Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-12-2007, 02:11 AM   #1
Veteran Member
benjikan's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,308
The RAW vs JPEG Debate

Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. I wish to share with you some of my own observations and how it might aid in your decision as to which to choose. It will not be a technical discourse as I am not in a position to do so. It will be based on my observations and how the decision will affect the final outcome i.e. the print media.

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...


Last edited by benjikan; 07-12-2007 at 05:48 AM.
07-12-2007, 02:55 AM   #2
Veteran Member
Matjazz's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: EU/Slovenia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 774
Heard some people complaining that RAW means post processing. Not necessary. One can always batch convert RAW with default settings and be done in a couple of minutes leaving RAWs for eventual tweaking if needed later.
I never shoot JPEG.
07-12-2007, 02:57 AM   #3
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
newmikey's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,279
Nice analogy and well put. You are forgetting one thing: some people do not want to have to run any kind of software to prep an image before displaying, printing or posting it. These are the people that have an electronic photoframe in the house, shoot on vacation, shoot the kids and other pets.

Yet other people would like to use software but are concerned it will be complicated to learn how to use it properly. Again, if they choose a "simple" solution, they will be shunned by others for not using the top-of-the-line all-singing, all-dancing CS3.

I am often asked for advice by friends, family on both cameras and software. I always spend a lot of time digging to find their intentions, level of competence and what they expect. I never answer the 2 questions "what is the best camera?" and "what is the best image manipulation software?".

If I can interest them and if they are inclined to put some brain grease into it, I show them what can be done at varying levels of effort and I emphasize I myself am but an amateur like them.

For many, the best advice you can give them is a nice P&S from a good brand and Picasa for general enhancement. Just what they need and can handle.

Others would be best served by a solid bridge camera and Paint Shop Pro or the likes of it. Neither their equipment nor their software will prevent them from doing raw.

Yet others are served with a DSLR and Cinepaint/Digikam/Gimp/Fixfoto/Ufraw. I do always stress that they should not look at the advertisements in the newspaper, but set their expectations in terms of lens reach, printsize etc. and then peruse the reviews. I also make a point of telling them they should expect to spend exactly twice the amount advertised to get a good start.

I never propose Photoshop as it is as expensive as a DSLR and than some, I just find that gross. I also never propose to just buy "the best camera", leaving an amateur with a D200, 5D or K10D (I do not pretend I know what the "best" camera is, even!). That is setting them up for disappointment.

After all of the above, if they can, if they want, if they are willing to spend a teeny little bit more effort to shoot raw, I enthousiastically jump in to help.

I shoot RAW-only in the knowledge that I am not only creating an archive, I can also go back to these files after a while when my PP skills have increased and get even more out of them.

Bottom-line: I endorse your call but it is certainly not to everyone's taste.

Mike
07-12-2007, 04:58 AM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Antwerp, Belgium
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,727
Personally I have been shooting almost exclusively RAW since the 501th image out of my now retired *istDS.

I only shot about 20 JPGs with my K10D because I was filling an SD card at a retirement party for a colleague. That card was to be part of his retirement gift (with a digital photo frame) and I didn't want to bother him with any conversion troubles.

Workflow is no issue whatsoever. I use Adobe Photoshop Lightroom which has the same workflow for both JPGs and RAWs, so there's no difference. Great for sifting through hundreds of images with some easy to use and powerful image adjustment tools that can be applied to entire series of images if need be. The only time consuming part is the export, but that's a batch anyway. BTW, for travel pics (for showing to family and friends) I treat all JPGs out of my GF's P&S too, if only to achieve a more uniform look of a series.

Before Lightroom I worked a similar workflow with Adobe Camera RAW and Adobe Photoshop CS2, but there I actually found RAW easier than JPG because the workflow was build around RAW. Also it took much more diskspace than the PEF-converted-to-DNG-with-XMP I'm using now.

The main function of a piece of software for me is the selection possibilities it offers. I always shoot a lot (regardless subject or intended public) but never show too much to people to keep things interesting and make sure that every image is a new experience, hence selection is key. Image adjustments are required too, but the selection aspect is where Lightroom shines (and before ACR).

Wim

07-12-2007, 06:03 AM   #5
PDL
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: PNW USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,126
I currently shoot RAW exclusively. In the old days (when I had hair) when shooting film - we had this thing called the Negative - a PEF/DNG is the digital equivalent of that "thing". Now with slide film, you still have the reference point that you can always go back to - copy, enlarge etc. yet another "thing" - a point of reference.

I find myself having to tweak images as a matter of -- well I do things that if I could remember all the "rules" and took that little extra time to work the I might not need the tweak. (flat horizons, clean verticals, SR works great for left and right - I seem to be unable to not move forward and back for some reason - not related to age). So shooting RAW gives me the benifits of both film (print film) and slides. Back in the old days there was not a good way to convert color to B&W - now there is - digital is the one place where you can have your color/chrome/pan capabilites all in one spot. I do not like to crop and am of the opinion that if I have to crop, then I failed at some level of composition - just like with slides. Shoot the frame- the whole frame- nothing but the frame. Now if I could just hold the camera level.......

My workflow is based on using either PPL or Lightroom - but the underlying workflow is the same for either product. When asked about which camera to buy - I state that the person needs to get the most value for the money - get something that they can grow into.

RAW p;rovides the most information for the photographer - and digital is all about the information. Why would I limit myself to less information? I see JPEG as the digital equivalent of the print (because it is a common output format) and each time you photocopy a print - the details are lost in the translation.

It is all about the image - subject, content and composition. The way to the image starts with the most information -=> RAW

PDL

Last edited by PDL; 07-12-2007 at 06:09 AM. Reason: clarification
07-12-2007, 06:06 AM   #6
Veteran Member
attack11's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
just wanted to give a visual comparison between raw and jpg. both of these pictures were taken with the same camera, lens, settings and not even 10 minutes apart so there's no real difference in atmospheric conditions. nothing was done to the pictures, such as curve manipulation or level correction. just a crop and resize.

raw


jpg


working with all of the light data on your pc will yeild better colors. a camera is not going to compare to any raw converter found on a desktop computer.
07-12-2007, 06:29 AM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,026
QuoteOriginally posted by attack11 Quote
just wanted to give a visual comparison between raw and jpg. both of these pictures were taken with the same camera, lens, settings and not even 10 minutes apart so there's no real difference in atmospheric conditions. nothing was done to the pictures
But there's a big exposure difference which accounts for the blue sky. Look at the guy's t-shirt in both pics...one is really black and the other is dark grayish.

FWIW, I've been shooting JPEG w/ my K10D initially and it doesn't look like the crap reviews make it out to be. It seems to respond well to sharpening and has a lot of detail (compared to P&S output).

I will be doing RAW vs. JPEG comparisons for my curiosity and do intend to use RAW for scenics and important photos, but haven't decided on shooting RAW all the time yet (though probably will after I get a few more memory cards since you never know when that perfect picture will happen ;-)

07-12-2007, 06:37 AM   #8
Inactive Account




Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Boise, Idaho
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,413
Ah Pro Tools.... I wish I had that on my Mac. A few of my friends have it so I will continue to let them do the recording.

I always shoot RAW and find the post processing to be easy and fun. There are several very easy consumer level programs that handle RAW now so there is no excuse for too expensive or too hard. That is to say, some may still choose to shoot jpeg, and that is a valid choice for some, but there is nothing difficult about RAW and it will yeild better results with very little work.
07-12-2007, 07:25 AM   #9
Inactive Account




Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posts: 21
Some thoughts... even though not worth it...

QuoteOriginally posted by benjikan Quote
Hello all...

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...
I have taken a lot of good pics with JPEG. I know it is not best option, but it is still usable.

I guess benjikan would like to have the new Pentax PRO DSLR with only PEF output. Don't know if it would be accepted by majority of new DSLR buyers, but idea worth considering. How else would the camera be accepted as PRO by Canon and Nikon users.

I agree mostly, but would it be difficult to show the future generations what color and sharpness and contrast level you wanted the pic to be, as RAW don't tell the future generations such information. To me, it would be misuse of art if it would be processed with different settings than what I want.

Just my thoughts...

-Veijo-
07-12-2007, 07:51 AM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,697
I shot only in Raw for a while, and still use it for the odd shot where I know that I'll want to fiddle with the settings.

But at the present time I prefer dialing in the camera and just shooting in JPG

Not o mention that the K100 appears to be a fair amount faster shooting in JPG, which I sometimes like
07-12-2007, 08:15 AM   #11
Veteran Member
attack11's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
But there's a big exposure difference which accounts for the blue sky. Look at the guy's t-shirt in both pics...one is really black and the other is dark grayish.

FWIW, I've been shooting JPEG w/ my K10D initially and it doesn't look like the crap reviews make it out to be. It seems to respond well to sharpening and has a lot of detail (compared to P&S output).

I will be doing RAW vs. JPEG comparisons for my curiosity and do intend to use RAW for scenics and important photos, but haven't decided on shooting RAW all the time yet (though probably will after I get a few more memory cards since you never know when that perfect picture will happen ;-)
are you serious? the same settings, the same time there's no difference. what you're seeing is the the camera body vs photoshop. also, incase you didn't notice the graphics link to the exif data.

Last edited by attack11; 07-12-2007 at 08:29 AM.
07-12-2007, 12:25 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Boston, PRofMA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,026
QuoteOriginally posted by attack11 Quote
are you serious? the same settings, the same time there's no difference. what you're seeing is the the camera body vs photoshop. also, incase you didn't notice the graphics link to the exif data.
But the two shots you posted have different compositions. Look at green grass in the bottom pic. You manually exposed according to the exif, so I'm puzzled.
Why do you think the sky is bluer and his t-shirt blacker in the first pic?
07-12-2007, 01:08 PM   #13
Senior Member
rhermans's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Europe - Belgium - Antwerp
Photos: Albums
Posts: 213
Mixed feelings - as always

Since I got that K10d I've been shooting Raw(dng) + Jpg. The jpg gives me a faster way to preview the image. I almost always use the Raw file to distill the final shot, but ... at the end I save that as jpg.

Ok I keep the originals for anything later but ... if you end up with jpg's the reason to shoot raw is that you can post process the image better.

"How many times does any of you go back to redo an image that you processed." (maybe in the week that I'm playing with that batch but going back on them )

I understand that raw is especially needed when the shots are critical. A wedding for example. Only did 1 but Raw is (imho) the only way to go.

But again you do the Raw thing to post process.

And here is my problem - I have not yet had the change to send a raw image to a printer (only know of printing services that work with jpg) that gives anything better than the jpg.

Ok raw is still the best to post process but does it have any other use.
07-12-2007, 01:29 PM   #14
Veteran Member
attack11's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
QuoteOriginally posted by kenyee Quote
But the two shots you posted have different compositions. Look at green grass in the bottom pic. You manually exposed according to the exif, so I'm puzzled.
Why do you think the sky is bluer and his t-shirt blacker in the first pic?
the light source (sun) and atmosphere didn't change, it doesn't matter that we were in a different part of the skate park. look at the sky!

the colors are different because i started with a 12bit raw and photoshop did a great job of creating an 8bit jpeg. the camera had to toss away a lot of light (color) data before saving to the card.

the point is the colors. shoot raw and processing on a comp will yeild better colors every time. do a proper controlled test and you'll see the same. that picture is the only time i've shot jpg actually, because well .. the pictures speak for themselves. there's a series in my flickr account, every jpg from that shoot has the same colors for the sky/grass/cement.
07-12-2007, 01:39 PM   #15
Veteran Member
attack11's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Ottawa, ON - Canada
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 658
series

consistant color in all the shots except the 1 raw.
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, debate, decision, future, image, jpeg, media, observations, photography, resolution, vs, vs jpeg
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


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
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
RAW or JPEG Cloudy Wizzard General Talk 26 10-03-2007 04:44 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:09 AM. | 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