# Professionals (and the confident) shoot JPEG; amateurs shoot RAW ...



## wolfism (Aug 14, 2009)

I thought I'd chuck this one in since it's a Friday, and it's always worth stirring up some debate with the weekend approaching. :thumb

Many people you meet ask what type of camera you use and whether you shoot RAW or JPEG.  There's an assumption that more skilful (or aspiring) photographers shoot RAW because it gives you more control over images.  I tend to look at it the other way around, that you should try to get it right "in camera", in other words figure out the white balance, exposure and contrast you want *before* you take the photo.  In other words, decide on your intention before pressing the button.  Then there's no need for RAW, and no need to make adjustments.  For once, the most opinionated man on the Net agrees with me ... http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm ... and explains the tech more lucidly than I can.

Apart from saving space on your memory cards and hard drive, you'll save enormous amounts of time by shooting JPEG's, since you won't have to sit in front of the computer converting them all.  The other thing is, of course, that Photoshop lets you do everything to a JPEG that you can do to a RAW (if you want to adjust white balance on a JPEG, use the colour channels to make adjustments) - so if you want to tweak, you still can.  

And of course another thing is ... it doesn't matter what kind of camera you use; the quality of the lens is far more important than the body; and the film choice (or camera settings if it's digital) is more important than that.

Contentious?


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 14, 2009)

wolfism said:


> Contentious?



& mistaken. 

*I"bothered" to shoot RAW for the first time last night.@me


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

I shoot jpeg, it gives me about a 2.5mb 6mp image file, my camera can also output 12mp but there is no point as I rarely (never) print above 10x15 inches. 

If I want to process the image, sharpen, adjust, do some cloning or whatever I do it all in one go and then save once as jpeg 99% quality again and with only one save there is no loss in quality. 

Were I to be in the position that I wanted to continue to work on an image perhaps the next day then I save it as BMP or as a layers image with no loss of quality. 

I agree the lens makes the greatest difference.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

If you want the camera to make decisions for you, shoot jpeg.  If you want creative control shoot RAW.
You may as well contend that professionals should shoot Polaroid so they don't have to mess around in the darkroom.


----------



## dirtyfruit (Aug 14, 2009)

Surely it's all to do with the intended output


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> If you want the camera to make decisions for you, shoot jpeg.  ....



I usually shoot full manual and spot / jpeg ... how is that letting the camera make decisions for me ... ?


ets: and when I do shoot matrix, P,S,or A I compensate..


----------



## big eejit (Aug 14, 2009)

He's a bit disingenuous isn't he. Says he doesn't understand why people get so upset about what he's writing but makes constant digs through the article about how people who disagree with him are hobbyists and fiddlers, who can't get it right without Pshop.

"Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. *Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time *instead of having to tweak them later."

His points seem fairly reasonable but his passive / aggressive style is annoying!


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I usually shoot full manual and spot / jpeg ... how is that letting the camera make decisions for me ... ?



The tone curve, amount of sharpening, compression of dynamic range etc are all decided in the camera if you shoot jpg.  Yes, you can have some degree of control, but only using the programmed presets.  Any post-editing you do will then degrade the image.  Shoot in RAW and you get a higher dynamic range and full control and can post-process different versions without degrading the original (negative).


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> The tone curve, amount of sharpening, compression of dynamic range etc are all decided in the camera if you shoot jpg.  Yes, you can have some degree of control, but only using the programmed presets.  Any post-editing you do will then degrade the image.  Shoot in RAW and you get a higher dynamic range and full control and can post-process different versions without degrading the original (negative).



You are just saying that your negative is a raw.

My negative is a jpeg.

I have no need to multiple save my negative during the processing stage so there is negligable degradation. I never overwrite the original, anyhow they are write protected.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I usually shoot full manual and spot / jpeg ... how is that letting the camera make decisions for me ... ?
> 
> 
> ets: and when I do shoot matrix, P,S,or A I compensate..



jpeg is teh clue... all jpegs are equal, but some are more equaller than others.  

... and you "spot" on wot?... a Zone 7 area?... the inside of a cup hand 45 degrees to light source...a Grey Card?..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> ... Shoot in RAW and you get a higher dynamic range and full control and can post-process different versions without degrading the original (negative).



As for dynamic range, I am not sure I agree. My jpegs go all the way from the brightest whites to the darkest blacks, how can you argue that a raw does more than that?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> You are just saying that your negative is a raw.
> 
> My negative is a jpeg.
> 
> I have no need to multiple save my negative during the processing stage so there is negligable degradation. I never overwrite the original, anyhow they are write protected.



Your jpg isn't a negative, it's a print (to extend the analogy).

For a camera to produce a jpg, it's already done the post-processing, but you have limited control.  The camera manufacturer made most of the decisions for you.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> As for dynamic range, I am not sure I agree. My jpegs go all the way from the brightest whites to the darkest blacks, how can you argue that a raw does more than that?



jpgs are 8bit, RAW on my Nikon D40 and D80 are 12 bit.  More info.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> jpeg is teh clue... all jpegs are equal, but some are more equaller than others.
> 
> ... and you "spot" on wot?... a Zone 7 area?... the inside of a cup hand 45 degrees to light source...a Grey Card?..



Well I like the jpegs that come out of my camera, it was recomended as a cam with good jpegs .... 

What do I spot on? it depends on the image, sometimes I spot on the brightest part of the image and set the exposure to be sure that will not burn out, other times I spot on an area of grass which is often similar to a greycard, other times I might spot into dark areas and try to make sure some detail is exposed in them .... it all depends. ..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> jpgs are 8bit, RAW on my Nikon D40 and D80 are 12 bit.  More info.



Why would that make any difference .. the maximum difference in the image is black to white ... there is no more ... 8 or 12 bit ..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Your jpg isn't a negative, it's a print (to extend the analogy).
> 
> For a camera to produce a jpg, it's already done the post-processing, but you have limited control.  The camera manufacturer made most of the decisions for you.




Well shooting in jpeg, the closest thing I have to a negative is the jpeg that emerges from the camera. 

As to it being a print, well often I can and do print right from what comes out of the camera..... only thing is I turned sharpenning off so they miss that.. 

There are a number of settings I can chose on my camera relating to tone, colour etc which affect the way it produces jpegs, or I can output jpegs in black and white so I have some input ..


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Why would that make any difference .. the maximum difference in the image is black to white ... there is no more ... 8 or 12 bit ..



The human eye can see more dynamic range than the best digital camera.  This is why highlights can be burnt out on a bright day, if you expose for shadow or mid tone detail.  There is no way that your camera reproduces all the tones on a bright day.  It's not technically possible.  RAW gives you a little more range than jpg.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Well shooting in jpeg, the closest thing I have to a negative is the jpeg that emerges from the camera.



To extend the analogy, that's like a polaroid



weltweit said:


> As to it being a print, well often I can and do print right from what comes out of the camera..... only thing is I turned sharpenning off so they miss that..
> 
> There are a number of settings I can chose on my camera relating to tone, colour etc which affect the way it produces jpegs, or I can output jpegs in black and white so I have some input ..



Yes, you have some control, but only within certain parameters set by the manufacturer.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, you have some control, but only within certain parameters set by the manufacturer.



But I can take my jpeg into my image editing software and edit it till it resembles anything .... there is no limit ..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Many of my favourite photographers shoot jpeg and produce wonderful images with a style of their own, often highly edited they still start with a jpeg file. If it is good enough for them it is good enough for me.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But I can take my jpeg into my image editing software and edit it till it resembles anything .... there is no limit ..



Yes, but processing has already been done, so you're adding processing on top of what has already been decided in camera.  You're degrading the image.  Plus every time you save a jpg, you lose some detail.  The beauty of RAW is that the original data doesn't change.  You can make as many adjustments as you like and still go back to the original.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Many of my favourite photographers shoot jpeg and produce wonderful images with a style of their own, often highly edited they still start with a jpeg file. If it is good enough for them it is good enough for me.



and that's fairynuff.  But RAW gives you more creative control.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 14, 2009)

Ken's right aswell.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 14, 2009)

It depends with me RAW if a job, JPEG if for my own use, as said get it right in the first place, but ill use RAW if a job in case i get it wrong then i can correct and not all round here use photoshop, we like GIMP due to it being far better..


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Yes, but processing has already been done, so you're adding processing on top of what has already been decided in camera.  You're degrading the image.  Plus every time you save a jpg, you lose some detail.  The beauty of RAW is that the original data doesn't change.  You can make as many adjustments as you like and still go back to the original.



But you never do this multiple saving as jpeg thing ... 

You take your original (a jpeg) import it into your processing software and work on it, sharpen, tones, curves, colour balance, cloning whatever you want to do and if you want to save an come back to it you save it in a non lossey format, BMP is one or my software permits you to save an image with all its layers (objects) intact in a non lossey format. (note you do not overwrite the original jpeg, you save this worked on file as a new file) 

When you have finished with any and all of your work you can then output to whatever format you need for your use. If it is jpeg then you save it as a jpeg perhaps with 99% or 100% quality. 

Believe me there is no noticeable degradation in quality.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. 

In the last camera club I was in I entered their compeitions with 10x15 inch prints based on a 6mp 2.5mb jpeg image out of the camera, often worked on as mentioned above. 

Quite often I won the compeitions. No one ever said we can see you used a jpeg for that! or there would have been more dynamic range had you used raw. NO ONE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But you never do this multiple saving as jpeg thing ...
> 
> You take your original (a jpeg) import it into your processing software and work on it, sharpen, tones, curves, colour balance, cloning whatever you want to do and if you want to save an come back to it you save it in a non lossey format, BMP is one or my software permits you to save an image with all its layers (objects) intact in a non lossey format. (note you do not overwrite the original jpeg, you save this worked on file as a new file)
> 
> ...



A jpg (even if saved at highest quality) has already lost some detail.  Plus (as I already said), it has already been sharpened, tone curved etc.  So you just don't have the same latitude as you do with RAW.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> 
> In the last camera club I was in I entered their compeitions with 10x15 inch prints based on a 6mp 2.5mb jpeg image out of the camera, often worked on as mentioned above.
> 
> Quite often I won the compeitions. No one ever said we can see you used a jpeg for that! or there would have been more dynamic range had you used raw. NO ONE COULD TELL THE DIFFERENCE



Depends on the photo.  Depends what you want to do.  I like to have full creative control so I shoot in RAW.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 14, 2009)

weltweit said:


> My jpegs go all the way from the brightest whites to the darkest blacks, how can you argue that a raw does more than that?



They really don't.


I would never dream of doing a job to jpeg only. 
My re toucher would never work with me again either.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 14, 2009)

e19896 said:


> not all round here use photoshop, we like GIMP due to it being far better..



PS & GIMP,...or the like of, are "image" editors..not "photographic" editors...I like using jpegs & RAWs in a photo-editor, then an image editor.

But of the two, PS & GIMP, PS is far superior across the board with finesse & output... GIMP still hasn't got it IMO...and I use the thing 365days a year atm....and it's killing me...meh.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> I would never dream of doing a job to jpeg only.
> My re toucher would never work with me again either.



I think it depends a lot on your application. 

I am an amateur photographer, for me the maximum output is 10x15 inch prints, for that I find 6mp 2.5mb jpeg files are fine. 

I have shot product images for money and they were in a controlled light environment so I did those in jpeg also..

I accept that were I shooting for money, and had a retoucher, then it would make sense to shoot the apparent maximum quality my camera could take which would be 12mp raw RAF files. 

But for me, as an amateur, the file sizes etc are too large.


----------



## Meltingpot (Aug 14, 2009)

GIMP's biggest problem is the menu layout. It can take ages trying to find any particular feature that you want.


----------



## editor (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> A jpg (even if saved at highest quality) has already lost some detail.  Plus (as I already said), it has already been sharpened, tone curved etc.  So you just don't have the same latitude as you do with RAW.


But if you got the exposure and WB  right at the beginning, the difference would be negligible for most end uses.

I usually shoot in JPEG because, frankly, I can't be arsed to fuck about with RAW afterwards.  I'll use RAW if I think the occasion demands it, but I've sold  loads of JPG-only photos so it's not really a deal breaker for my needs (some pros shoot JPGs too).

Most people will never notice the difference for regular work, so it's a matter of personal preference.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1014&message=17701041&changemode=1


----------



## Structaural (Aug 14, 2009)

My camera is too slow saving DNG to use muchly. It's more geared up for JPEG anyway being a bit of a novelty camera.

A good suggestion when modifying colour curves etc.. in Photoshop is to convert the 8-bit JPEG immediately to 16-bit colour (and save as PSD), then the compression of the 256 colour space doesn't happen (as it's increased to 65535 or so) - effectlvely giving you pseudo-RAW. Convert back to 8-bit and save out a JPEG when printing.. or if finished convert back to 8-bit saving a load of space.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

My Fuji Finepix S2 will produce 

6mp jpeg at about 2.5mb
12mp jpeg at about 4.8mb
12mp tif at about 35.6mb


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> RAW gives you a little more range than jpg.



How much more?

Surely the range of values a camera can capture depends on the sensor, not the file type?

As for the camera doing stuff to the image (sharpening etc) - can't you turn all that off but still save to jpg?

Sharpening, for example, isn't an intrinsic part of making something into a jpg.


(I post partly from a position of ignorance, as I've never owned a digital camera that does RAW. I've never quite got what it's all about. In any case I maintain that the no. 1 determining factor in the quality of a photo is the person who presses the button.)


----------



## wolfism (Aug 14, 2009)

Cheers everyone for your thoughts - as you could tell from my original post, as I've tried both, starting to come down on the side of JPEG, but sometimes RAW *appears* to give a little more latitude.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 14, 2009)

teuchter said:


> How much more?
> 
> Surely the range of values a camera can capture depends on the sensor, not the file type?
> 
> ...


Actually sharpening is an intrinsic part of what your camera does when it makes a jpg.


----------



## paolo (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Actually sharpening is an intrinsic part of what your camera does when it makes a jpg.



It's not intrinsic. You can turn it off.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2009)

Mine (D40) shoots RAW and JPEG at the same time, best of both worlds I would have thought?


----------



## paolo (Aug 14, 2009)

spitfire said:


> Mine (D40) shoots RAW and JPEG at the same time, best of both worlds I would have thought?



Depends. For live action shooting, RAW can mean losing the killer shot due to much quicker buffer fill. A JPEG is of measurably superior quality to a RAW that doesn't exist


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2009)

Interesting, how much difference do you think it makes, or does it depend on the memory card?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 14, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Actually sharpening is an intrinsic part of what your camera does when it makes a jpg.



Are you sure? Not according to this -



> Regardless of camera setting, RAW files don't receive in-camera sharpening. The setting is however contained in EXIF data, and as somebody alluded to earlier in this string, some software automatically uses the EXIF data to apply sharpening upon import. Regarding your last question, yes you can turn camera sharpening off altogether for JPEG's to allow more accurate control in post-procesing.


http://photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00OKxf

I imagine different cameras give you varying levels of control, but I don't think that any more sharpening needs to take place to turn the sensor data into a JPEG than into a RAW file.

Even my phone camera allows me to adjust the level of in-camera sharpening - if it can be adjusted then I don't see why it can't be turned off all together (assuming the camera manufacturer provides this option).


----------



## paolo (Aug 14, 2009)

spitfire said:


> Interesting, how much difference do you think it makes, or does it depend on the memory card?



Will vary from camera to camera - the manufacturers publish figures for it.

Card speed could make a difference too, unless it's so fast that the bottleneck is the pipeline in the camera.


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2009)

OK mate, cheers. I'll look into it.


----------



## paolo (Aug 14, 2009)

Here's the test figures for the 5D Mark II.

RAW stops at 17 images.
JPEG is unlimited.

They used a 300x speed card for the test.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5Dmarkii/page14.asp


----------



## spitfire (Aug 14, 2009)

Thanks for the info paolo, i had a look at the D40 results. Very informative.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 14, 2009)

I have sharpenning turned off for my camera's jpeg output.


I prefer this also because I often only want to sharpen the key ingredient of the image, not all of it.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 14, 2009)

if you use jpeg then it's in camera(sic) processed.




			
				wiki said:
			
		

> In computing, JPEG (pronounced /ˈdʒeɪpɛɡ/, JAY-peg) is a commonly used method of compression for photographic images. The degree of compression can be adjusted, allowing a selectable tradeoff between storage size and image quality. JPEG typically achieves 10:1 compression with little perceptible loss in image quality......The JPEG standard specifies both the codec, which defines how an image is compressed into a stream of bytes and decompressed back into an image, and the file format used to contain that stream......The JPEG compression algorithm ....As JPEG is a lossy compression method, which removes information from the image,



I said this a shortwhile ago... "most" people don't give a flying fig...haz camera, take pickees...most pickees don't even see the light of day agin after they've been taken anyways... but if you wish to make(to take advantage) of the most out of the data recorded by your device the greatest proportion of that data(image) will be in RAW...jpeg inherrently...by it very existence removes & dumps.

RAW + jpeg ftw...not withstanding be ruthless about dumping miss-shots/images you'll never use...ever...make every byte count innit.


----------



## e19896 (Aug 14, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> PS & GIMP,...or the like of, are "image" editors..not "photographic" editors...I like using jpegs & RAWs in a photo-editor, then an image editor.
> 
> But of the two, PS & GIMP, PS is far superior across the board with finesse & output... GIMP still hasn't got it IMO...and I use the thing 365days a year atm....and it's killing me...meh.



I know what you do mean, a bugger if you come from another perspective ie P.S but it is where i began so have been there from the start so used to the GIMPS little ways, i looked at PS and i was lost to be frank..


----------



## paolo (Aug 14, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> RAW + jpeg ftw



Yes, except in live action shooting.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 14, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Yes, except in live action shooting.



That test that you posted is fairly impressive though - wanting more than 14 images in a burst would be pretty specialist I would have thought.

I'd still use JPEG though because quite frankly the difference you're going to get in practice is absolutely minimal, unless you're planning to do some sort of immense enlargement.


----------



## paolo (Aug 14, 2009)

FridgeMagnet said:


> That test that you posted is fairly impressive though - wanting more than 14 images in a burst would be pretty specialist I would have thought.



Sports is the main one. There you really want as many frames as possible (hence the existence of pro 'fast shooters' that have lower resolution, but gain in frame rate). Also maybe wildlife, maybe pap work.



FridgeMagnet said:


> I'd still use JPEG though because quite frankly the difference you're going to get in practice is absolutely minimal



Same.


----------



## toggy (Aug 16, 2009)

I always shoot RAW and don't experience any bottlenecks in real world day to day use (sandisk III 30mb/s) 

JPEG is lossy, RAW is keepy. 

I use DPP to view RAW images and output a wireable newsprint quality JPEG in a couple of seconds. 

My entire archive is RAW because I can't tell now how an image will be used in the future and I wish to preserve as much image info as possible.

Many picture desks are not set up (clueless) to handle RAW.


----------



## cybertect (Aug 17, 2009)

I shoot RAW almost exclusively.

Storage is relatively cheap. I don't like throwing away data even if I end up doing barely anything to the photo in Lightroom.

Adjustments to White Balance ware waaay easier and more accurate with RAW and I often shoot under high-pressure sodium lights at night where being able to adjust the WB is a huge benefit if I don't want to be messing with a grey card test for every shot. Even then, being able to recalibrate the colour response of the RAW processor allows me to do things that would be nearly impossible with JPEG, even with ages spent in Photoshop.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 17, 2009)

Been processing stuff from Friday's shoot this morning & thought of this thread.
So I processed one of the images as my usual 8 bit tif & as an 8 bit Jpeg as well.
All I've done is process the Leaf MOS files in Leaf capture & both versions had exactly the same amount of basic levels correction in PS  & were then saved & opened again.

It's quite noticable that [at 400%] the JPEG on the right has much more  pink hue noise than the tif.







Dunno what this test is supossed to prove, if anything, but thought you might be interested


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2009)

Tiff's not a RAW format though - there is a conversion process from RAW to tiff just like there is to jpg.

So I'm not sure what your test proves either!


----------



## cybertect (Aug 17, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Tiff's not a RAW format though - there is a conversion process from RAW to tiff just like there is to jpg.





but TIFF is a lossless storage format, so 

a) it crystallises exactly what you get from the RAW conversion engine or after any further modifications.

b) processing the JPEG and saving it results in a different (lower) image quality _without any other changes to the process_, so it must be the file format that does this.


----------



## paolo (Aug 17, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> Been processing stuff from Friday's shoot this morning & thought of this thread.
> So I processed one of the images as my usual 8 bit tif & as an 8 bit Jpeg as well.
> All I've done is process the Leaf MOS files in Leaf capture & both versions had exactly the same amount of basic levels correction in PS  & were then saved & opened again.
> 
> ...



Can't see the difference myself.

Tell you what, take a different bit of the image, then post up 3 samples, unlabelled. Make 2 of them actually the same. Then get people to say which they think is JPEG, and which isn't.

The answers should be fun.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2009)

cybertect said:


> but TIFF is a lossless storage format, so
> 
> a) it crystallises exactly what you get from the RAW conversion engine or after any further modifications.
> 
> b) processing the JPEG and saving it results in a different (lower) image quality _without any other changes to the process_, so it must be the file format that does this.



Sure - but I think the main discussion on this thread (and the article in the OP) is whether opening a RAW file on your computer, then doing whatever you want to it, produces a noticeably better result than saving in-camera as jpg (with all sharpening etc turned off, and saving as a high quality jpg rather than a very compressed one) then opening that, and doing what you want to that on your computer.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Can't see the difference myself.
> 
> Tell you what, take a different bit of the image, then post up 3 samples, unlabelled. Make 2 of them actually the same. Then get people to say which they think is JPEG, and which isn't.
> 
> The answers should be fun.


Proper scientific study!

I suspect that there is a bit of a similar thing here as there is with some "high-end" hifi - the audible differences suddenly disappear once you do a blind test.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Tell you what, take a different bit of the image, then post up 3 samples, unlabelled. Make 2 of them actually the same. Then get people to say which they think is JPEG, and which isn't.
> 
> The answers should be fun.



Indeed, no one knows whether my prints come from raw or jpeg, and I don't see the need to tell them either.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2009)

Who looks at things at 400% anyhow. 
For me if it looks ok at 100% I know I am going to get a good print from it.


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 17, 2009)

I only shoot jpeg because my output is flickr and this computer cant handle RAW pics. ffs it has less than the minimum requirements to run photoshop cs3 but still somehow manages to run it (just about).

I rarely shoot anything printworthy but when I do think I'm gonna want a nice a2ish print for my living room then I'll shoot in raw + jpeg mode just so I can get an optimal print in future (i.e. when I can afford a decent computer and colour management stuff)


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 17, 2009)

btw surely a proper test of raw vs. jpeg should be done with prints not screen output


----------



## weltweit (Aug 17, 2009)

I suppose if I had a super modern computer with massive drives for storage then I might shoot raw sometimes. I do like to get as close to the maximum quality as possible out of my camera, but at the moment my puters cannot cope with the massive filesizes.


----------



## paolo (Aug 17, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> btw surely a proper test of raw vs. jpeg should be done with prints not screen output



Either are valid. Depends what your target medium is. But within the constraints of chewing the fat on urban, we'll have to make do with screen and some degree of pixel peeping.


----------



## paolo (Aug 17, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Proper scientific study!
> 
> I suspect that there is a bit of a similar thing here as there is with some "high-end" hifi - the audible differences suddenly disappear once you do a blind test.



I had a mate who worked for a company making specialist top dollar valve amps.

When it came to cables (the great con trick of 'high end' hi fi), well... the engineers did a blind test of ordinary mains cable, vs super expensive 'specialist' speaker cable.

Noone could tell the difference. 

(The amps themselves though... well, valves really do sound different...  but that's another topic).


----------



## teuchter (Aug 17, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I had a mate who worked for a company making specialist top dollar valve amps.
> 
> When it came to cables (the great con trick of 'high end' hi fi), well... the engineers did a blind test of ordinary mains cable, vs super expensive 'specialist' speaker cable.
> 
> ...



I saw a good test somewhere involving digital interconnects. The whole idea of digital, of course, is that generally either the signal is 100% correct or it falls below a threshold where it is useless. This doesn't stop some people believing that it's worth spending several hundred quid on some coax cables with gold plated this and directional that. Anyway some bloke had set up a comparison between such cables and a more 'DIY' version. No-one could reliably hear a difference. I can't remember the exact make-up of his alternative set-up but there was definitely a coat-hanger involved...


----------



## starfish2000 (Aug 17, 2009)

I shoot Jpegs mainly, but am doing a paid job soon, so will do RAW & JPEG for that. My Cameras 10.1 MP

My only question is in terms of future proofing, will RAW be redundant one day, or will it require endless software updates costing endless amounts of money?


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 17, 2009)

raw is raw, someone will interpret the data, its juts raw image data from sensor


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I saw a good test somewhere involving digital interconnects. The whole idea of digital, of course, is that generally either the signal is 100% correct or it falls below a threshold where it is useless. This doesn't stop some people believing that it's worth spending several hundred quid on some coax cables with gold plated this and directional that. Anyway some bloke had set up a comparison between such cables and a more 'DIY' version. No-one could reliably hear a difference. I can't remember the exact make-up of his alternative set-up but there was definitely a coat-hanger involved...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

starfish2000 said:


> I shoot Jpegs mainly, but am doing a paid job soon, so will do RAW & JPEG for that. My Cameras 10.1 MP
> 
> My only question is in terms of future proofing, will RAW be redundant one day, or will it require endless software updates costing endless amounts of money?



It's one of the points made in the article linked to in the OP - RAW data is not a single format but varies between manufacturers and camera models. So most likely, not very future-proof at all.


----------



## army_of_one (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> It's one of the points made in the article linked to in the OP - RAW data is not a single format but varies between manufacturers and camera models. So most likely, not very future-proof at all.



Not true. Mostly. 

.DNG made by Adobe is generic. Just about every recent editor or converter supports it and more and more cameras are being made that support it. That being said, the camera makers are still produceing their own proprietary RAWs, so you are right about that.

Oh, and Adobe is offering .DNG for free. 


http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/



For now.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 18, 2009)

tiff is now own by Adobe also.

tiff is lot more versatile than people here suggest they know....and considerably _different_ than jpeg eg it is losy or non-lossy depending upon it's application of use.

It is also standard practice to images to be reviewed at 300% + for particular reasons...whether or not the user chooses to or not is. naturally, up to them...but there is a purpose for it.eg the application of USM with minimal artefact creation.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> It's one of the points made in the article linked to in the OP - RAW data is not a single format but varies between manufacturers and camera models. So most likely, not very future-proof at all.



which is why I convert to DNG


----------



## cybertect (Aug 18, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> tiff is now own by Adobe also.



Well, they acquired control of the specification along with the rest of Aldus (who invented the TIFF format) in 1994. There is no licence fee payable to use the format, especially since the patents for LZW compression expired.



> tiff is lot more versatile than people here suggest they know....and considerably _different_ than jpeg eg it is losy or non-lossy depending upon it's application of use.



Well, if you do save a TIFF with JPEG compression it will be lossy, but I've never really seen much point in doing that.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

Horses for courses. It's hard (if not impossible) to argue that RAW isn't the superior format. The question surely is what's most appropriate to your personal workflow? I shoot everything in RAW, but I have the time to spend working on the images that I want to use. If I was bursting constantly and wanting to use a lot of those shots, I'd seriously have to think about shooting JPEG. 

Also, doesn't it depend on how much post-processing you wanna do? Some people simply want to capture the image "as the eye sees it", whereas others want to manipulate the image further. For the former style, JPEG could well be adequate, whereas for the latter style, RAW offers more flexibility.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

You see I know people who have no choice but to use jpeg because that is all their camera will produce. The FujiFilm Finepix S1 for example only produces fine jpeg. (and its a low MP camera)

Yet I also know someone in a club who produces startling prints from that and processes all their images, sometimes a lot. No one has said to them these are all from jpeg because they are of a standard (the prints) that no one can tell.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing.  Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved.  It's about whether you want to do that yourself or are happy for someone else to do it for you.  IMHO, natch.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> You see I know people who have no choice but to use jpeg because that is all their camera will produce. The FujiFilm Finepix S1 for example only produces fine jpeg. (and its a low MP camera)


I've seen brilliant photographs produced with a polaroid camera. That's not the issue though. Nobody's denying that you can create superb images using JPEGs. But RAW is a_ better tool_, providing greater flexibility. That doesn't mean that _you personally_ (or your friends) _need _it - any more than Mozart _needed _a 64 track digital recording suite. But that doesn't alter that fact that RAW (and a 64 track digital recording suite) is a more powerful tool in the hands of the artist (and yes, I view photographers as artists).


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing.  Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved.


Yes. If it's all about "capturing what the eye sees", then where would that leave black and white photography?


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing.  Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved.  It's about whether you want to do that yourself or are happy for someone else to do it for you.  IMHO, natch.


To right


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing.  Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved.  It's about whether you want to do that yourself or are happy for someone else to do it for you.  IMHO, natch.



Attempting to correct an overexposed shot in an image editor is not a "creative decision". If you want to over-expose a shot for creative reasons then a good photographer would do this at the point of taking the picture.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

I forget even how to turn on raw in my camera but I did try max resolution tiff a couple of days ago as a result of this thread and the image size was 35mb ... that compares to 2.5mb or 4.5mb for jpeg images of 6mp or 12mp. I simply cannot live with 35mb per file, its just not justifiable.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

My camera is a tool, I use it to process images of the scene how I want it to, there are settings for colour and tone and I use them as well as exposure and composition to get the image that I want.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Attempting to correct an overexposed shot in an image editor is not a "creative decision". If you want to over-expose a shot for creative reasons then a good photographer would do this at the point of taking the picture.



So RAW is just about correcting over-exposed images?


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> My camera is a tool, I use it to process images of the scene how I want it to, there are settings for colour and tone and I use them as well as exposure and composition to get the image that I want.


Which is why it's suitable _for you_. It doesn't mean that it's suitable _for everyone_. It also doesn't mean that JPEG is the _better _tool. I can cut bread with a butter knife at a push, but a serrated blade is still a better tool.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2009)

I find both types of purists irritating. Whether it be the 'get it right in camera' sort, or the RAW zealot.

The sensible answer is: Do what works for you.

But that's no fun for a forum argument.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I find both types of purists irritating. Whether it be the 'get it right in camera' sort, or the RAW zealot.
> 
> The sensible answer is: Do what works for you.


Spot on. 



> But that's no fun for a forum argument.


Must go and find a Windows vs. Linux discussion....


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Well unless we explained and touted the route we use it would be a boring debate .. 

But with photography there are always loads of different routes to get a result. 

Just take exposure ... 

Some just use P mode and don't compensate at all, preferring to do it later in PS or raw .. 

Others use S or A mode and compensate .. 

Others use full manual and spot .. 

When they all get to prints or whatever output they have chosen, can we tell the difference?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I find both types of purists irritating. Whether it be the 'get it right in camera' sort, or the RAW zealot.
> 
> The sensible answer is: Do what works for you.
> 
> But that's no fun for a forum argument.



^
this

but I like an argument


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> When they all get to prints or whatever output they have chosen, can we tell the difference?


You're still missing the point. Nobody is arguing that JPEG isn't the right tool _for you_. If Mozart managed to write his symphonies with a quill, does that prevent a pen from being a superior tool?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

I guess the marginal quality advantage offered by RAW might be of significance in a few specialised situations.

For most amateurs though I reckon it's just because it makes them feel "professional" and it makes the experience of playing with their expensive toys more fun for them, even though there is no difference in the end result. That and a bit of the OCD storing decades of newspapers in your loft in case you need to refer back to them photography equivalent. 

Of course I'm mainly just saying this to annoy people for my own entertainment though.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> You're still missing the point. Nobody is arguing that JPEG isn't the right tool _for you_. If Mozart managed to write his symphonies with a quill, does that prevent a pen from being a superior tool?



No, I don't think I am missing the point at all. 

If the output of various different workflows is comparible despite there being lots of difference in the actual steps taken, then the output is comparable. 

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. 

The eating in a photographic sense is in the final photograph.

If one method of getting there is more economical than the rest then it might be deemed to be a superior tool or combination of tools. 

It is impossible to tell whether someone used P or A or S and often or even usually if they compensated in camera or not, equally it is in my experience usually impossible to tell if they used raw or jpeg. 

But if they did use raw, we do know that they took up a whole lot more media and disk space to achieve their result than if they had used jpeg.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Of course I'm mainly just saying this to annoy people for my own entertainment though.



 me too ..


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I guess the marginal quality advantage offered by RAW might be of significance in a few specialised situations.
> 
> For most amateurs though I reckon it's just because it makes them feel "professional" and it makes the experience of playing with their expensive toys more fun for them, even though there is no difference in the end result. That and a bit of the OCD storing decades of newspapers in your loft in case you need to refer back to them photography equivalent.
> 
> Of course I'm mainly just saying this to annoy people for my own entertainment though.



Higher dynamic range and recovery of burnt out highlights.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> No, I don't think I am missing the point at all.
> 
> If the output of various different workflows is comparible despite there being lots of difference in the actual steps taken, then the output is comparable.


Not if one workflow is simpler and non-destructive. 



> The proof of the pudding is in the eating.
> 
> The eating in a photographic sense is in the final photograph.
> 
> If one method of getting there is more economical than the rest then it might be deemed to be a superior tool or combination of tools. It is impossible to tell whether someone used P or A or S


No, because that's all predicated upon the assumption that all photographic situations are equal. 'P' mode may be absolutely fine in many circumstances, but if you need tight control over your DoF, then you'd better be in 'A' mode. Take two photographs side-by-side in such a situation using the two different modes, and you'll sure as hell be able to tell the difference. 



> and often or even usually if they compensated in camera or not, equally it is in my experience usually impossible to tell if they used raw or jpeg.


Yes, and if someone uses a quill and someone uses a pen and someone uses a typewriter, you will not be able to tell the difference in the published novel. 



> But if they did use raw, we do know that they took up a whole lot more media and disk space to achieve their result than if they had used jpeg.


Well that's not really an issue if they can afford the media and disk space, is it? If they can't, then as has been repeatedly said, use the tool that best suits you. Just don't argue it's objectively superior or equal to the tool that other people choose to use. Personally, I write music on an ancient PC. I produce perfectly good results - probably indistinguishable from those produced by people with much more expensive kit. I do not argue that their tools aren't superior to mine.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> me too ..


I'm just killing the time between now and Friday.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Higher dynamic range



I don't see how the range can be higher - it's more the number of discrete levels between highest and lowest, no?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I don't see how the range can be higher - it's more the number of discrete levels between highest and lowest, no?



jpeg 8bit, RAW 12bit


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Not if one workflow is simpler and non-destructive.



But for me raw is more complicated, there are more steps to go through to get a printable photograph and more files to maintain. I work with jpegs all the time, websites for example use jpeg or gif images, there can be high quality and reduced filesizes, its a win win .. And if you are outputting where filesize is not an issue then you can use jpeg at 100% which means no degradation. That is what I use when I am outputting to print an image which I have worked on, there is no loss of quality.



Beanburger said:


> No, because that's all predicated upon the assumption that all photographic situations are equal. 'P' mode may be absolutely fine in many circumstances, but if you need tight control over your DoF, then you'd better be in 'A' mode. Take two photographs side-by-side in such a situation using the two different modes, and you'll sure as hell be able to tell the difference.



I don't know about your P mode but in mine we can vary aperture settings, but yes I usually chose A mode (or M) if I want to limit dof .. 



Beanburger said:


> Yes, and if someone uses a quill and someone uses a pen and someone uses a typewriter, you will not be able to tell the difference in the published novel.



But that is significant. 



Beanburger said:


> Well that's not really an issue if they can afford the media and disk space, is it? If they can't, then as has been repeatedly said, use the tool that best suits you. Just don't argue it's objectively superior or equal to the tool that other people choose to use.



I am not arguing that anything is superior .. in fact that is the crux of my argument, most people cannot tell the difference in the final result so nothing is superior.



Beanburger said:


> Personally, I write music on an ancient PC. I produce perfectly good results - probably indistinguishable from those produced by people with much more expensive kit. I do not argue that their tools aren't superior to mine.



But I am not arguing that either method is superior. In photograpy there are myriad ways to get a result. 

I use jpeg just because it suits me, I have a camera that produces great jpegs, not all do and I do not have computer equipment sufficiently powerful to manage a raw workflow. But having a great jpeg camera I probably would not use Raw anyhow with it it would not make sense for me.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> jpeg 8bit, RAW 12bit



Actually, it's not to do with bit depth, it's to do with tone curves.  More bit depth decreases susceptibility to posterisation and increases colour space choices.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> And if you are outputting where filesize is not an issue then you can use jpeg at 100% which means no degradation. .



jpgs at minimum compression are still compressed


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> jpgs at minimum compression are still compressed



I normally start with a 2.5mb jpeg from the camera, work on it and do whatever I do to it, then I save it as a newfile jpeg for print and end up with a 2.7mb jpeg.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> jpeg 8bit, RAW 12bit



But what does that actually mean?


----------



## Barking_Mad (Aug 18, 2009)

Having attended a photojournalism workshop that had professional photographers on it, my experience is that most shoot in RAW mode.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> But for me raw is more complicated, there are more steps to go through to get a printable photograph and more files to maintain. I work with jpegs all the time, websites for example use jpeg or gif images, there can be high quality and reduced filesizes, its a win win .. And if you are outputting where filesize is not an issue then you can use jpeg at 100% which means no degradation. That is what I use when I am outputting to print an image which I have worked on, there is no loss of quality.


Jolly good. Which is why JPEG is right for _you_. I can't type for shit, so a pen is right for _me_. Doesn't mean a word processor isn't a better tool. 



> I don't know about your P mode but in mine we can vary aperture settings, but yes I usually chose A mode (or M) if I want to limit dof ..


If you're overriding the camera's recommended exposure settings in 'P' mode, then what's the point of shooting in that mode? Point still stands though... if you've shot in 'P' mode (without intervening to correct the camera's choice) and require a specific DoF, then you will be able to tell the difference between that shot and a shot taken in aperture priority. 



> I am not arguing that anything is superior .. in fact that is the crux of my argument, most people cannot tell the difference in the final result so nothing is superior.


I can't tell the difference between cheap plonk and fine wine. Doesn't mean there isn't one. 



> But I am not arguing that either method is superior. In photograpy there are myriad ways to get a result.
> 
> I use jpeg just because it suits me, I have a camera that produces great jpegs, not all do and I do not have computer equipment sufficiently powerful to manage a raw workflow. But having a great jpeg camera I probably would not use Raw anyhow with it it would not make sense for me.


Which is fine. But RAW is still a superior tool.... just one that might not be suited to you or that you might not need.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> jpeg 8bit, RAW 12bit



According to Ken Rockwell that doesn't actually matter:



> If you're a tweaker you'd be interested to learn raw and JPG also have the same effective bit precision. JPG has 8 bits per color per pixel and raw may have 12 bits, but here's the big catch: raw is 12 bit linear, and JPG is 8 bit log, gamma corrected or some other non-linear transform derived from the 12 bit linear data. Thus in the shadows where this might matter the two are the same, since the full 12 bit resolution in the dark areas is preserved by the non-linear coding. Even if the two formats differed in dark resolution the sensor noise is still greater than one LSB anyway making it a moot point.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

Ken Rockwell is an idiot.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I normally start with a 2.5mb jpeg from the camera, work on it and do whatever I do to it, then I save it as a newfile jpeg for print and end up with a 2.7mb jpeg.



and?


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Ken Rockwell is an idiot.


Seconded.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> and?



Therefore there is if anything negligable compression.

Anyhow, this 12bit raw business, you can't upload raw images to website galleries or print them to prints, you have to convert the raw into something useable before you do either of these things. And is that something useable also 12bit or is it 8?


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Therefore there is if anything negligable compression.
> 
> Anyhow, this 12bit raw business, you can't upload raw images to website galleries or print them to prints, you have to convert the raw into something useable before you do either of these things. And is that something useable also 12bit or is it 8?


Oh, c'mon now. That's just straightforward trolling.


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Therefore there is if anything negligable compression.




You're missing the point.  Every time you save a jpg (even at minimum compression), you are throwing some data away.



weltweit said:


> Anyhow, this 12bit raw business, you can't upload raw images to website galleries or print them to prints, you have to convert the raw into something useable before you do either of these things. And is that something useable also 12bit or is it 8?



Depends.  I process my RAW into 16 bit TIFFs.  Then into 8bit jpegs for teh web.  The point being that I do all my editing on a 12 bit or 16 bit image, thus giving me more data to play with and more editing options.  For example - levels adjustments.

Plus - I get to control how an image is converted into a jpg, not the camera.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're missing the point.  Every time you save a jpg (even at minimum compression), you are throwing some data away.



Well I do it once in the camera at creation time, then at the most once more when I output for print or the web.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Depends.  I process my RAW into 16 bit TIFFs.  Then into 8bit jpegs for teh web.  The point being that I do all my editing on a 12 bit or 16 bit image, thus giving me more data to play with and more editing options.  For example - levels adjustments.



Going back a step, what exactly does it mean 8bit or 12 or 16 bit ... ?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're missing the point.  Every time you save a jpg (even at minimum compression), you are throwing some data away.



Every time you spend half an hour tweaking a RAW file to look like it would have done anyway if you'd gone the jpg route, you are throwing some of your life away.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Going back a step, what exactly does it mean 8bit or 12 or 16 bit ... ?



It means the number of levels of brightness that can be recorded for each pixel.

8bit: 256 levels

12 bit: about 4,000 levels.


The important point, though, seems to be that we see brightness on a non-linear scale compared to a camera sensor. When the camera converts the sensor info into a JPG it takes this into account. It seems to me that the only time 8bit/12bit would make a visible difference would be if you are applying some quite extreme levels adjustment to your image (ie you'd properly screwed up the exposure).


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Going back a step, what exactly does it mean 8bit or 12 or 16 bit ... ?



did you read the link I posted?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Well I do it once in the camera at creation time, then at the most once more when I output for print or the web.



So that's twice that you're throwing data away!


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2009)

I see the RAW fundamentalism is creeping back.

"It's okay to use JPEG, just as long as you agree that MY USE OF RAW IS SUPERIOR"


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Every time you spend half an hour tweaking a RAW file to look like it would have done anyway if you'd gone the jpg route, you are throwing some of your life away.



Every time you post silly things like this, I wish you'd just go away


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> did you read the link I posted?




No sorry, I must have missed that.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> You're missing the point.  Every time you save a jpg (even at minimum compression), you are throwing some data away.





teuchter said:


> Every time you spend half an hour tweaking a RAW file to look like it would have done anyway if you'd gone the jpg route, you are throwing some of your life away.


But you can take RAW photos and archive them against future need. You can then process them just as the camera would, if that's your current preference. No time loss at all.

Alternatively, you can (in most circumstances) shoot JPEG + RAW.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 18, 2009)

I think the RAW fundamentalists should post up some of their photos for us to assess on a technical basis.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I think the RAW fundamentalists should post up some of their photos for us to assess on a technical basis.


If any RAW fundamentalists come along, I'm sure they'll he happy to oblige.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2009)

I'll be doing a "spot the JPEG" thread in the next day or two. I did a quick test last night, and it was interesting.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I'll be doing a "spot the JPEG" thread in the next day or two. I did a quick test last night, and it was interesting.


Wouldn't that all depend on the skill of the photographer? Good tools don't automatically produce a good photograph any more than bad tools automatically produce a bad photograph.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Actually, it's not to do with bit depth, it's to do with tone curves.  More bit depth decreases susceptibility to posterisation and increases colour space choices.
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm



Blagsta I assume you must mean this link.. 

Yes now have read that and its interesting. 

I would on occasion like to get two exposures of the same scene like the example they posted, one -1 for thr ground and another +1 for the sky, sort of like an hdr. 

But in practice I have filters nd grads in my bag and anyhow tend to avoid such images because the range is greater than my jpeg workflow can cope with. 

I tend to shoot mainly land or mainly sky ...  if you know what I mean.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 18, 2009)

Blagsta said:


> Ken Rockwell is an idiot.



Ken Rockwell is absolute fucking idiot.


----------



## Beanburger (Aug 18, 2009)

Pie 1 said:


> Ken Rockwell is absolute fucking idiot.


I believe we have a consensus.


----------



## paolo (Aug 18, 2009)

Beanburger said:


> Wouldn't that all depend on the skill of the photographer? Good tools don't automatically produce a good photograph any more than bad tools automatically produce a bad photograph.



All subjective components removed. Zero processing. Just one being compressed, and one not.

The difference is visible.

Should be fun.


----------



## kerb (Aug 18, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I find both types of purists irritating. Whether it be the 'get it right in camera' sort, or the RAW zealot.
> 
> The sensible answer is: Do what works for you.
> 
> But that's no fun for a forum argument.



navel gazing thread is navel gazing


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 28, 2009)

Personally I alway shoot in RAW+JPEG Client all want JPGS however.

But the difference in the data stored and information on the image between the two even from the resulting JPG from raw file is immeasurably different.

If you want detail in your images shoot in RAW if you want a level of camera placed blur in your images shoot JPG.

Viewed on a decent sized HD screen the contrast between the two is incredibly apparent instantly.

As for burst shot machine gun madness I've never seen the need to fire off 17 consecutive shots at all.

As for the size buy a bigger faster card.


----------



## paolo (Aug 28, 2009)

Not everyone shoots live action.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 28, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> Not everyone shoots live action.



nor do i.

the difference is stunning and instantly visible my flat mate is also a photographer and his reaction was I'm never shooting in jpg alone again. 

If you have any intention of printing any type of shot then it has to be raw for a better quality printed images.  imho.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 28, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> ...If you have any intention of printing any type of shot then it has to be raw for a better quality printed images.  imho.



I have been printing for the last 10 years 10x15inch for camera club competitions from a 2.5mb 6mp jpeg file. No one has ever suggested that I might have any lesser quality images than if I shot raw.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> nor do i.
> 
> the difference is stunning and instantly visible my flat mate is also a photographer and his reaction was I'm never shooting in jpg alone again.
> 
> If you have any intention of printing any type of shot then it has to be raw for a better quality printed images.  imho.



I'd like to see the evidence.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> I have been printing for the last 10 years 10x15inch for camera club competitions from a 2.5mb 6mp jpeg file. No one has ever suggested that I might have any lesser quality images than if I shot raw.



I adore my neighbour's home baking...another neighbour never touches anything on his plate; and yet also he never says, "No thank-you.".


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to see the evidence.



That has to be a _Meat_Space_ thang really.


*shudders*


----------



## weltweit (Aug 28, 2009)

Didn't someone say they were going to post a couple of images, one from raw and another from jpeg for us to get all muddled over? 

I could have sworn someone was going to do that.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Didn't someone say they were going to post a couple of images, one from raw and another from jpeg for us to get all muddled over?



how?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 28, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> how?



Two jpeg images, one created from raw and the other from jpeg (at 100% compression probably). 

Same steps on each, sharpenning or whatever, exactly the same.


----------



## Gromit (Aug 28, 2009)

"Professionals (and the confident) shoot JPEG; amateurs shoot RAW"

I'm an amateur. I shoot jpeg because...

Thats how the camera was set up at the factory and I never bother to print any of my photos. Just look at them on the PC / online. So job done.


----------



## paolo (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Didn't someone say they were going to post a couple of images, one from raw and another from jpeg for us to get all muddled over?
> 
> I could have sworn someone was going to do that.



Me. I've already done some tests with my 5D. 

I'll have a potter with lossless browser supported file formats for the RAW when I get a moment.


----------



## paolo (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Two jpeg images, one created from raw and the other from jpeg (at 100% compression probably).
> 
> Same steps on each, sharpenning or whatever, exactly the same.



I'm just going to do unprocessed. No attempt to discover stuff like rescuing burnt highlights, Just plain RAW vs plain JPEG. Which is fine, because there IS a visible difference even just at that level.

The fun will be seeing who knows which is which.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> Two jpeg images, one created from raw and the other from jpeg (at 100% compression probably).
> 
> Same steps on each, sharpenning or whatever, exactly the same.



impossible to do...soz 

plus

have some more maths to consider. 

http://www.adamcoupe.com/whitepapers/photography_technique_benefits_of_shooting_in_raw.htm


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 28, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> The fun will be seeing who knows which is which.



the dark one will be RAW...next?!


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I'd like to see the evidence.



come round my house and i'll show you on a 47 inch 1080p screen if you can't see it then you're myopic.


----------



## paolo (Aug 28, 2009)

boskysquelch said:


> the dark one will be RAW...next?!



So basically, rather than having a blind test, Bosky has now explained that you can tell a RAW image because it's darker.

So I'll find another Internet forum to do the blind trial.

Apologies to anyone who was looking forward to a bit of fun.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 28, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> come round my house and i'll show you on a 47 inch 1080p screen if you can't see it then you're myopic.



IMO the best test would be two photographic prints.

After all .. its photography.. about the print! no?


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 28, 2009)

awwwr


----------



## wolfism (Aug 28, 2009)

Good to see this thread is still steaming along! 


paolo999 said:


> I'll have a potter with lossless browser supported file formats for the RAW when I get a moment.


Out of curiosity, in order to use one with the same bit depth as a jpeg (ie as close an equivalent as possible) does that mean saving as a bmp file?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> IMO the best test would be two photographic prints.
> 
> After all .. its photography.. about the print! no?



no photography is about light period anything else is snapping


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> I'm just going to do unprocessed. No attempt to discover stuff like rescuing burnt highlights, Just plain RAW vs plain JPEG. Which is fine, because there IS a visible difference even just at that level.
> 
> The fun will be seeing who knows which is which.



I think it would be more meaningful to process them both to the 'same' end result (ie end up with the same levels etc). Probably impossible to do objectively though.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 28, 2009)

teuchter said:


> I think it would be more meaningful to process them both to the 'same' end result (ie end up with the same levels etc). Probably impossible to do objectively though.



I'm not sure it can be done in that way your still going to use an output format which compresses for one and not the other... 

it might be possible with scaled up details to give an artifical look but on a standard pc monitor then the res isn't good enough to show it you'd need people to have an hd screen to see it otherwise what's out putted to your screen is only the maximum resolution on screen that the screen can handle.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 28, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> no photography is about light period anything else is snapping



What is snapping about then?


----------



## Blagsta (Aug 28, 2009)

weltweit said:


> IMO the best test would be two photographic prints.
> 
> After all .. its photography.. about the print! no?



About the picture, surely?  Isn't the medium irrelevant these days?


----------



## cybertect (Aug 28, 2009)




----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> What is snapping about then?



using a camera to take images with no thought to the composition or light levels merely to be there and record the moment


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> using a camera to take images with no thought to the composition or light levels merely to be there and record the moment



but you said photography was about light, 'period', nothing else. Now you are saying it's about composition too. I'm getting confused.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> but you said photography was about light, 'period', nothing else. Now you are saying it's about composition too. I'm getting confused.


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


>



The distinction between snapping and photographing is an important one and you aren't taking the issue seriously. Real photographers take this issue seriously. Snappers roll eyes.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 29, 2009)

paolo999 said:


> All subjective components removed. Zero processing. Just one being compressed, and one not.
> 
> The difference is visible.
> 
> Should be fun.


How does zero processing work exactly?

Or, in other words, 0100100001101111011
10111001000000110010001101111011001
01011100110010000001111010011001010
11100100110111100100000011100000111
00100110111101100011011001010111001
10111001101101001011011100110011100
10000001110111011011110111001001101
01100111111


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> but you said photography was about light, 'period', nothing else. Now you are saying it's about composition too. I'm getting confused.



I think he was distinguishing between photographs taken simply as a visual record of a moment and not much more, like a graduation photo taken by someone's parent, and....the other thing. Where the quality of the light transforms something mundane into something beautiful, mysterious.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 29, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> come round my house and i'll show you on a 47 inch screen



LOL 

((((((((Garf)))))))))


----------



## weltweit (Aug 29, 2009)

So, what steps do RAW shooters go through to get a print?


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 29, 2009)

Open in lightroom

adjust

manipulate

sharpen

print


----------



## weltweit (Aug 29, 2009)

So you are saying you print from raw in lightroom?


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2009)

Someone needs to shoot a picture in RAW + JPG, do what processing they want to the RAW, and then post the result.

Then upload the unedited JPG, and we can fiddle about with it in photoshop to achieve the best match to the processed RAW and then upload that, and we can examine the difference in quality.


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 29, 2009)

weltweit said:


> So you are saying you print from raw in lightroom?


do you?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> The distinction between snapping and photographing is an important one and you aren't taking the issue seriously. Real photographers take this issue seriously. Snappers roll eyes.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> I think he was distinguishing between photographs taken simply as a visual record of a moment and not much more, like a graduation photo taken by someone's parent, and....the other thing. Where the quality of the light transforms something mundane into something beautiful, mysterious.



that's because you are infinitely more reasonable than teuchter


----------



## army_of_one (Aug 29, 2009)

weltweit said:


> So you are saying you print from raw in lightroom?



I don't have lightroom. I've got corel, but I've printed plenty of pictures directly from raws. 

Has this been wrong?


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Someone needs to shoot a picture in RAW + JPG, do what processing they want to the RAW, and then post the result.
> 
> Then upload the unedited JPG, and we can fiddle about with it in photoshop to achieve the best match to the processed RAW and then upload that, and we can examine the difference in quality.



what don't you get about screen resolution not being able to fully convey this unless you have a HD screen?

Screen res for output is limited and as a result normal pc screens aren't capable of being able to translate the data they get into an exact replica of the image but have to show it at their maximum image quality which means both jpg and raw will peak before way after the screen has...

unless it's a HD screen.

why do you think professional graphics houses and photographers spend money on screens which are capable of displaying far higher than normal resolutions?  is it vainity?  or maybe there's another reason...

this has been explained to you know 3 times.

unless you view it with your own eyes then the standard pc monitors will not give you the difference.

fuck me this is like explaining to a savage the concept of a car...


----------



## teuchter (Aug 29, 2009)

GarfieldLeChat said:


> what don't you get about screen resolution not being able to fully convey this unless you have a HD screen?
> 
> Screen res for output is limited and as a result normal pc screens aren't capable of being able to translate the data they get into an exact replica of the image but have to show it at their maximum image quality which means both jpg and raw will peak before way after the screen has...
> 
> ...



Just view a portion of the image at 100% then and stand back a bit. A pixel is a pixel.


----------



## GarfieldLeChat (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> Just view a portion of the image at 100% then and stand back a bit. A pixel is a pixel.


----------



## boskysquelch (Aug 29, 2009)

teuchter said:


> A pixel is a pixel.


----------



## Pie 1 (Aug 29, 2009)

heh.


----------



## weltweit (Aug 29, 2009)

Herbsman. said:


> do you?



No, I print from jpeg


----------



## mauvais (Aug 29, 2009)

What the fuck does HDTV have to do with this?


----------



## weltweit (Aug 29, 2009)

mauvais said:


> What the fuck does HDTV have to do with this?



I have a CRT screen which I like to sharpen on, I also have a laptop with a tft screen but it is pants for photo editing plus its impossible to set the blackpoint on.


----------



## mauvais (Aug 29, 2009)

I'm just confused about these 47 inch 'HD' monitors with 'far higher than normal resolutions'. As far as I know, graphics houses and photogs use monitors like Eizo, LaCie and Apple. I've got one myself, and whilst it's an excellent monitor, its resolution is standard and its dynamic range is the same as any good LCD.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

One thing's for sure: when I look at these threads and read all this technical talk, I expect to go to the threads where the actual photos are put up, and see a bunch of incredible photographic masterpieces.


----------



## ill-informed (Aug 29, 2009)

I shoot in RAW because i'm always looking for a stunning picture that i can blow up to A3 and put on the wall. Unfortunately that very rarely happens but i live in hope.


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 29, 2009)

ill-informed said:


> I shoot in RAW because i'm always looking for a stunning picture that i can blow up to A3 and put on the wall. Unfortunately that very rarely happens but i live in hope.


I used to do that.

Now I've given up and I shoot in the smallest resolution (but high quality) to save the computer's processor


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 29, 2009)

Johnny Canuck2 said:


> One thing's for sure: when I look at these threads and read all this technical talk, I expect to go to the threads where the actual photos are put up, and see a bunch of incredible photographic masterpieces.



Sorely disappointed, Mr Everyman?

*taps nose* don't you know.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Sorely disappointed, Mr Everyman?
> 
> *taps nose* don't you know.



Any chance of getting this in English?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 29, 2009)

Which words didn't you understand?


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Which words didn't you understand?



I understand every word. It's the way in which you have them combined.

For example: 'taps nose'.

Are you taking cocaine?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 29, 2009)

You are really shit at avoiding answering questions without coming off as a cunt.


----------



## Herbsman. (Aug 29, 2009)

wtf


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> You are really shit at avoiding answering questions without coming off as a cunt.



I said: I don't understand what you're saying.

You respond with some sort of dissembling, meaning that an actual serious discussion won't be possible.

What were you expecting after that?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 29, 2009)

You don't understand "sorley diappointed" or the phrase "Mr. Everyman" (said with irony  )?



Herbsman. said:


> wtf



GAY.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> You don't understand "sorley diappointed" or the phrase "Mr. Everyman" (said with irony  )?
> 
> .



No. I didn't understand what you meant in that first post about 'everyman' and 'taps nose'.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> You are really shit at avoiding answering questions without coming off as a thick cunt.



Fixed.


----------



## Johnny Canuck3 (Aug 29, 2009)

Refused as fuck said:


> Fixed.



I knew there was a reason why I typically avoid interacting with you.


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Aug 29, 2009)

it's all gawn a bit potty mouthed in here....


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 29, 2009)

No it fucking hasn't


----------



## teuchter (Aug 30, 2009)

Hee hee


----------



## teuchter (Aug 31, 2009)

mauvais said:


> I'm just confused about these 47 inch 'HD' monitors with 'far higher than normal resolutions'. As far as I know, graphics houses and photogs use monitors like Eizo, LaCie and Apple. I've got one myself, and whilst it's an excellent monitor, its resolution is standard and its dynamic range is the same as any good LCD.



I would also like to know the relevance to the discussion.

I can see why dynamic range might be relevant, but not resolution.


----------

