Raw vs Jpeg?

Chex · 03-21-2011, 04:35 PM

Good call twitch, I haven't had the unfortunate but probably inevitable SD card errors yet. hmm Maybe I should be shooting RAW+ and then when I load them to the computer wipe the jpegs.

twitch · 03-21-2011, 04:40 PM

Originally posted by Chex

Good call twitch, I haven't had the unfortunate but probably inevitable SD card errors yet. hmm Maybe I should be shooting RAW+ and then when I load them to the computer wipe the jpegs.

With Aperture you can choose whether to import RAWs only, JPEGs only or both. I just leave it on RAWs only knowing that the JPEGs are there just in case something goes wrong with the RAWs. Once I know the RAWs are good, I'll then format the card (in camera) and never even look or import the JPEGs.

snostorm · 03-22-2011, 01:18 AM

Originally posted by Chex

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

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.

Hi Chex,

Just how does the second contradict the first in any way?

"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."

Translation: I stated that RAW is potentially superior to Jpeg technically. Most Jpeg shooters admit this, but shoot jpegs for their own reasons. I suggested that the Original Poster try both and pick one himself.

"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. . ."

Translation: I didn't expect to get dissed since I tried to give both sides. I don't mind a discussion of my points if they're backed with some examples. Just saying something like "you're wrong" with a superior attitude and implying that I don't care about the quality of my images doesn't count as a discussion of my points.

Does that kinda sorta make it clearer? No contradiction.

BTW the "kinda sorta" thing is also condescending. You obviously aren't willing to even try to appear to give me any respect, so I have no problem stooping. . .

Your post does reveal a something significant though.

"I intend to shooting RAW+jpeg and editing them both to see what can and/or can't be duplicated using jpeg. "

Which kinda sorta (stooping again) implies that you haven't actually tried comparing them yet, and aren't speaking from personal experience . . . As I said, just blowing smoke. . .

LR 3 is supposed to have RAW NR that rivals Topaz Denoise for NR. I haven't heard anyone say that it's superior, so I'm not inclined to learn a new program to find out and will use what I have. In any case, I don't believe that any RAW processor offers deconvolution sharpening, so I'd still have to PP the jpeg anyway since I'm pretty sure that both Focus Magic and Topaz InFocus only work on 8 bit files.

I really don't need to redo the cat shot test. At ISO 12800, low contrast details like the ones I was looking for are pretty sure to be lost to either the noise or the NR shooting either format. I was just playing with the camera to see what I could get out of it. I did see one thing -- that at ISO 12800, the fur and whiskers lines weren't broken up by the noise and NR so this can be a useful setting for reasonable quality snapshots and smaller prints for me shooting in jpeg with this camera.

If I really wanted a high quality detailed shot, I'd put him under lights or use flash and ISO 80-100 with the lens stopped down. With sensitivity bumped that high, there are going to be a lot of compromises to the IQ, even with such an amazing sensor.

I've said all I have to say on this subject and will let it rest. . .

Scott

cats_five · 03-22-2011, 04:37 AM

I wonder if the OP has given up yet with this thread?

Chex · 03-22-2011, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by snostorm

Translation: I didn't expect to get dissed since I tried to give both sides. I don't mind a discussion of my points if they're backed with some examples. Just saying something like "you're wrong" with a superior attitude and implying that I don't care about the quality of my images doesn't count as a discussion of my points.

I never in anyway shape or form ever claimed to be superior.. we're talking file formats here.. you state that technically speaking RAW is superior, then you say people who believe this are blowing smoke? BUT.. if it was directed at me, as you apparently were, then thats fine.. everyone is entitled to an opinion. Just note that the OP wanted to know the advantages of shooting RAW over jpeg, we've done nothing but banter back and forth HOPEFULLY the only good to come of this will be that he gets all the info between the lines.. and see's that we can all be @$$3$ sometimes. :/

**NaClH2O** · 03-22-2011, 10:00 AM

Originally posted by cats_five

I wonder if the OP has given up yet with this thread?

The smart answer is to shoot in Raw + Jpeg. That way you can't go wrong!

NaCl(I choose all of the above)H2O

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-22-2011, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

snip........
NaCl(I choose all of the above)H2O

so that's what's wrong with the USA in elections. "all of the above"

**NaClH2O** · 03-22-2011, 10:51 AM

Originally posted by Lowell Goudge

so that's what's wrong with the USA in elections. "all of the above"

Actually Lowell the problem with elections here is: "he what gots the most money wins".

NaCl(frequently I wish I could vote for none of the above)H2O

**Lowell Goudge** · 03-22-2011, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by NaClH2O

Actually Lowell the problem with elections here is: "he what gots the most money wins".

NaCl(frequently I wish I could vote for none of the above)H2O

True on first part. For your signature you forget the movie Brewster's Millions

cardinal43 · 03-22-2011, 01:40 PM

Originally posted by Chex

RAW vs JPEG?AdoramaTV from Adorama Learning Center
Watch this.. should clear up any questions

IMHO, this is an excellent explanation.

Stardog · 03-23-2011, 11:37 AM

I am not a professional photographer by any stretch, just an amateur shooter who is still learning the tricks of the digital slr world with my K-x. The more I understand the world of photography and the principles of taking good pictures, the more empowered I feel. If knowledge is power, then I find myself in learning mode 24/7.

Just two things regarding RAW:

1. Selecting RAW with my K-x, I am offered two save options - PEF (default) or DNG. Are there any pluses or minuses for choosing one over the other? Don't understand the difference between the two.

2. Personally, 95% of my shots are JPG. However, for the time being I always shoot some in RAW for one reason only. It gives me invaluable experience in learning the intricacies of post-processing. My best analogy is driving a car. If you just want to learn the basics of driving so you can get from point A to point B with minimal effort, then shoot JPG. However, if you want a deeper understanding of what exactly makes the car run so you can make repairs on your own should something go wrong on the highway, then shoot RAW. Like anything else, to become a good photographer one needs to have a basic understanding of the hows and whys, to see how all pieces of the puzzle interact. Working in RAW provides that learning experience. Just my opinion (which normally carries little weight with my friends anyway). Knowledge is power!

cats_five · 03-23-2011, 11:57 AM

When I had the PEF/DNG choice I approached it this way:

1) my software (CS4) can process PEFs from my K7, so that left the choice open.
2) I'm sure Photoshop will continue to support PEF - I'm not aware of them ever dropping support for a RAW format.
3) DNGs are (I believe) larger so I went for PEF.

snostorm · 03-23-2011, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by Stardog

1. Selecting RAW with my K-x, I am offered two save options - PEF (default) or DNG. Are there any pluses or minuses for choosing one over the other? Don't understand the difference between the two.

2. Personally, 95% of my shots are JPG. However, for the time being I always shoot some in RAW for one reason only. It gives me invaluable experience in learning the intricacies of post-processing. My best analogy is driving a car. If you just want to learn the basics of driving so you can get from point A to point B with minimal effort, then shoot JPG. However, if you want a deeper understanding of what exactly makes the car run so you can make repairs on your own should something go wrong on the highway, then shoot RAW. Like anything else, to become a good photographer one needs to have a basic understanding of the hows and whys, to see how all pieces of the puzzle interact. Working in RAW provides that learning experience. Just my opinion (which normally carries little weight with my friends anyway). Knowledge is power!

Hi Stardog,

My understanding is this:

PEF is a proprietary RAW format for the particular camera model that you have. In choosing RAW processors, you need to make sure that the program supports not just PEF, but specifically Kx PEF to ensure that it will work. PEF is a losslessly compressed RAW format. This means that when opened, it will contain all the image information contained in any RAW file. One problem with proprietary RAW formats is that it takes some time before software mfgs get around to offering updates to include their use in the program. Pentax, being a relatively minor player, usually takes longer than Canon and Nikon to get updated.

DNG is meant to be a "universal" RAW format. It was developed by Adobe (as in Photoshop), and is open source, so camera mfgs can use it without paying for licensing. I believe only a few camera makers have offered it as an available format. DNG, at least in Pentax's implementation is not compressed, so the files are larger. If you use DNG, then any program that recognizes the format can process the files and any DNG files that you get from any future cameras that you might get.

You can post process your jpegs to a very significant degree, just not to the extent that you can edit a RAW file. I PP just about every image I use, some very extensively, and I pretty much shoot jpegs. I suggest that you take some jpegs, open them in a good editing program, and start playing with the editing choices, taking them to their max settings. You'll see the range of adjustments that can be made, and might be impressed.

Scott

Chex · 03-23-2011, 06:02 PM

you can PP then almost to the same extent.. but if your exposure is out a fair amount, you can recover the RAW image with MUCH better clarity and detail than possible with a jpeg. On a K-5 you can recover a pretty much all black shot at ISO 100 to an image that looks decent but shot with ISO 1600-3200.

secateurs · 03-31-2011, 06:10 PM

How about someone post some shots that were taken in RAW+JPG mode, and post process both of them so we can all see what sort of difference there really is between the two? Maybe the same person process both, or a RAW fanatic process the RAW one and a JPG fanatic process the JPG one?

Or, to get really interesting, we could get a RAW fanatic to process the JPG and vice versa!

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
What do you use most Raw or Jpeg	Ivo_Spohr	Pentax DSLR Discussion	75	04-02-2010 09:04 PM
JPEG, RAW, JPEG + RAW...huh?	Raptorman	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	14	12-22-2009 11:49 AM
RAW or JPEG	tkcampbell	Pentax DSLR Discussion	24	12-13-2009 04:31 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM

03-21-2011, 04:35 PM	#46
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Good call twitch, I haven't had the unfortunate but probably inevitable SD card errors yet. hmm Maybe I should be shooting RAW+ and then when I load them to the computer wipe the jpegs.

03-21-2011, 04:40 PM	#47
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	Originally posted by Chex Good call twitch, I haven't had the unfortunate but probably inevitable SD card errors yet. hmm Maybe I should be shooting RAW+ and then when I load them to the computer wipe the jpegs. With Aperture you can choose whether to import RAWs only, JPEGs only or both. I just leave it on RAWs only knowing that the JPEGs are there just in case something goes wrong with the RAWs. Once I know the RAWs are good, I'll then format the card (in camera) and never even look or import the JPEGs.

03-22-2011, 01:18 AM	#48
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by Chex I agree try both, but they made this thread for info and opinions.. a million sites to google about it, they asked. 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. Hi Chex, Just how does the second contradict the first in any way? "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." Translation: I stated that RAW is potentially superior to Jpeg technically. Most Jpeg shooters admit this, but shoot jpegs for their own reasons. I suggested that the Original Poster try both and pick one himself. "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. . ." Translation: I didn't expect to get dissed since I tried to give both sides. I don't mind a discussion of my points if they're backed with some examples. Just saying something like "you're wrong" with a superior attitude and implying that I don't care about the quality of my images doesn't count as a discussion of my points. Does that kinda sorta make it clearer? No contradiction. BTW the "kinda sorta" thing is also condescending. You obviously aren't willing to even try to appear to give me any respect, so I have no problem stooping. . . Your post does reveal a something significant though. "I intend to shooting RAW+jpeg and editing them both to see what can and/or can't be duplicated using jpeg. " Which kinda sorta (stooping again) implies that you haven't actually tried comparing them yet, and aren't speaking from personal experience . . . As I said, just blowing smoke. . . LR 3 is supposed to have RAW NR that rivals Topaz Denoise for NR. I haven't heard anyone say that it's superior, so I'm not inclined to learn a new program to find out and will use what I have. In any case, I don't believe that any RAW processor offers deconvolution sharpening, so I'd still have to PP the jpeg anyway since I'm pretty sure that both Focus Magic and Topaz InFocus only work on 8 bit files. I really don't need to redo the cat shot test. At ISO 12800, low contrast details like the ones I was looking for are pretty sure to be lost to either the noise or the NR shooting either format. I was just playing with the camera to see what I could get out of it. I did see one thing -- that at ISO 12800, the fur and whiskers lines weren't broken up by the noise and NR so this can be a useful setting for reasonable quality snapshots and smaller prints for me shooting in jpeg with this camera. If I really wanted a high quality detailed shot, I'd put him under lights or use flash and ISO 80-100 with the lens stopped down. With sensitivity bumped that high, there are going to be a lot of compromises to the IQ, even with such an amazing sensor. I've said all I have to say on this subject and will let it rest. . . Scott

03-22-2011, 04:37 AM	#49
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	I wonder if the OP has given up yet with this thread?

03-22-2011, 06:50 AM	#50
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	Originally posted by snostorm Translation: I didn't expect to get dissed since I tried to give both sides. I don't mind a discussion of my points if they're backed with some examples. Just saying something like "you're wrong" with a superior attitude and implying that I don't care about the quality of my images doesn't count as a discussion of my points. I never in anyway shape or form ever claimed to be superior.. we're talking file formats here.. you state that technically speaking RAW is superior, then you say people who believe this are blowing smoke? BUT.. if it was directed at me, as you apparently were, then thats fine.. everyone is entitled to an opinion. Just note that the OP wanted to know the advantages of shooting RAW over jpeg, we've done nothing but banter back and forth HOPEFULLY the only good to come of this will be that he gets all the info between the lines.. and see's that we can all be @$$3$ sometimes. :/

03-22-2011, 10:00 AM	#51
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by cats_five I wonder if the OP has given up yet with this thread? The smart answer is to shoot in Raw + Jpeg. That way you can't go wrong! NaCl(I choose all of the above)H2O

03-22-2011, 10:41 AM	#52
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by NaClH2O snip........ NaCl(I choose all of the above)H2O so that's what's wrong with the USA in elections. "all of the above"

03-22-2011, 10:51 AM	#53
NaClH2O Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bronx NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,631	Originally posted by Lowell Goudge so that's what's wrong with the USA in elections. "all of the above" Actually Lowell the problem with elections here is: "he what gots the most money wins". NaCl(frequently I wish I could vote for none of the above)H2O

03-22-2011, 11:09 AM	#54
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,891	Originally posted by NaClH2O Actually Lowell the problem with elections here is: "he what gots the most money wins". NaCl(frequently I wish I could vote for none of the above)H2O True on first part. For your signature you forget the movie Brewster's Millions

03-22-2011, 01:40 PM	#55
cardinal43 Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,412	Originally posted by Chex RAW vs JPEG?AdoramaTV from Adorama Learning Center Watch this.. should clear up any questions IMHO, this is an excellent explanation.

03-23-2011, 11:37 AM	#56
Stardog Junior Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Houston, TX USA Posts: 32	I am not a professional photographer by any stretch, just an amateur shooter who is still learning the tricks of the digital slr world with my K-x. The more I understand the world of photography and the principles of taking good pictures, the more empowered I feel. If knowledge is power, then I find myself in learning mode 24/7. Just two things regarding RAW: 1. Selecting RAW with my K-x, I am offered two save options - PEF (default) or DNG. Are there any pluses or minuses for choosing one over the other? Don't understand the difference between the two. 2. Personally, 95% of my shots are JPG. However, for the time being I always shoot some in RAW for one reason only. It gives me invaluable experience in learning the intricacies of post-processing. My best analogy is driving a car. If you just want to learn the basics of driving so you can get from point A to point B with minimal effort, then shoot JPG. However, if you want a deeper understanding of what exactly makes the car run so you can make repairs on your own should something go wrong on the highway, then shoot RAW. Like anything else, to become a good photographer one needs to have a basic understanding of the hows and whys, to see how all pieces of the puzzle interact. Working in RAW provides that learning experience. Just my opinion (which normally carries little weight with my friends anyway). Knowledge is power!

03-23-2011, 11:57 AM	#57
cats_five Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Fife, Scotland Posts: 835	When I had the PEF/DNG choice I approached it this way: 1) my software (CS4) can process PEFs from my K7, so that left the choice open. 2) I'm sure Photoshop will continue to support PEF - I'm not aware of them ever dropping support for a RAW format. 3) DNGs are (I believe) larger so I went for PEF.

03-23-2011, 12:56 PM	#58
snostorm Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Chicago suburb, IL, USA Posts: 1,535	Originally posted by Stardog 1. Selecting RAW with my K-x, I am offered two save options - PEF (default) or DNG. Are there any pluses or minuses for choosing one over the other? Don't understand the difference between the two. 2. Personally, 95% of my shots are JPG. However, for the time being I always shoot some in RAW for one reason only. It gives me invaluable experience in learning the intricacies of post-processing. My best analogy is driving a car. If you just want to learn the basics of driving so you can get from point A to point B with minimal effort, then shoot JPG. However, if you want a deeper understanding of what exactly makes the car run so you can make repairs on your own should something go wrong on the highway, then shoot RAW. Like anything else, to become a good photographer one needs to have a basic understanding of the hows and whys, to see how all pieces of the puzzle interact. Working in RAW provides that learning experience. Just my opinion (which normally carries little weight with my friends anyway). Knowledge is power! Hi Stardog, My understanding is this: PEF is a proprietary RAW format for the particular camera model that you have. In choosing RAW processors, you need to make sure that the program supports not just PEF, but specifically Kx PEF to ensure that it will work. PEF is a losslessly compressed RAW format. This means that when opened, it will contain all the image information contained in any RAW file. One problem with proprietary RAW formats is that it takes some time before software mfgs get around to offering updates to include their use in the program. Pentax, being a relatively minor player, usually takes longer than Canon and Nikon to get updated. DNG is meant to be a "universal" RAW format. It was developed by Adobe (as in Photoshop), and is open source, so camera mfgs can use it without paying for licensing. I believe only a few camera makers have offered it as an available format. DNG, at least in Pentax's implementation is not compressed, so the files are larger. If you use DNG, then any program that recognizes the format can process the files and any DNG files that you get from any future cameras that you might get. You can post process your jpegs to a very significant degree, just not to the extent that you can edit a RAW file. I PP just about every image I use, some very extensively, and I pretty much shoot jpegs. I suggest that you take some jpegs, open them in a good editing program, and start playing with the editing choices, taking them to their max settings. You'll see the range of adjustments that can be made, and might be impressed. Scott

03-23-2011, 06:02 PM	#59
Chex Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: The 'Stoke, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,678	you can PP then almost to the same extent.. but if your exposure is out a fair amount, you can recover the RAW image with MUCH better clarity and detail than possible with a jpeg. On a K-5 you can recover a pretty much all black shot at ISO 100 to an image that looks decent but shot with ISO 1600-3200.

03-31-2011, 06:10 PM	#60
secateurs Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: Adelaide, Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 250	How about someone post some shots that were taken in RAW+JPG mode, and post process both of them so we can all see what sort of difference there really is between the two? Maybe the same person process both, or a RAW fanatic process the RAW one and a JPG fanatic process the JPG one? Or, to get really interesting, we could get a RAW fanatic to process the JPG and vice versa!