[Frogfish]

I'm not sure this is true.. I may be wrong, but jpeg files can be wrote over (edited and re-saved with same name) which changes the file permanently.. hence someone who knows WTF they are doing could edit out the embedded copyright info and re-save the file. A RAW file on the other hand is a read only file.. when you edit a RAW file, you only edit a small embedded file that controls the workable parameters of the file. Everything that was saved is never lost, just cataloged in a small separate embedded file.
I think the copyright usually falls in the shots of scenery, as its easy to prove with a superior copy of people or live action weather you have a jpeg or RAW its hard to debate having the superior copy of something that happens for that one moment only.. but scenery and inanimate object shots can be taken by almost anyone anywhere with close to the same results.. so those are the messy ones.

I'm sure you are right .... but they still can't increase the original size from, for example, a web file of 1 or 2 MB (there is really no need to put up your best photos at any larger than that) to 10- 14MB and retain the same quality. So therefore it would be easy to prove ownership if required.

[Frogfish]

You are saying if you had your jpeg, and the RAW file, did your PP work on the RAW file then converted it, you don't think you could tell the difference? When you do work with saturation/desaturation, Hue/color balance RAW's are far more workable. If your cataloging the event using only composition and color/sepia/B&W for your artistic arsenal then jpegs probably do the trick. On camera editing allows some extra work, but lacks the depth and detail of using a proper PP program with RAW files.
Granted you have to have the time to do the PP work, no difference from photographers doing that extra cared darkroom work with film. Simply taking the roll of film to the 1 hr photo doesn't get the same results as working it in your own darkroom for getting the colors/saturation etc you were after.

I'm saying exactly that. If you have shot your high quality **** jpg at the correct exposure in the first place (and the shot is not one of high contrast or shot in low light) then it is going to be near impossible for 99.99% of people to find a difference.

The workflow you have described is to save highlights / shadow detail, not to increase the level of detail in correctly exposed shots - unless pixel peeping to a level at which the shot would not be printed / published anyway. I think you are drastically under-estimating the IQ of high quality jpgs produced from top level cameras today.

I never use the camera for PPing at any level. This makes no sense when you have far better tools in your computer.

Just to be clear here I'm not advocating jpgs over RAW - just that there are only certain situations where I believe RAW can make a discernable difference ... and in those situations I use the 'Save as RAW' button after having shot in jpg, or of course shoot in RAW in situations where I know it will make a difference (sunsets, nightime etc.).

[Chex]

Well I intend to put your theory to the test and see my end PP'd results from my **** jpegs vs the RAWs. Who knows, I may end up being able to save HD space... for now I think we've beaten the RAW vs jpeg horse nearly to death... I'll end with saying I "prefer" to shoot RAW.

And I agree that there is no need to post high res pics online, 1024x768 etc is plenty big enough for online albums. But even a 2Mb file can be decently printed at 8x10 depending on its PPI and coloring etc. a 180-240PPI B&W 2Mb pic would probably be decent enough resolution to print around 8x10.

[Lowell Goudge]

with respect to RAW vs JPEG and copywrite, just a couple of points here.

first of all, possession of either file is not proof of ownership. So regardless of how much PP you do, it is not a question of file type/

Second, when anyone does post processing, they should NEVER overwrite the origonal file. I always add a suffix and save under a new name. just good practice.

This also gives you one additional point, you can show your progression of editing,

the only real way to have proof of ownership is to have the camera serial number in the EXIF, but that is not provided for in the cameras.

[cats_five]

<snip>
the only real way to have proof of ownership is to have the camera serial number in the EXIF, but that is not provided for in the cameras.

But that can be edited just as all the other EXIF can! Digitally signing images would be required as well, though a serious hacker might be able to break it since the signing machine is the camera, which they have access to.

[Lowell Goudge]

But that can be edited just as all the other EXIF can! Digitally signing images would be required as well, though a serious hacker might be able to break it since the signing machine is the camera, which they have access to.

in reality, the real proof would be your entire photo library.

You could show sequential file names, which included your photos, dates taken, and proof of where you were on those dates.

It will be the entire package that is proof.

yes a serious hacker probably could defeat all of it, but that is not the killer issue

most improper use of photos comes from copying off the internet, however that gives another possible protection. If you post proof sheets on a website of all your work, that would show image and location just fine.

Edit note

Photo me, among others shows an internal serial number for your camera. as a result, unless someone deliberately changes or erases the serial number you can show proof of ownership.

[snostorm]

Having a stockpile of old jpegs from P&S's thrown on a 1.5TB drive doesn't take up much room. Now with the K-5 I intend to get 2 2TB drives and mirror them(raid1) so I always have a backup if one drive craps out. 2TB will last a long time as each year you go back and try to streamline your collection of keepers. And for those who want backups for the business side of photography, simply offering your client 1 year after the shoot before the data is lost (other than shots you want to keep for your portfolio) is more than enough time. Even then the number of shots you would normally keep for a portfolio should fit on a DL DVD or a USB memory stick (they are getting very big now days!).

You probably missed this because you seemed to have missed most of the points of my post, but the DS, K10, K20, and K-7 aren't P&S cameras, and I don't cull my old shots because I do this for fun. You don't seem to be able to fathom that different people get different things out of photography.

I shoot birds because I like to, and I like being able to go over the shots I took, examine the differences from year to year, note the progression, or lack thereof and try to correlate these with changes in gear and changes in technique. I do this to plan out the coming season of shooting and often re-incorporate some of the old thoughts and methods into my present shooting style.

I choose to do this because I don't take myself and my hobby so seriously that I feel the need to perceive that I must squeeze the last bit of IQ out of every shot. Photography only costs me money, I purposefully make nothing back from it. I have never sold a photograph and refuse to do so. I've had requests, and normally just give away the prints if someone shows what I feel is a genuine appreciation for them. I donated a bunch of prints to the local Nature Center that they use in their Naturalist displays. What I've gotten back from photography is about 10 years of reasonably active life, a whole lot of satisfaction in accomplishment, and some photos that illustrate my fascination with nature and a different perspective that I can share with others.

If you really read my post, it actually repeatedly pointed to the potential technical superiority of RAW vs Jpeg, and I think that you'll find in the various similar threads that I pointed to that most, if not all Jpeg shooters acknowledge this, but shoot Jpegs anyway for whatever reason, suggesting the OP to try both and make their own choice. It's usually the RAW shooters that get all huffy and try to convince everyone that if you don't shoot RAW, you're not a "serious" photographer.

I'll point out at this time that ALL camera mfgs have devoted a serious amount of time and effort (and R&D money) to provide an incredibly wide selection of in-camera image parameter tweaks and features that are only valid for Jpeg output in their highest grade semi pro and professional models. This aspect of the feature set is constantly expanding, so is obviously considered a priority. If this issue is so clear cut, why do they bother? It should also be mentioned that enough users of all brands of DSLRs who shoot RAW use third party RAW converters to make this a very profitable genre of software development. If top performing bodies and the supposedly serious photographers that would buy them were really meant to shoot RAW only, why wouldn't the camera mfgs be offering the most sophisticated RAW processors, dedicated to their proprietary RAW formats?

I was just trying to present what I felt was a reasonably objective overview of the controversy from a hobbiest shooter -- a pretty serious one -- who has heard all the arguments, seriously considered them with numerous cameras, and has made a conscious decision to shoot Jpegs in a very technically demanding genre of photography.

I'm not trying to convince you -- just defending my post -- which I stand by. . .

Scott

[snostorm]

Now had you shot those pics in RAW, the level of detail you could bring through using Camera RAW, Photoshop, Lightroom.. any program would be far superior to the standard jpeg. To me it becomes the question of "Do you care enough about your pictures to do PP work?" if yes, shoot RAW... if no then Jpeg.. but thats what P&S and super zoom camera's are for.

Hi Chex,

This is unnecessarily dismissive. Words are easy, I posted a pic to illustrate a point. Perhaps you would care to do the same to substantiate your claim.

You state that that a RAW file would produce "far superior" detail. Illustrate this for us with some real 100% crops. Then explain how this would practically benefit me for my normal target output: 8x10 prints (sometimes larger), reduced sized web display, or full res display on a standard computer monitor.

I know you're not a birder from your gear list, but you show a considerable lack of understanding about the effect of downsizing algorithms on fine detail with this post. This level of feather detail, even from a vertical crop of a landscape shot, taken with a 14.6 MP camera downsized to 800 pixels on the long side is normally considered quite a bit better than just okay. . . and the unaltered 100% crop backs up my claim IMO. This is about a 5" long wild White Throated Sparrow shot at 714mm from about 8-10 feet. The ultimate resolution is probably hampered by the use of stacked 1.7x and 1.4x telconverters on an FA*300/2.8 ED [IF], but in my estimation, it's a pretty good shot.

I was careful to present my case with "IMO" and "for me" and "for my purposes" qualifiers. YMMV.

I actually didn't expect to get flamed for my post as I thought I presented a reasonably objective perspective. I can appreciate a good counter-argument backed with some evidence, but hollow claims of superiority are just blowing smoke. . .

Scott

[snostorm]

in reality, the real proof would be your entire photo library.

You could show sequential file names, which included your photos, dates taken, and proof of where you were on those dates.

It will be the entire package that is proof.

yes a serious hacker probably could defeat all of it, but that is not the killer issue

most improper use of photos comes from copying off the internet, however that gives another possible protection. If you post proof sheets on a website of all your work, that would show image and location just fine.

Edit note

Photo me, among others shows an internal serial number for your camera. as a result, unless someone deliberately changes or erases the serial number you can show proof of ownership.

Hi Lowell,

I think you are correct. I'm a bit paranoid, so I only upload significantly reduced resolution pics to the web, anywhere. I doubt if I could police the entire world for copyright infringement if someone wanted to use any of my posted pics without authorization, and I'm not inclined to try, so my paranoia only runs so deep. I'm sure that the proliferation of photo sharing sites and photography fora has encouraged any number of individuals to "borrow" images posted instead of paying a stock photo company or a professional for legit use.

It would be hard to restore 1/2MP to a file even a little larger with any credibility. I've tried. . . This res might be okay for a decent 5x7, but would be a stretch for a commercially viable 8x10 IMO.

The possession of a 14MP (or whatever) original, along with possibly other images from the sequence would be a pretty convincing case, I would think. Probably the best defense that probably could be mounted would be to strip the exif, then claim that the original was mistakenly overwritten after editing. This would be pitifully weak, even against the simple possession of the original.

Scott

[Coeurdechene]

I presented a reasonably objective perspective.

It sure was reasonable, argumented and with a foto to illustrate your point.
But RAW lets you rescue some shots where you failed to get the correct exposure. Someone in his post stated that if the exposure was correct Jpgs were perfectly usable and difficult to distinguish from Raw. It's that if that is not so important when shooting RAW, and it's one of the reasons i chose it, (that and that i like using my Raw treatment programs).

Cool shot by the way.

[Lowell Goudge]

It sure was reasonable, argumented and with a foto to illustrate your point.
But RAW lets you rescue some shots where you failed to get the correct exposure. Someone in his post stated that if the exposure was correct Jpgs were perfectly usable and difficult to distinguish from Raw. It's that if that is not so important when shooting RAW, and it's one of the reasons i chose it, (that and that i like using my Raw treatment programs).

Cool shot by the way.

Not to deliberately add to the debate, but someone else commented that if you don't shoot raw you are not serious about photography, (I hope I did not take this out of context) but... if you are not overly concerned about getting the exposure right, and that is why yoiu shoot RAW, someone could infer you shoot RAW because you are not that serious about photography.

I never liked the arument that you plan for mistakes, sure we all make them, but rescue should not be the normal mode of operation. When we shot film, we did not have rescue mode, that's where I learned to pay attention. If anything this attitude makes us sloppy in my opinion.

[Coeurdechene]

someone could infer you shoot RAW because you are not that serious about photography.

i'm not Dead serious about it, just having fun and aesthetic pleasure, no need to become a big shot or the next Araki (not that i would not like it though)...
And i think i'm not "planning for mistakes", i do take care to get the correct exposure, usually shoot again the scene if it's under or over exposed...But sometimes when timing is precious, if you fail, it's nice to know you can recover that photo. Reminds me a bit the "chimping" discussion, Raw is there and can be used to our advantage (just as the lcd display) so why not use it?
i'm still learning and i'm sure having those "rescue modes" does not hamper my learning..it just lets me save some shots that otherwise i would not have the possibility of using (especially in difficult lighting conditions).
Just experiment with everything and use what finally suits your tastes, RAW or Jpeg, it doesn't matter, the goal is to enjoy what you are doing and be satisfied with the results.

If anything this attitude makes us sloppy in my opinion.

Don't agree...but to be truthfull i did take a film body and i enter a marvelled state when i take my dad's hassy. It does has some powerfull mistique to be able to do things right without the digital "crutches".
I gotta say those crutches do make learning much easier and pleasurable instead of dificult and frustrating, i see them as a plus not as something that makes us sloppy.

[Chex]

If you really read my post, it actually repeatedly pointed to the potential technical superiority of RAW vs Jpeg, and I think that you'll find in the various similar threads that I pointed to that most, if not all Jpeg shooters acknowledge this, but shoot Jpegs anyway for whatever reason, suggesting the OP to try both and make their own choice.

I agree try both, but they made this thread for info and opinions.. a million sites to google about it, they asked.

I actually didn't expect to get flamed for my post as I thought I presented a reasonably objective perspective. I can appreciate a good counter-argument backed with some evidence, but hollow claims of superiority are just blowing smoke. . .

Isn't this semi-sorta contradicting your above quote?

I didn't intend for you to feel "flamed" upon. I guess I should have used more IMO's.
If you read the rest of what transpired between me and Frogfish, you would see that I intend to shooting RAW+jpeg and editing them both to see what can and/or can't be duplicated using jpeg. You and Frog may be right for most shots that are properly exposed or very close to it. But I like others would rather be able to rescue the shot than say "maybe next time".

I would be interested to see if the shot of your cat would be anymore recoverable in RAW form though. It is a good test, but if I were taking that shot, I would lower the ISO and recover it using Camera RAW and probably come out with much clearer details.

[calicojack]

<snip> Granted you have to have the time to do the PP work, no difference from photographers doing that extra cared darkroom work with film. Simply taking the roll of film to the 1 hr photo doesn't get the same results as working it in your own darkroom for getting the colors/saturation etc you were after.

I go back and forth in my mind between shooting jpeg and raw. I almost always end up using jpeg. Yes, I have gotten stung several times by not having my white balance set correctly for day time after shooting artificially lit dining rooms or other subjects the night before. Raw could have fixed that and it's just too far gone for the jpeg to be brought back, at least through PS Elements 8.

The end of Chex's statement quoted above is the real best reasoning I've seen or heard to use raw more often. In the film days, I used to shoot mostly B&W and process / print myself. I did some color printing but usually my color film went to a processing house. I actually won a few juried art awards for my B&W shots but my color shots never got to that level.

Maybe I should start using raw more often when I'm out on a self assignment and just stay with jpeg for my everyday, vacation and record keeping shots.

[twitch]

I'll give a good reason for shooting RAW+JPEG.

If shooting RAW is a kind of insurance against stuffing up settings, shooting RAW+JPEG is insurance for recovering images off a bung SD card.

I had a SD card go bad whilst shooting RAW+JPEG. On the Mac the only SD recovery software avialable I could find can only recover JPEG images, not RAW. So I was able to get the JPEG images back off this bad card but the RAWs were gone. If I have been RAW only then I would be sunk.