Reasons to use RAW over best quality JPEG

Aegon · 01-06-2013, 04:56 PM

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.

DeadJohn · 01-06-2013, 05:11 PM

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.

luker · 01-06-2013, 05:14 PM

Originally posted by elliott

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.

westmill · 01-06-2013, 05:17 PM

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.

**JimJohnson** · 01-06-2013, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by Aegon

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.

demp10 · 01-06-2013, 05:36 PM

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.

**JimJohnson** · 01-06-2013, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by luker

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.

arcturus · 01-06-2013, 06:31 PM

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.

luker · 01-06-2013, 06:35 PM

Not superior, may not even be different. Without corrections, you are just trading one set of presets for another.

arcturus · 01-06-2013, 06:51 PM

Originally posted by luker

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.

Na Horuk · 01-06-2013, 07:09 PM

Originally posted by arcturus

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.

**Lowell Goudge** · 01-06-2013, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by Aegon

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

Heelers · 01-06-2013, 07:37 PM

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.

wombat2go · 01-06-2013, 08:08 PM

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

mikeSF · 01-06-2013, 08:30 PM

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.

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

01-06-2013, 04:56 PM	#16
Aegon Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Portland, OR Posts: 1,416	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
DeadJohn Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2011 Location: New York Posts: 4,833	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
luker New Member Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 20	Originally posted by elliott 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
westmill Veteran Member 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
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,772	Originally posted by Aegon 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
demp10 Veteran Member 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
JimJohnson Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: Summer:Lake Superior - Michigan Winter:Texas Hill Country Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,772	Originally posted by luker 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
arcturus 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
luker 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
arcturus Junior Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 45	Originally posted by luker 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.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-06-2013, 07:09 PM	#26
Na Horuk Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Slovenia, probably Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 11,186	Originally posted by arcturus 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
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,886	Originally posted by Aegon 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
Heelers Forum Member 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
wombat2go Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Michigan Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,207	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
mikeSF Pentaxian Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: East Bay Area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,620	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.