.

[PentaxPoke]

Stewart,

I understand what you are saying. I felt the same way, but as indicated, I think I have been convinced otherwise by PDL and others. I honestly don't consider this debate absurd because I have learned alot through this discussion. I consider myself a careful phographer when it comes to camera settings such as exposure, etc. In a rush though, I can see how I could blow a white balance especially going in and out of a building with different types of light. At the urging of Canada_Rockies I did a simple test in RAW+ to see for myself. Here is the test:

RAW vs jpeg WB test - a set on Flickr

That was the final straw so to speak. I had this epiphany (maybe a bit slowly to some) that why the heck should I be worrying about white balance, saturation, sharpness, contrast, or any other conversion issue at the shooting end of the process any longer? Why should I worry about how the camera is going to process my exposure when I am in the "heat of the moment" capturing an image? If I simply shoot RAW, the only thing I have to worry about is exposure and focus. Everything else is simply a conversion of that data. I would rather worry about those other issues in the comfort of my chair while viewing a large screen. After running all these RAW+ tests the last few days, I still think that ACR even in auto, converts jpegs better than my k20d in camera, on any setting I have tried. That means I can batch convert in a couple of minutes if I need jpegs, and still have it look as good or better than my in-camera processing.

[quantum]

Shooting jpeg may save you one step on the pipeline but if you later decide to do some serious processing on your would be masterpiece...

[Confused]

Hi all

Forgive the inept analogy for one moment, but just for arguments sake let's assume that you're a world-class safe-breaker and you've just had a reliable tip-off that there's 10 million pixels concealed at a secret location. Having arrived at the venue and broken-in undetected, you carefully start to crack-open the safe. You're half-way through emptying the contents when an unexpectedly loud burglar alarm goes off in the vicinity and you have to make a 'snap' decision (sic) ! Do you risk getting caught whilst attempting to empty the entire 10 million pixels, or do cut your losses and run, leaving 5-6 million pixels behind
in the safe ?? I know it sounds silly, but that's what you're doing EVERY TIME you shoot using the cameras JPEG algorithm. You're literally throwing away valuable pixels, which you will never get another chance to recover !!!

It's a sobering thought, but my question really is:
"Why spend all that money purchasing a 10MP/14MP DSLR, if you knowingly intend to throw away between a half to two-thirds of the data you've paid so much for to capture in the first place" ?

Best regards
Richard

[simons-photography]

Hi all

Forgive the inept analogy for one moment, but just for arguments sake let's assume that you're a world-class safe-breaker and you've just had a reliable tip-off that there's 10 million pixels concealed at a secret location. Having arrived at the venue and broken-in undetected, you carefully start to crack-open the safe. You're half-way through emptying the contents when an unexpectedly loud burglar alarm goes off in the vicinity and you have to make a 'snap' decision (sic) ! Do you risk getting caught whilst attempting to empty the entire 10 million pixels, or do cut your losses and run, leaving 5-6 million pixels behind ??
I know it sounds silly, but that's what you're doing EVERY TIME you shoot using the cameras JPEG algorithm. You're literally throwing away valuable pixels, which you will never get another chance to recover !!!

It's a sobering thought, but my question really is:
"Why spend all that money purchasing a 10MP/14MP DSLR, if you knowingly intend to throw away between a half to two-thirds of the data you've paid so much for to capture in the first place" ?

Best regards
Richard

I agree but actually jpeg captures much less than 1/2 its more like 1/4096

[simons-photography]

As I've said before, I shoot using RAW+ (both JPEG and Raw) in truly critical situations, but often use JPEG elsewhere to allow me to use the many creative camera options available. After all, that's why I bought a camera with all those features instead of a webcam.

stewart

so your going to miss shots while play around with "effects" on a 2.5" screen get real doing the effects on the camera or on the computer is the same, if you want to talk creativity then raw is best as you have as much data as possible to play with

[Confused]

Hi simons-photography

I think you misinterpreted my meaning slightly when I said:

leaving 5-6 million pixels behind ??

The 4-5MP I was referring to (theoretically speaking) was the JPEG he escaped with ! The 5-6MP was the remainder of the RAW file he left behind in the safe.
However, this conversation seems to have become increasingly more bizarre by the minute, so maybe it's about time to return to the safety of terra firma....!!!!

Best regards
Richard

[simons-photography]

hehe well what I meant was mathematically speaking raw captures 4096 X the number of coulours captured with jpeg so frankly its a case of a BIG difference I think people think that those extra 4 bits per channel (12 versus 8) are a bit more than a few colours its quite a substantial gain over jpg why spend all that money on a DSLR if you are going to treat it like a P&S

[stewart_photo]

Forgive the inept analogy for one moment, (snip)

I have a better analogy for you, Richard...; telling everyone to use Raw so they can run images through a converter each day because they might one day make a mistake leading to a bad image is like telling car drivers to run their vehicles through the body shop each time the vehicle is used because they might one day make a mistake leading to an accident. Of course, in each case, the truly worthwhile goal is to avoid the mistakes which lead to accidents in the first place.

That said, before you switched to Raw, how many times did you shoot a truly irreplaceable image messed up enough to simply be beyond repair in Photoshop or similar editing program? If any, and remembering now a camera is just a device you control, were those mistakes your fault or caused by the camera? Finally, what did you do about it - learn not to make the same mistakes again or switch to Raw so you can simply fix the mistakes?

Of course, the previous paragraph contains a lot of loaded questions (which you truly don't have to answer), but no more loaded than the questions being asked of me (which I didn't answer).

It's a sobering thought, but my question really is:
"Why spend all that money purchasing a 10MP/14MP DSLR, if you knowingly intend to throw away between a half to two-thirds of the data you've paid so much for to capture in the first place" ?

Nice question, but obviously one doesn't actually lose megapixels when shooting with JPEG or gain megapixels when shooting with Raw. With a ten megapixel camera, the final images in both image formats are ten megapixels.

stewart

[stewart_photo]

Stewart, I understand what you are saying. I felt the same way, but as indicated, I think I have been convinced otherwise by PDL and others. I honestly don't consider this debate absurd because I have learned alot through this discussion. I consider myself a careful phographer when it comes to camera settings such as exposure, etc. In a rush though, I can see how I could blow a white balance especially going in and out of a building with different types of light. At the urging of Canada_Rockies I did a simple test in RAW+ to see for myself. Here is the test:

RAW vs jpeg WB test - a set on Flickr

Well, those are interesting images, PentaxPoke. However, how many images did you take last week (before this discussion) which were truly messed up that badly? If the answer is none, why are you now switching to Raw to fix a problem that doesn't really exist in the first place? Of course, I'm not telling you not to use Raw since you're obviously free to do whatever you want and neither choice you might make (JPEG or Raw) is wrong. My choice is to use JPEG most often in non-critical situations. I do so because I've been shooting images for perhaps twenty-five years and can therefore reliably achieve decent images from my camera without resorting to Raw. I've also read and researched the arguments used (over and over) by Raw enthusiasts and now consider most of it grossly overstated bull manure.

stewart

[PDL]

Okay, since this thread is going on and on, I'll throw my two cents into this absurd debate once again. Absurd because it really shouldn't matter to anyone, enough to actually argue about it, if others use Raw, JPEG, both or neither. Regardless, I'm not certain what the purpose of the link above is. In the first example on that page (the motorcycle), the color tones are exactly as the scene appeared in the late afternoon sun. If that wasn't the results desired, simple adjustment of white balance at the moment would have provided alternatives. In the second example (the two ladies), all I see a mistake (extreme underexposure) no even half competent photographer would have made in the first place.

The intent of the article is to show how RAW can be used to recover from mistakes, the author says these are extreme examples. He is not incompetent and neither am I -- just because I always shoot RAW. There are times when you take the shot because that is the time you have to get the shot - no do-over’s, there are times when you (I) forget to reset something (such as WB or ISO) and the shot shows up and I get it or I futz around. Meanwhile the "moment" is lost. Then there are the situation where things like WB are a royal pain - the cafeteria at work for instance - tungsten, halogen, mercury vapor, high pressure potassium, fluorescent and daylight (cloudy, foggy, clear, raining - you get the idea). No matter how you adjust the WB you need to tweak it shot by shot due to the color temperature changing every time you move the camera. In that situation - the additional headroom provided by RAW means some pictures end up being usable.

But, perhaps that's the real difference between those using JPEG and the truly fanatical Raw enthusiasts. The latter depend on computer editing to compensate for limited photography skills, which is why their arguments supporting Raw nearly always focus on photography mistakes. Those using JPEG, on the other hand, possess (or, if learning, eventually hope to possess) enough skills to be confident about the results they can achieve directly out of the camera, which is perhaps why endless discussions about fixing mistakes afterwards really doesn't interest them..

Yup I have been dissed. So I am not competent because I only shoot RAW? Excuse me? I shoot RAW because I want to keep all the information that was captured by the sensor. I have stated before - that every pro and pro-wannabe (those who make money from photography but not full time) shoot RAW. Check out:
Carlan Tapp Photography Who also shoots film (35mm to 8x10) Question of Power
Phil Maland Portrait Photography - Snohomish County Maternity, Senior, Child and Family Portrait Photographer in Washington State Phil takes portraits during the weekends
http://www.bobsacha.com/flashindex.html First international all Digital world wide cover/article for National Geographic. Caffeine @ National Geographic Magazine
Vincent Versace Digital Natural Light Photography
The people here: Photography Workshops and Digital Lab Workshops in Santa Fe, New Mexico Instructors | Photography Workshops and Digital Lab Workshops in Santa Fe, New Mexico
directed SFW digital lab for 14 years Jerry Courvoisier digital photography
Incompetent indeed - you really might want to think about what you are implying here as these individuals shoot RAW.

As I've said before, I shoot using RAW+ (both JPEG and Raw) in truly critical situations, but often use JPEG elsewhere to allow me to use the many creative camera options available. After all, that's why I bought a camera with all those features instead of a webcam.

stewart

Since when is something you shoot not critical? Why futz around with changing from JPEG to RAW when you can just leave it on RAW? All you gain is data.

So you bought a camera that has all these features and you decide to not use one of the most powerful aspects of modern DSLR's - the ability to keep all the data. SD cards are cheap, disk is cheap, my OS will see PEF's in the file system (no need to covert them into something else to see what it is) and my workflow for PEF's and JPEG's is identical - with one exception. I do not have to make copies of the PEF's so I can go back to the "original data" and add into that, all of my JPEG's I create for display in places such as here are first generation - with all the add-on's (copyright, straightened, sharpened and on the odd occasion WB adjusted). To do such things in a JPEG would mean that the JPEG I display is second generation - thus losing data due to the nature of the JPEG process.

So, yes - I do try to get it in the camera correctly first - just like I did for all those years with slide film (read no PP - at all). If I am at the point where I can batch export a set of PEF's out of Lightroom to a folder to do what I need to do, just how different is that from doing the same thing from JPEG's?

The Dissed Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[PentaxPoke]

Stewart,

You make a valid point about my shots before last week, which is why I was so resistant in the first place. I was always very careful about setting white balance before any shot, and checking it twice. I could have easily made that mistake though if I always wasn't so careful about changing white balance when going from outside to tungsten lighting, etc. Then the discussions here got me to do that test, and it hit me like a brick: why the heck am I worrying about white balance when shooting at all? It felt like a weight was lifted when shooting. I no longer need to carefully check white balance, saturation, sharpness, hue, etc. etc. when I am shooting. Lots of my shots are of family indoors and out and at unpredictable times. All I have to do now is pull out my k20d and set exposure and focus. Now that I have been doing it for a few days, it is actually saving me time and headache. I am not worrying about any of those conversion settings, and chimping to get them right for the conditions.

Just exposure and focus baby! (a monster has been created)

[PDL]

I have a better analogy for you, Richard...; telling everyone to use Raw so they can run images through a converter each day because they might one day make a mistake leading to a bad image is like telling car drivers to run their vehicles through the body shop each time the vehicle is used because they might one day make a mistake leading to an accident. Of course, in each case, the truly worthwhile goal is to avoid the mistakes which lead to accidents in the first place.

Misleading - I do not "run images through a converter each day" - my OS can display PEF files without issue. False arguement - I just open explorer and click - it is easy.

That said, before you switched to Raw, how many times did you shoot a truly irreplaceable image messed up enough to simply be beyond repair in Photoshop or similar editing program? If any, and remembering now a camera is just a device you control, were those mistakes your fault or caused by the camera? Finally, what did you do about it - learn not to make the same mistakes again or switch to Raw so you can simply fix the mistakes?

Simply switching to RAW will not fix the mistakes, it does provide all the data so things can be recovered more easily. That is all - with JPEG you do not have the same amount of head room to work with - end of story.

And as to how many times - too many, but there are times when WB or contrast/sharpness/saturation settings are just too cumbersome to tweak between each shot. So, I take the image and use the power of my camera's sensor and the software on my PC to make adjustments as the image requires. Sometimes it does not work, sometimes the image on the screen is not what I thought I saw in the Viewfinder - but that is the creation process for which I take full responsiblity. I also use nearly all the features of my DSLR - that is why I bought them - to get back to the same level of control that I had with 35mm SLR's and slide film - althought I have more control with digital in the long run.

snip
Nice question, but obviously one doesn't actually lose megapixels when shooting with JPEG or gain megapixels when shooting with Raw. With a ten megapixel camera, the final images in both image formats are ten megapixels.

stewart

Here we agree - a 10MP RAW is 10MP - the data has not been interpreted - it is called RAW for that reason. JPEG, TIFF, GIF, PNG etc. are formats used to display the data. Each format has it's strengths and weaknesses, but remember, with JPEG every time you save, you lose data. Digital imaging is all about data.

The dissed Elitist - formerly known as PDL

[quantum]

Shot RAW+jpeg for a while (let's say one or two weeks). This way you should see the difference between RAW and jpeg and if you really need the extra information found in raw.