jpg versus raw

**Tri-Ungulate** · 08-12-2007, 04:25 PM

So I'm a total photo JONG, but working own trying to make my meagre point & shoot pics a tiny bit more pleasing. I have a S2 IS, and was a little sad in the pants that I couldn't play in the RAW sandbox with Photoshop. But thanks to the awesome resource MakersTeleMark pointed me to here it looks like I will have the ability to shoot in RAW format.

I've been doing a little Intern3ts research on the advantages/disadvantages of JPG vs. RAW shooting, but none of them address what most of us are interested in in this phorum, namely shooting action skiing pics, especially with the exigencies of dealing with very high contrast between skier and snow, movement, and capturing the beautiful mountainous scenery in the background. Where/when/why/how is RAW best and do y'all have any tricks on shooting and post-production that you wouldn't mind sharing?

Just wondering. Thanks.

**Benny Profane** · 08-12-2007, 06:32 PM

Raw is better. JPG is an outdated, compressed (so, therefore, bad) format living it's last days. It has no need in the professional world. Raw is, if you can wrap your head around this, is the same format that you were shooting at the time of exposure. You will have the ability in Lightroom or Photoshop to radically change the nature of the picture you took as though you were controlling the exposure at the time it was taken.
BUT. Yes, but. Raw requires a LOT more storage space. On your camera card, on your computer. You will have to buy more cards, and more storage space at home. Other than that downside, I say, shoot Raw.

heh, I love saying that.

**dbp** · 08-12-2007, 09:20 PM

Not sure how much I trust KR's opinion, but...

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

short version: if you have to ask, just shoot jpeg

**Shepherd Wong** · 08-12-2007, 09:37 PM

I shoot both, probably 65% raw 35% jpeg. Raw will produce a better quality image and have more room for modifications in post processing. Jpeg are quick and easy with less room for messing around with in post. You can process a Raw file harder without it looking processed. Sounds like the previous two posts took care of the hyperbole on both sides of the issue.

In terms of tricks in post, I have found that curves are the most fun to play around with after you do some level work. If you're just starting, experiment with 4 basic shapes, the S, reverse S(both diagonal) The quarter pipe and reverse quarter pipe. Basically the steeper the curve the more contrast you will have at those luminosity values(a steep curve maps a narrow range of input values into a wider range of output values) Don't go too crazy with their shapes but this should leave you with plenty of 1337 looking ph0toz.

**cj001f** · 08-12-2007, 10:00 PM

Originally Posted by dipstik

Jpeg will ALWAYS give you better overall results, richer colors, and sharper images right out of the camera than RAW will.

Um, nu uh

**brice618** · 08-12-2007, 10:09 PM

I shot raw once, I got a lot of wierd looks and ride in the back of a police car. heh heh

**dipstik** · 08-12-2007, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by cj001f

Um, nu uh

Those are facts, not opinions.

**cj001f** · 08-12-2007, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by dipstik

Those are facts, not opinions.

woah - they've quantified and standardized the human eye so fantastic is the same to everyone?

Just say why you don't like it for your workflow without the 5 paragraphs of photoforum absolute blowhardage. There's more than one style of phototaking and more than one kind of photographer.

**dipstik** · 08-12-2007, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by cj001f

woah - they've quantified and standardized the human eye so fantastic is the same to everyone?

???

I said that Jpegs always look better than RAW coming out of the camera, how is that not the case?

Originally Posted by cj001f

Just say why you don't like it for your workflow without the 5 paragraphs of photoforum absolute blowhardage. There's more than one style of phototaking and more than one kind of photographer.

Fair enough, my bad.

I swear I'm not a blowhard in real life, I just suck balls at getting my point across online, and tend to come off like a cynical douche.

I should probably work on that.

**MeatPuppet** · 08-12-2007, 11:52 PM

Originally Posted by dipstik

RAW is a TOTAL and complete waste of your time, and has no place in the professional world where real photogs have real deadlines.

Some of us aren't "real" photogs and don't have deadlines. We want the best looking memorys we can record, and not being a "real" photog, some of us may not meter perfectly every time or, the scene we are recording may fool the meter and give us an incorrect exposure. In those times, RAW saves our arse.

Jpeg will ALWAYS give you better overall results, richer colors, and sharper images right out of the camera than RAW will.

And a Polaroid will give you far better results, right out of the camera, than shooting 35mm will.

With just a touch of post processing, Jpegs look FANTASTIC, while RAW images will look "dead" unless you are experienced with Photoshop.

LOL! I had to laugh at this comment. It depends entirely on the camera. Not to long ago I shoot some pics in RAW and spent about 60-90 seconds on each one. I'm learning as I go but, as of right now, I really don't know shit about Photoshop. When I asked for C&C you said:

Originally Posted by dipstik

The colors, contrast, etc. all look wonderful on my screen.

I find myself more impressed with the colors and sharpness...

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...ad.php?t=87787

Jpegs can handle an enormous amount of post-processing; dodging and burning, changes in exposure, changes in color balance, etc., which is more than enough for almost every type of photographer.

Every time I tried to PP a jpeg, I just ended up making it look like shit. Maybe an experienced photoshop user can manipulate jpegs with good results, but I never could.

When you post-process a RAW image, you're basically just making it look like it would have had you shot it in Jpeg with the right parameters. (Color saturation, sharpening, etc.)

Exactly, then you have a perfectly produced jpeg(of tiff) that you can pp to your hearts content.

I've concluded that RAW is for 3 kinds of people:

I'll give you a fourth. People who shoot in demanding environments and want the most information to work with when they get back to their computer.

Also, if you shoot jpeg you can't make two different exposures from the same file and then blend them to create more dynamic range in the photo. You are stuck with whatever the camera captured with the settings as you had them.

I could keep going but, bottom line is: RAW gives you more information to work with, more forgiveness for user error, and more opportunity to be creative in post processing(blending multiple exposure conversions, etc)

If I were an event photog, churning out photos by the hundreds, I would probably shoot jpeg. But I'm not. I'm recording my memories so I want to capture as much information as possible; that means shooting RAW.

Different photogs, different needs.

**summit** · 08-13-2007, 12:06 AM

I always shoot JPEG... I often shoot RAW too (non-action shots that I want to do serious post on). JPEG gives you something to look at and judge right away and you can do serious work on the RAW if the picture is good. I shoot JPEG+RAW whenever buffer/storage space isn't an issue. RAW gives you a lot more lattitude in your post-processing. I shoot a lot of action so I am buffer limited and am otherwise usually lazy so I am often in JPEG only.

JPEG + RAW is the way to go if you don't have to worry about buffers or storage space.

**dipstik** · 08-13-2007, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

Different photogs, different needs.

Yeah yeah yeah, you guys win this one. Point(s) taken.

Sorry for sounding like a douche-nozzle.

This is what I SHOULD have said: for the type of photography I do and am most interested in, photojournalism, I shoot Jpeg because it saves time off my workflow.

Now if only I could have said that at the beginning.....

**Benny Profane** · 08-13-2007, 08:02 AM

Originally Posted by dipstik

RAW is a TOTAL and complete waste of your time, and has no place in the professional world where real photogs have real deadlines.

In some post processing enviornments in NYC, a Lacie hard drive is delivered to an editor filled with RAW images. Processed images go straight to Tiff.

JPEG is NOT a professional format. It is a compressed format, therefore information has been lost. It should only be used for the web these days. I equate it to MP3 for music. Convenient, but low quality.

**Pura Vida** · 08-13-2007, 09:05 AM

Originally Posted by Tri-Ungulate

So I'm a total photo JONG, but working own trying to make my meagre point & shoot pics a tiny bit more pleasing. I have a S2 IS, and was a little sad in the pants that I couldn't play in the RAW sandbox with Photoshop. But thanks to the awesome resource MakersTeleMark pointed me to here it looks like I will have the ability to shoot in RAW format.

I've been doing a little Intern3ts research on the advantages/disadvantages of JPG vs. RAW shooting, but none of them address what most of us are interested in in this phorum, namely shooting action skiing pics, especially with the exigencies of dealing with very high contrast between skier and snow, movement, and capturing the beautiful mountainous scenery in the background. Where/when/why/how is RAW best and do y'all have any tricks on shooting and post-production that you wouldn't mind sharing?

Just wondering. Thanks.

As far as the shooting of action pics in RAW it will actually be a hinderance , as your camera will most likely not be able to handle bursting a series of RAW images due to a small buffer size. So no, the RAW hack will not improve your skiing pics.

**Tri-Ungulate** · 08-13-2007, 09:31 AM

I'm just a goofball amateur with a not-very-good camera mostly interested in playing around with the post-processing possibilities. So it seems for me the RAW format would have the advantage of more tweaking options at the expense of the necessity for more tweaking and file size considerations.

File size would also slow down the FPS due to increased write-times, so perhaps not the best for action shots. Right now I'm shooting JPG unsharpened, with settings minimizing some of the in-camera processing, and doing the rest of the processing on the computer - I think I'll stay with that for shooting skiers in action.

Like Summit, maybe I'll try RAW for non-action shots I want to mess with later. Seems the ability to combine exposures would be fun to experiment with, along with other messing around.

Thanks all for your insights, and feel free to add more hints/tricks you might want to share, including basic stuff for photo JONGS like meself - Shepard Wong's stuff was helpful, as was the link to the Rockwell "Digital Cameras fer Idjits" site.

**dipstik** · 08-13-2007, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

I equate it to MP3 for music. Convenient, but low quality.

Low quality, yes, but can most people really tell the difference? I've printed Jpegs at 24x36, and the quality of the print and the image were excellent. I guess I'm just sort of struggling to see how having shot the image in RAW could have improved the print? Maybe I just have low standards?

Also, doesn't converting all your processed RAW images to TIFF's seem sort of a waste of time and storage space for the average photog? For a guy like Tri-Ungulate, is shooting in RAW really going to improve the look of his photos?

**Shepherd Wong** · 08-13-2007, 09:32 AM

Hmm my camera doesn't have any problems bursting Raw+jpeg. I shoot that mostly for action.
As far as skiing action goes, I really haven't noticed it anymore demanding than anything else. Some people will recommend some +ev because they claim the meter makes the snow grey, but I haven't noticed this at all, if anything I'll use some -ev to keep detail in the snow(this is all heavily dependent on metering mode and camera though). In my limited experience I just keep the settings the same as any other action. The key is practice, focus tracking and composition seem the most important for action. Go out and shoot stuff over the summer so you will be ready for the winter.

**cj001f** · 08-13-2007, 09:48 AM

heh - didnt mean to be a dick

my camera has a small raw buffer so i do jpegs for action and raw everything else. the newer photosoftware aperture lightroom adobe cs3 are quite good at handling raw and can do quite good conversions reasonably quickly

**Benny Profane** · 08-13-2007, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by dipstik

Low quality, yes, but can most people really tell the difference? I've printed Jpegs at 24x36, and the quality of the print and the image were excellent. I guess I'm just sort of struggling to see how having shot the image in RAW could have improved the print? Maybe I just have low standards?

Also, doesn't converting all your processed RAW images to TIFF's seem sort of a waste of time and storage space for the average photog? For a guy like Tri-Ungulate, is shooting in RAW really going to improve the look of his photos?

Hey, if you're happy with it, go with it. But, again, JPEG is a format developed to intentionally damage the image by compressing it. This was needed when hard drives on computers were just a few hundred megs, and images had to displayed on the web and transmitted or e-mailed. Now that hard drive space is pentiful and cheap, and cards are getting much cheaper, stay away from it (unless you're working on the web).

Shooting RAW just gives one a lot more control, and with the new RAW post shooting programs like Apeture and Lightroom, enables a much more convienient editing process. Once you send a few hundred images from a session through Lightroom, you wonder how you dealt with this before. I guess it doesn't really improve an image, but, if you know what you're doing in one of these programs and Photoshop, you will get the max out of any image. After that, it has to be converted to Tiff for output or presentation.

**TeleHoar** · 08-13-2007, 12:10 PM

Good thread, I know we've touched on this before but there is some good info here.

I shoot jpeg pretty much all the time for a couple of reasons. First the FPS on continues burst is fster as a couple have mentioned. On the Nikon it is quite noticable how much faster Jpegs are. I haven't spent the coin to convert NES (RAW for Nikon) to Adobe PS 6. And storage is a bit limited for me right now so I appreciate the compression. I am more than happy with the results shooting in Jpeg. Any published photos I have and blow-ups have all been shot this way and seem plenty good enough.

**Baconzoo** · 08-13-2007, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by dipstik

Seriously, RAW won't make you're "meager" photos look any better. It will probably make them look a lot worse.

sRGB vs. Adobe1998
Narrow gamut = narrow mind

**Gunder** · 08-13-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by dipstik

bah, I knew this would come up eventually.

RAW is a TOTAL and complete waste of your time, and has no place in the professional world where real photogs have real deadlines.

Sure, if you want to spend hours upon hours dicking around in photoshop, instead of going out and shooting, then yeah RAW is great for you.

For those people on a tight deadline, or those who expect excellent quality images with a minimal amount of post-processing, Jpeg is the answer.

Jpeg will ALWAYS give you better overall results, richer colors, and sharper images right out of the camera than RAW will. With just a touch of post processing, Jpegs look FANTASTIC, while RAW images will look "dead" unless you are experienced with Photoshop. Jpegs can handle an enormous amount of post-processing; dodging and burning, changes in exposure, changes in color balance, etc., which is more than enough for almost every type of photographer.

When you post-process a RAW image, you're basically just making it look like it would have had you shot it in Jpeg with the right parameters. (Color saturation, sharpening, etc.)

Seriously, RAW won't make you're "meager" photos look any better. It will probably make them look a lot worse.

I shot RAW for awhile, but switched back to Jpeg because the RAW conversion is just an extra time wasting step in my work flow, and the results often looked less punchy and less lively than Jpegs.

I've concluded that RAW is for 3 kinds of people:

1. Those who do a lot of studio work, either modeling or product type stuff, and ultimately a lot of post-processing PS work because a lot of "models" are not as good looking as you think.
2. Those who suck at photography and just "fix it later" in photoshop. See Baconzoo's posts in this thread for an example: http://tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=89269
3. Those who suck at photography and want to sound important/better than you because "I shoot RAW". i.e. photo forum hacks.

Don't believe the hype.

Oh Really?????

I guess than I really don't know WTF I'm dooing

Seriously dude, you can not be more wrong on all points.

**yesIsaidyes** · 08-13-2007, 02:41 PM

Grant, do you shoot alot of JPG?

**Tippster** · 08-13-2007, 03:47 PM

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

JPEG is NOT a professional format. It is a compressed format, therefore information has been lost. It should only be used for the web these days. I equate it to MP3 for music. Convenient, but low quality.

All our (Reuters) stills guys shoot and move everything in JPEG. So does the AP, AFP, and Getty to my knowledge.

This allows me to conclude that JPEG most certainly is a professional format, at least in Photojournalism.

Speaking in absolutes is the greatest thing in the whole world.

**dipstik** · 08-13-2007, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by Gunder

Oh Really?????

I guess than I really don't know WTF I'm dooing

Seriously dude, you can not be more wrong on all points.

OK so a lot of what I said was a bit excessive.

However, I still stand by a lot of it. For a huge portion of photogs, including professionals, Jpegs are more than enough. They are quick, easy, produce quality results with only a little bit of extra post processing effort, and in my experience can be printed at 24x36 and look as good as they did at 8x12.

I do agree there are benefits to shooting RAW, but I just can't see why its worth the extra hassle if you're able to get the exposure and white balance correct in-camera.