Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-06-2013, 04:56 PM   #16
Pentaxian
Aegon's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 1,414
I shot JPG for about half a year. Then I took a great photo of my daughter, really cute, one that I wanted to keep forever, except that the highlights were blown and the white balance was off. The WB could be adjusted, somewhat, but the highlights are gone forever. I wish I had that file in RAW.

To avoid a repeat, I shoot RAW only now. One less excuse.

01-06-2013, 05:11 PM   #17
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: New York
Posts: 4,096
I take around 1/3 of my photos in poor light so I often need to adjust exposure. I tried raw(DNG) + JPG for a while. My line of thought was to use the JPG first for sharing or printing at small sizes, and if the photo needed editing then I had the DNG to fall back on. After a few months of that I changed to only DNG because it's easier to manage a single copy of each image.
01-06-2013, 05:14 PM   #18
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
QuoteOriginally posted by elliott Quote
I'm willing to bet that people missed exposure a lot, but thanks to the latitude of negative film and the corrections done by whoever processed it, you would never know.

Developing a RAW is like developing your own film, it takes more time, but you are in more control of the process. Shooting in JPEG is like a Polaroid or just dropping off some film at the nearest 1hr booth and hoping for the best. It comes down to whether you want to make the decisions about the processing or if you want them made for you.
All my color work was Kodachrome and Ektachrome-I suppose that both dates me and shows where I come from, but of course, I always exposed for highlights using color.

Please do not take any of this as a criticism of your workflow or your enjoyment of it. I like making photographs, and I try to eliminate any work that isn't fun or necessary for me to do so. I certainly can see the attraction-it's just that for me, I can't see the point.
01-06-2013, 05:17 PM   #19
Veteran Member
westmill's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Stoke on Trent
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,146
Yup, people often state and or talk about JPGs as if you cant edit a JPG. That is total rubbish. You can do lots with a JPG just as you can a RAW. As has been said though, a RAW just gives you a little more headroom in most departments. If you are after the best poss you shoot RAW. The gains are small but they are there.
There is certainly nothing wrong with shooting JPG. A lot depends on the camera of course. Most modern cameras produce great JPGs. If you do shoot JPGs though I always advise making two lots on your PC. Then at least you always have the originals too. I prefer RAW but its a matter of more keeping the negs for me. A raw in itself is useless, so they still end up as JPGs for the most part anyway. There is another side of things too. If you have a good program, and you edit JPGs you could argue that you may as well shoot RAW anyway. Then there are arguments again for shooting in JPG. Faster and longer frame rates, auto lens corrections etc so it is all swings and roundabouts. The bottom line is you shoot what suits you and you are happy with. Once you know all the pros and cons it is easier to decide.
It is no different than choosing aperture or shutter priority in your camera. They are just choices or tools that can be used.

01-06-2013, 05:17 PM   #20
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,301
QuoteOriginally posted by Aegon Quote
I shot JPG for about half a year. Then I took a great photo of my daughter, really cute, one that I wanted to keep forever, except that the highlights were blown .
Yep, RAW saved my bacon for the same reason:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-flashes-lighting-technique/206929-...ml#post2187602

I was able to create several jpegs from the RAW image and do a pseudo HDR to recover most of the blown highlights.
01-06-2013, 05:36 PM   #21
Veteran Member
demp10's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Atlanta
Photos: Albums
Posts: 602
One thing to remember is the camera always captures a RAW image from the sensor. The JPG out of the camera is the result of the build in software that converts the captured RAW to JPG using whatever algorithm was in the latest firmware.

As we all have seen, there have been quite dramatic improvements in the quality of RAW converters over the years. An image that was originally converted with Lightroom1 can be significantly improved if re-converted with Lightroom 4. As software gets better, we can expect even further improvements.

Shooting (and storing) images in RAW format is an insurance policy that you'll get the best possible conversion now and in the future. With JPG you will stay at the current conversion technology.

Storage is very cheap these days and with the option to shoot RAW+ where you get a JPG for instant consumption, it makes little sense not to preserve the RAW data, just in case.
01-06-2013, 05:37 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
JimJohnson's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,301
QuoteOriginally posted by luker Quote
All my color work was Kodachrome and Ektachrome-I suppose that both dates me and shows where I come from, but of course, I always exposed for highlights using color.

Please do not take any of this as a criticism of your workflow or your enjoyment of it. I like making photographs, and I try to eliminate any work that isn't fun or necessary for me to do so. I certainly can see the attraction-it's just that for me, I can't see the point.
LOL. I was (am) an Ektachrome fan. When Ektachrome became harder to get was the turning point to digital.

Interestingly, the EASIEST home-lab color printing arrived near the end of Ektachrome and Kodachrome's life - and guess what? It wasn't printing from color negatives, but from slides. You CAN manipulate jpegs a great deal in post-processing, but from my perspective, post-processing from RAW is closer to printing from slides than post-processing from jpeg.

I enjoy looking at my slides with a light box, and I still own a table-top rear projector - but for those images I was really prooud of, they became framed prints.
01-06-2013, 06:31 PM   #23
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 45
Does doing just a RAW conversion and nothing else (no further post processing) usually yield a superior image to jpeg, or is more tweaking usually needed?

If the answer is nothing else then I might try shooting RAW as I'm running against a big constraint ... time. The thought of learning, then using post processing software on hundreds of pictures is daunting.

01-06-2013, 06:35 PM   #24
New Member




Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 20
Not superior, may not even be different. Without corrections, you are just trading one set of presets for another.
01-06-2013, 06:51 PM   #25
Junior Member




Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 45
QuoteOriginally posted by luker Quote
Not superior, may not even be different. Without corrections, you are just trading one set of presets for another.
Ok thanks. Guess I'll stick with jpeg for now. Wish I had the time like so many others seem to have.
01-06-2013, 07:09 PM   #26
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 11,189
QuoteOriginally posted by arcturus Quote
Wish I had the time like so many others seem to have.
Or take. Of course, this really depends on how much you want to get out of your camera. I think most people on these forums are advanced amateurs or professionals, the kind of people that take photography seriously enough to devote time and money.
If you will shoot jpeg, that is also fine. I just suggest you read up on WB, because this can really make or break a photo. The rest, the camera can do fairly well on its own.
01-06-2013, 07:10 PM   #27
Pentaxian
Lowell Goudge's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Toronto
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 15,469
QuoteOriginally posted by Aegon Quote
I shot JPG for about half a year. Then I took a great photo of my daughter, really cute, one that I wanted to keep forever, except that the highlights were blown and the white balance was off. The WB could be adjusted, somewhat, but the highlights are gone forever. I wish I had that file in RAW.

To avoid a repeat, I shoot RAW only now. One less excuse.
The highlights were probably blown in raw also
01-06-2013, 07:37 PM   #28
Forum Member
Heelers's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 57
This is a great read! Thanks to all who have replied so far. As another film convert this has been very helpful? I seem some 32 mb cards in my future. Shooting Jpeg now as I learn the camera, will switch to RAW once I get comfortable.
01-06-2013, 08:08 PM   #29
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,206
If a shot is overexposed meaning the sensor was saturated, there is no way to recover the level information above saturation in either Raw or jpg.
And lowering the EV (moving the Histogram to the left) is just as effective editing in jpg as it is in raw.
That's just how it works, and easy for anyone to demonstrate; shooting combined raw and 8 MB camera jpgs and comparing on the screen.

If a shot is underexposed then some resolution in the brightness range is lost. For example if the histogram had a maximum of 127 insted of 255, then the level resolution in the brighter parts is in steps of 0.787 % instead of 0.347%
Using sRGB Eizo (8 bit levels) here.
So I shot an underexposed shot in dim tungsten light and rescaled histogram in the raw to make a ppm similar to the jpg.
Of course, the gammas, white balance, unsharp mask etc can all be adjusted just the same in jpg as they can in raw.
I corrected the raw to be similar to the camera jpg.
(The camera had moved the histogram to the right to partially correct the underexposure and also sharpened the slightly mis-focussed image a little)
I was looking to see if the loss of resolution in the jpg from camera was apparent, but I could not see it.
I don't know if just the human eye can't detect the coarser level steps, or if the sRGB output space is the limit (how can it not be?), or both.

Anyway all this just confirms my opinion that IN MY CASE (using 8 bit sRGB) there is no real gain by using raw. -Maybe until wider gamut and higher bit level monitor comes along
01-06-2013, 08:30 PM   #30
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
mikeSF's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: East Bay Area, CA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,015
While I can understand the ease of letting the camera generate a processed jpg by itself and not spending the extra time at the computer manipulating RAWs, I am way too much of a control freak to ever consider shooting in jpg. No way, not a chance. Far too limiting for my needs. And yes, I've done it, trust me, I have. To each their own, I suppose.
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, jpeg, pentax help, photography, quality
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
RAW to JPEG nathancombs Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 9 10-16-2011 07:24 PM
RAW to jpeg wildman Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 14 05-22-2011 02:51 PM
RAW to JPEG Krzys Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 6 04-25-2011 10:32 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Pentax K10D - RAW or jpeg for maximum image quality? rrobinson54 Photographic Technique 31 09-09-2007 11:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:32 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top