jpg versus raw

[Gunder]

Just to clarify for any sorta nerds out there. To the best of my knowledge as a math nerd, the disadvantage of jpeg isn't due to it being lossy, it's due to converting 12 bit raw data to 8 bit data prior to jpeg compression. Lossy is no big deal. In frequency space(where the actual compression takes place) a lot of the DCT coefficients can be ignored, no big deal. If any camera shot 12 bit jpegs I doubt there would be any practical advantage in shooting raw.
Unless you plan on doing gnarly post processing I doubt you will see much difference between the two. That being said I still shoot raw because I post process every image I have shot so far.

Nope.

8 bit Vs. 12 Vs. 16 bit really makes little to no difference at this day in time. Since there is no output device that is capable of more than 8 bit.

The problem with jpeg is that the more you compress it, or the more you save it, you start to generate artificats in the image that are very notice able. So if you are going to be an idiot and shoot jpeg than the first thin that you should do imediately upon downloading it is to save it as a tiff.

There is NO-REASON to shoot jpeg unless you are A. Lazy, or B. Incompitent with digital post processing.

[cj001f]

unless you need a high framerate and dont have a superduperdickswinging camera with a massive buffer

speaking in absolutes is fucking awesome

[Gunder]

unless you need a high framerate and dont have a superduperdickswinging camera with a massive buffer

speaking in absolutes is fucking awesome

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME SHOOTING JPEG DOES NOT INCREASE YOUR FRAMERATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All it does is give you slightly more photos in the buffer.... so either learn to time your shots better or get a better camera.

There is no reason to shoot more than 4 or 5 shots at a time anyways unless you are spraying and praying or if your shooting a sequence..... and since 99% of all sequences are gay there is no reason to use the buffer as an excuse to shoot in jpeg....

[Shepherd Wong]

Nope.

8 bit Vs. 12 Vs. 16 bit really makes little to no difference at this day in time. Since there is no output device that is capable of more than 8 bit.

The problem with jpeg is that the more you compress it, or the more you save it, you start to generate artificats in the image that are very notice able. So if you are going to be an idiot and shoot jpeg than the first thin that you should do imediately upon downloading it is to save it as a tiff.

There is NO-REASON to shoot jpeg unless you are A. Lazy, or B. Incompitent with digital post processing.

You don't get it there man.
When you reduce data from 12 bit to 8 bit rounding errors are introduced when you starts doing math opperations on that data(this is what post processing is).
The advantage of raw isn't because of "Less artifacts" unless you're saving your photo multiple times using the lowest quality jpeg setting(which I don't think is under debate here).

[Gunder]

You don't get it there man.
When you reduce data from 12 bit to 8 bit rounding errors are introduced when you starts doing math opperations on that data(this is what post processing is).
The advantage of raw isn't because of "Less artifacts" unless you're saving your photo multiple times using the lowest quality jpeg setting(which I don't think is under debate here).

Show me 1 image where you can see a difference between 8 and 12 bit. Every image that is captured in 12 bit HAS TO BE CONVERTED TO 8 bit to be printed. Whether you do this in camera or after processing has LITTLE TO NO EFFECT on the final print.

The advantage of RAW is that it IS LOSSLESS, and allows NON DESTRUCTIVE EDITING.

Wether or not you have an 8 bit, 12 bit or 16 bit RAW file is mute point, as like I said before the bit depth doesnt really do much for you at this day in time.

[Shepherd Wong]

Show me 1 image where you can see a difference between 8 and 12 bit. Every image that is captured in 12 bit HAS TO BE CONVERTED TO 8 bit to be printed. Whether you do this in camera or after processing has LITTLE TO NO EFFECT on the final print.

The advantage of RAW is that it IS LOSSLESS, and allows NON DESTRUCTIVE EDITING.

Wether or not you have an 8 bit, 12 bit or 16 bit RAW file is mute point, as like I said before the bit depth doesnt really do much for you at this day in time.

We're talking about post processing here. Computer displays are 8 bit displays. If you don't plan on doing any post processing there will be no detectable advantages of raw or jpeg. It is when you start making changes to the data that you will see it. This is where performing multiplications on that data will result in better results using 12 bits of data vs. 8 bits(rounding at the very end vs. rounding at the very beginning). I was assuming that when one shot jpeg and made changes on it they saved it as a tiff or something similar if they intended to change it again. I don't think what at issue here is people saving their jpegs multiple times at low quality settings.

[cj001f]

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME SHOOTING JPEG DOES NOT INCREASE YOUR FRAMERATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All it does is give you slightly more photos in the buffer.... so either learn to time your shots better or get a better camera.

There is no reason to shoot more than 4 or 5 shots at a time anyways

1. it does on some cameras. but then realistically more photos in buffer = higher effective framerate.
2. kinda depends what you are taking pictures of dont it? there are subjects other than skiing

[Gunder]

1. it does on some cameras. but then realistically more photos in buffer = higher effective framerate.
2. kinda depends what you are taking pictures of dont it? there are subjects other than skiing

1.
Nope. Go back and read your manual. Buffer and frame rate are 2 completly different things!!!!

2.
Name one subject that would be more demanding than skiing.

[4-TEEF]

Hey Gang,

Like most topics that stir up a shitstorm of opinions there are a ton of variables that need to be considered. It probably is fair to say that RAW provides a better final output than JPEG but it is also probably fair to say that on many shots you can't actually see the difference.

Different cameras apply different color curves, different amounts of sharpening and different color saturation to thier jpegs so your results may vary considerably depending on the camera and settings that you shoot. Here's what I've found from my experience when shooting a Canon 20D with color saturation and sharpening set to ZERO and jpegs set at maximum quality.

#1 - RAW is NOT some sort of magical digital negative that allows you to under/overexpose with no consequences. I have found that jpegs offer pretty much the same range of push/pulling in Photoshop.

#2 - With the 20D, Jpeg artifacts are not visible if you shoot at max quality. I have some 6 foot tall blowups that show NO artifacts. Perhaps a RAW file might have looked better but I have no problem with how nice the jpeg file looks.

#3 - The white balance adjustability of RAW can be a HUGE asset. Shooting jpeg with auto white balance in challenging lighting conditions can SERIOUSLY fuck you over!

#4 - Canon's 20D jpeg tone curves kind of suck for shooting on snow. Midget touched on tone curves issue earlier and I think it is really one of the most overlooked benefits of shooting RAW vs jpegs. I find that the 20Ds jpeg curve pushes the mid tones too dark when shooting on sunny powder days. I imagine that the same would happen shooting other high contrast subjects. For softer, natural light portraits I have found the tone curves to be fine.

#5 - RAW files are a lot bigger. They fill up the camera buffer, they take longer to clear the buffer, they take longer to download, etc, etc. The smaller size of the Jpegs make them a LOT easier to deal with if you have an older computer

I shoot jpeg for the majority of my images and only shoot RAW for trickier lighting and high contrast scenes. I have a point and shoot that only shoots jpeg and I have some great shots from that camera.

My opinion - If you're trying to get paid for your photos or if ultimate quality is your number one concern then shoot RAW. If not, then experiment with the different formats and figure out what best meets your needs.

[dipstik]

2.
Name one subject that would be more demanding than skiing.

Have you ever picked up an issue of National Geographic?

[Gunder]

Have you ever picked up an issue of National Geographic?

Name one subject in there that actually requires using a fast frame rate for an enitre buffer worth of pics

[cj001f]

Clearly you didn't understand my point.

I'm sure wildlife photography is easier than ski photography - after all - you can just ask the lion to stop and wait.

[Gunder]

Clearly you didn't understand my point.

I'm sure wildlife photography is easier than ski photography - after all - you can just ask the lion to stop and wait.

You still dont need ultra high frame rates and a huge buffer.....

The point is that there is no reason to shoot jpeg instead of RAW if you actually time your pics and are selective about when you press the shutter button VS. the spray and pray aproach....

[wra]

In an attempt to answer tri u's question.

I have been using a canon powershot a710 p and s for walk a round cuz my friend has had me running 20 miles or so per outing. I downloaded the CHDK software and have been using it. In my camera it shoots jpeg and raw each photo which does slow things down. Also fills up a 1gb card quickly.
Raw converters for the CHDK software files are somewhat limited. Have used picasa and raw therapee, both free. Picasa quick and dirty, raw therapee has a significant learning curve.

So far, out of several hundred, I have not found a single photo, using the canon, which benefited from a raw conversion. Could be my improper use of the programs or could be the camera just doesn't take a good enough photo to notice a difference.

I'll be continuing the experiment for a while longer.

[Alek]

JPEG is NOT a professional format. It is a compressed format, therefore information has been lost.

OK, compressed and lossy are two different things: you can compress without loss of information (for example gzip or gif).

Having said that, nobody in the real world uses lossless JPEG, so carry on...

[summit]

FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME SHOOTING JPEG DOES NOT INCREASE YOUR FRAMERATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

All it does is give you slightly more photos in the buffer.... so either learn to time your shots better or get a better camera.

Most of the people here do not make their living off ski photography like you and therefor cannot justify $4500 to "get a better camera" like you. You get 10FPS for 30 RAW or 110 JPEG.

I'm no longer a pro (and never was a pro ski photog)... my body is a 20D. I get 5FPS and the buffer holds 5 RAW or 25 JPEG.

P&S shooters with RAW often also see a framerate decrease with RAW as well as a more limited buffer (often looking at 0.9 fps for 2 RAW frames versus 2.2fps JPEG for 10+ frames as an example).

As to your disparaging spray and pray comments, shutter discipline in burst doesn't come easily to most of the amateur digital photographers. Most didn't learn with film. Most do not even have cameras which are capable of facilitating that skill. P&S have horrific shutter lag and require refocusing. I think you've forgotten the vagaries of using lower end gear because your living requires you to use the best of the best.

And what is harder than ski photography? Technical diving photography for one... different reasons and challenges but it is harder. Not everything is about framerate...

[smalls]

my body is a 20D. I get 5FPS and the buffer holds 5 RAW or 25 JPEG.

6 raw and 23 jpeg.

since we're being all technical.

[summit]

6 raw and 23 jpeg.

since we're being all technical.

my experience varies from the printed statistics

[Gunder]

Most of the people here do not make their living off ski photography like you and therefor cannot justify $4500 to "get a better camera" like you. You get 10FPS for 30 RAW or 110 JPEG.

Did I ever say you need a $4500 camera? Nope. In fact a lot of AMAZING ski pics are shot with the 20D and it doesnt have the speed of the 1 series bodies. Plus Midget often shoots ski pics with a 1DS with the blistering framerate of 3fps...... Not exacty faster than good amerture gear now is it?

I'm no longer a pro (and never was a pro ski photog)... my body is a 20D. I get 5FPS and the buffer holds 5 RAW or 25 JPEG.

Wich is plenty.

P&S shooters with RAW often also see a framerate decrease with RAW as well as a more limited buffer (often looking at 0.9 fps for 2 RAW frames versus 2.2fps JPEG for 10+ frames as an example).

Ahh the one exception. BUT when shooting action point with a camera with a fps of .9 Vs. 2.2 fps your not going to see much of a difference on a camera that slooooow your better off just takign single shots only.

As to your disparaging spray and pray comments, shutter discipline in burst doesn't come easily to most of the amateur digital photographers. Most didn't learn with film. Most do not even have cameras which are capable of facilitating that skill. P&S have horrific shutter lag and require refocusing. I think you've forgotten the vagaries of using lower end gear because your living requires you to use the best of the best.

We are not talking rocket science here. Everyone on this board is capable of devloping enough skill to better time there shots..... all that takes is a little bit of practice. Second if your PS has a lot of shutter lag time to upgrade. Almost all of the newer ps have esentially no shutter lag. Time to get out of the stone age and spend $300 on a camera. Also faster memory cards and better batteries will make a slow PS faster.

And what is harder than ski photography? Technical diving photography for one... different reasons and challenges but it is harder. Not everything is about framerate...

I dont know about that.... Sure a more difficult enviroment to be in but, photo wise its still just getting the right exposure, focus and framing

Plus I was asking for him to name one subject that required a FASTER frame rate than skiing does.

[summit]

Ahh the one exception. BUT when shooting action point with a camera with a fps of .9 Vs. 2.2 fps your not going to see much of a difference on a camera that slooooow your better off just takign single shots only.

Actually, there is a hudge difference and no you are not always better off taking just single shots, especially if the final purpose is web output, not attempt-to-publish. And remember... "the one exception" applies to most people here. Most people here are shooting P&S or budget DSLRs with buffers that only hold 4 or less RAW images in the buffer (like a 300D or 350D or a D40 or D50).

We are not talking rocket science here. Everyone on this board is capable of devloping enough skill to better time there shots..... all that takes is a little bit of practice.

I agree with you... but most people don't shoot that much and a lot of us certainly got a leg up on shutter discipline by starting with film SLRs. 4x5 is what really built my discipline.

Second if your PS has a lot of shutter lag time to upgrade. Almost all of the newer ps have esentially no shutter lag. Time to get out of the stone age and spend $300 on a camera. Also faster memory cards and better batteries will make a slow PS faster.

It depends on whether or not you have to refocus
All P&S cameras still tend to have long delays if you have to refocus.

[4-TEEF]

In an attempt to answer tri u's question.

So far, out of several hundred, I have not found a single photo, using the canon, which benefited from a raw conversion. Could be my improper use of the programs or could be the camera just doesn't take a good enough photo to notice a difference.

I'll be continuing the experiment for a while longer.

That's the thing with RAW, you have to convert it with software and if you use the software "default" or "auto" settings you will end up with pretty much exactly the same results as if you shot it in jpeg.

If you have the software and skills to do a lot of custom adjustments then in some circumstances RAW can yield superior results but you have to know what you're doing.

I have been very impressed with the RAW processing capabilities of Adobe Lightroom and the latest Photoshop but they are EXPENSIVE programs for people who aren;t selling their photos...

[Tippster]

To summarize:

Ski photography is better served with RAW format due to high contrast issues/possible white balance issues.

In the real world JPEG Fine setting is more than good enough, especially with newer high MP sensors.

Gunder: I agree that skiing, as a fast-action sport, requires some serious frame rates. I also agree that 5fps is plenty, since you've already decided where the skier is going to go and when you're going to shoot... ie when the athlete hits this gap between the trees and initiates their turn. You pre-focus and burst in the sweet spot. Got it.

What if the subject zigs when you expect it to Zag - like wildlife photography? What if you can't really pre-focus because there is no expectation of location? Spray-and-Pray has its place, just like every other tool.

[Gunder]

Actually, there is a hudge difference and no you are not always better off taking just single shots, especially if the final purpose is web output, not attempt-to-publish. .

Not really... Please explain how shooting at 2 fps vs 1 is better for web than print..... a good shot is a good shot no matter what, crapy photos are always going to be crapy pics wether there on line, in print etc.

I agree with you... but most people don't shoot that much and a lot of us certainly got a leg up on shutter discipline by starting with film SLRs. 4x5 is what really built my discipline.

Please explain why you cant devlop good shutter discipline by ussing a digi.... If any thing it should be easier.

It depends on whether or not you have to refocus
All P&S cameras still tend to have long delays if you have to refocus.

If you pre-focus as you SHOULD be the shutter delay just about dissapears.

Whinning about gear limitations is not an excuse for poor technique.

[Gunder]

What if the subject zigs when you expect it to Zag - like wildlife photography? What if you can't really pre-focus because there is no expectation of location? Spray-and-Pray has its place, just like every other tool.

Ask every top wildlife photog and you wont find a single one that sprays and prays....... they all get there images by studying there subjects and learning there traits........ This and lots of patiences gets good images not spray and pray.


Photography isnt rocket science..... by mastering a few easy basic techniques, you can take the best pics around with some of the most basic gear.... Too many people get caught up in the technology in there cameras and overlook the basic principles of photography then try to blame there shitty photos on there gear.

[Free Range Lobster]

1.
Name one subject that would be more demanding than skiing.

Sailing.