[Lowell Goudge]

In a very narrow world this may be true. Let's go back to the analogy of RAW and JPG being similar to Negative film and print. Using JPG only is like telling the local Costco girl just give me the prints and throw away those pesky negatives.

Not quite. when you take film in and get prints, they do a lot of processing you actually don't want. they adjust exposure and contrast to suit their "norms" not specifically yours. Just bracket a shot and take it in to them!

Also they print in 600 by 480 resolution..

JPEGS are not throwing away basic resolution, really all they do is reduce the data from 12 bit to 8 bit, apply your settings for saturation and contrast, and apply some level of sharpening in camera.

To make a direct analogy of your metaphore here, we would have everything printed at 100 dpi, therefore my *istD images would be 30" x 20" and my K10D images would be 39" x 26" How much would that cost!

You say that you hardly ever post process, That is great if your intended output is one device and only one device. What if one of your precious relatives says "remember that picture you took of you-know-who, I would love to have that as an 8x10." So now you go back to your JPG and for a print you need to enlarge then sharpen your image. In every world I live in (and some think it's more than one, or maybe that's just in my head ) using a RAW file would be much better than any JPG.

It is not that I don't post process, I routinely crop resize etc, I have just not found a need, for example to dig into the mud to enhance shadows, and have not found color corrections, especially WB to demand better than 8 bit colour for correction. Also I print anywhere from 8x 10 to 13 x 19, on 2 different printers one with a 6 ink system, the other with 8 inks, and also print significantly cropped images, as wella s viewing everything on a 22 inch monitor.
I find sharpening from JPEGs works fine, as does noise reduction, at least to the level needed, both of these can get seriously out of hand when over done, and I have seen examples even in print media where this is done routinely.

I think the real point here is, not that your workflow is more or less, or even knowing your camera, it is the ability to smartly archive and preserve the moment you are trying to capture with the most fidelity possible. This is the only way you can then manipulate the image properly to adjust it to any version of the reality your memory allows, at any point in the future.

there is no argument that raw stores more data, the issue is do you need it.

[reeftool]

I shoot JPEG around 95% of the time and have no complaints. My settings are pretty close to the factory defaults. I have sharpen and contrast at +1 and use aperture ring enabled. Its been long enough since I set things that I had to scroll through my menu to check what I had for settings to reply. I do tend to sharpen a lot of pictures (1 click in Picasa) so maybe I could tweak the in camera sharpen some. I don't like spending a lot of time in PP. On occasion I have to spend some time fixing a shot I messed up but I can't blame the camera for that. Spending a few seconds more to bracket and take a couple extra shots is easier than an hour in PP.
Its also quite possible that as my eyesight is not what it once was, I'm just not seeing things that I should or maybe I'm just not fussy enough.

[sevenarrow]

I remember when the K10D first came out. Everyone had nothing but praise for the pics coming out of this camera. Pics were displayed in forums and everyone oohed and aahed over them. I even remember many saying how sharp the pics were and the praise went on and on. Then DPREVIEW came out with their review saying the JPGS were soft. The mass hysteria in response was incredible. Overnight there was wailing and nashing of teeth. Everyone was angry. The day before the review no one noticed the so-called softness but suddenly it was all anyone could see.

As far as I'm concerned, soft JPGS is the default for every make and model of DSLR out there. It's especially noticeable to P&S users transitioning to DSLRs. They are always disappointed that pics straight out of their DSLRs are not as sharp as those from their P&S where there is a lot of heavy in-camera processing going on.

[jeffkrol]

Not quite. when you take film in and get prints, they do a lot of processing you actually don't want. they adjust exposure and contrast to suit their "norms" not specifically yours. Just bracket a shot and take it in to them!

Also they print in 600 by 480 resolution..

JPEGS are not throwing away basic resolution, really all they do is reduce the data from 12 bit to 8 bit, apply your settings for saturation and contrast, and apply some level of sharpening in camera.

To make a direct analogy of your metaphore here, we would have everything printed at 100 dpi, therefore my *istD images would be 30" x 20" and my K10D images would be 39" x 26" How much would that cost!


It is not that I don't post process, I routinely crop resize etc, I have just not found a need, for example to dig into the mud to enhance shadows, and have not found color corrections, especially WB to demand better than 8 bit colour for correction. Also I print anywhere from 8x 10 to 13 x 19, on 2 different printers one with a 6 ink system, the other with 8 inks, and also print significantly cropped images, as wella s viewing everything on a 22 inch monitor.
I find sharpening from JPEGs works fine, as does noise reduction, at least to the level needed, both of these can get seriously out of hand when over done, and I have seen examples even in print media where this is done routinely.

there is no argument that raw stores more data, the issue is do you need it.

Your technique and attention to detail are probably steps above most "shooters" and obviously you never shot a bunch of outdoor photos w/ a tungsten WB preset. Extreme screwups in white balance are extremely difficult (for most mere mortals) to repair in 8bit jpg... At the very least it is much more time consuming.
I still liken jpg to "polaroid" film and you are "throwing away the negative" for a good deal of data. jpg is compressed and lossy. By definition detail is lost. Weather it's data you need or I need, or anyone needs is arguable of course.
Jpg is fine but as a global recommendation... not really.

[Lowell Goudge]

Your technique and attention to detail are probably steps above most "shooters" and obviously you never shot a bunch of outdoor photos w/ a tungsten WB preset. Extreme screwups in white balance are extremely difficult (for most mere mortals) to repair in 8bit jpg... At the very least it is much more time consuming.

I guess you never went out with a film camera (prior to DX coding) and shot a whole roll at the wrong ISO? OOPS!

When it was on film screw ups cost a lot, and you learned very quickly to pay attention to detail.

SOme of that is lost in a digital world, electrons are free, and as a result this could promote carelessness.

In a lot of the responses back, I saw people praise the flexability of RAW, the ability to improve or save screw ups, etc, but very few actually come out and say that raw images are better Even though at the extreme limits I would agree they are.

I also don't disagree with the flexibility or lost data issues as there is always some loss when you compress a 12 bit chanel down to 8 bits, especially when fixing errors.

I don't consider my attention to detail any better than most photographers, and I have experimented with the JPEG settings, in fact, I change settings as I would have done in the past with film, it is all a question of approach. I prefer to think a little in advance then to spend time afterward fixing my mistakes.

[Bart]

... Then DPREVIEW came out with their review saying the JPGS were soft. The mass hysteria in response was incredible. Overnight there was wailing and nashing of teeth. Everyone was angry. The day before the review no one noticed the so-called softness but suddenly it was all anyone could see.

If you'd like to follow this link, you could read a very balanced review from Jeff Keller, illustrated by some examples of JPEG versus RAW.
Don't forget to visit his test gallery and take a look at his full size comparisons between JPEG and converted RAW.
I don't see any hysteria in this review. Do you?

[jeffkrol]

I guess you never went out with a film camera (prior to DX coding) and shot a whole roll at the wrong ISO? OOPS!

When it was on film screw ups cost a lot, and you learned very quickly to pay attention to detail.

SOme of that is lost in a digital world, electrons are free, and as a result this could promote carelessness.

In a lot of the responses back, I saw people praise the flexability of RAW, the ability to improve or save screw ups, etc, but very few actually come out and say that raw images are better Even though at the extreme limits I would agree they are.

I also don't disagree with the flexibility or lost data issues as there is always some loss when you compress a 12 bit chanel down to 8 bits, especially when fixing errors.

I don't consider my attention to detail any better than most photographers, and I have experimented with the JPEG settings, in fact, I change settings as I would have done in the past with film, it is all a question of approach. I prefer to think a little in advance then to spend time afterward fixing my mistakes.

I usually edit in 16bit TIFF. Only time I go to 8bit is in final image.
The RAW vs jpg is debate is as old as digital cameras.
I do totally agree that a dollop of photographic common sense goes a long way to mildly favor jpg but if the jpg is good enough, so is the RAW. ONLY contraint is memory space and a batch convert (w/ no changes is a very swift process). Of course field showing of images favors jpg but RAW +jpg works fine too...


ps I shot a whole roll of tungsten balanced slide film in daylight... they were never corrected but once in awhile laugh at me......

[WheresWaldo]

If you'd like to follow this link, you could read a very balanced review from Jeff Keller, illustrated by some examples of JPEG versus RAW.
Don't forget to visit his test gallery and take a look at his full size comparisons between JPEG and converted RAW.
I don't see any hysteria in this review. Do you?

I know the point you are trying to make but I am not sure that comparing in-camera JPEG and ACR converted RAW images are really fair, at least when it comes to contrast and color. As far as sharpness goes, I do agree that 12bit images when working with 16bit apps will have more detail recorded than 8bit images. I think with proper manipulation of internal camera settings you can get close. I actually like Jeff's review except for this one aspect.

I usually edit in 16bit TIFF. Only time I go to 8bit is in final image.
The RAW vs jpg is debate is as old as digital cameras.
I do totally agree that a dollop of photographic common sense goes a long way to mildly favor jpg but if the jpg is good enough, so is the RAW. ONLY contraint is memory space and a batch convert (w/ no changes is a very swift process). Of course field showing of images favors jpg but RAW +jpg works fine too...


ps I shot a whole roll of tungsten balanced slide film in daylight... they were never corrected but once in awhile laugh at me......

+1. I also think that with all the easy peasy lemon squeezy ways to automagically convert RAW images to JPEG where is the real advantage to JPEG anymore. It is rare that I take my camera and hand it to my wife so that she can look at the images I took on the little 2.7" screen. I do see the advantage to RAW+JPEG if you need to show someone the results in a hurry, but I think I will be getting a netbook real soon as my MS Cashback rolls in to solve that particular issue.