Processing JPEGs in Camera Raw

Sponsored Links

29 Aug 2010 - 9:50 PM

• Options

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

BigRick

6

29 Aug 2010 - 10:04 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: I normally shoot RAW, but today, for convenience, I shot JPEGs of a still life just to keep the file sizes small. I have access to CS4 which gives me the option of opening files (including JPEGs) in Camera Raw (CR) (via PS Bridge). Since I usually only shoot RAW, I've never really given much thought previously to working with non-RAW files in CR.

However, since I knew that I can modify JPEG images in CR in exactly the same way as I am able to modify RAW images before opening the file for final processing, today, by way of experiment, I opened said JPEGs in CR and doctored them (eg as regards exposure, saturation, etc) before finally opening the images as aforementioned. When I opened the files in CS4, they basically needed cropped and sharpened, and that was it.

Now, I know that every time I make modifications to a JPEG image in a non-CR environment, I am employing a 'destructive' process. But here's the question: are modifications made to JPEGs in CR 'destructive' also? How does CR work in such situations? If the CR process vis-a-vis JPEG and other non-RAW files is non-destructive, this begs the question: do we need to shoot in RAW at all? OK, playing Devil's Advocate here, but what's the view, please? Thanks. Bob

considering the amount of information a RAW file has compared to a JPEG, then for important shots, shooting Jpeg is never in my mind. (unless it is for convinience for showing clients on the shoot, or press work)

I personaly dont care if CR is destructive for a jpeg as i dont get why you would use it. RAW is there to give you the control over a picture that you just dont get with JPEGs.

lobsterboy (Site Moderator)

8

29 Aug 2010 - 10:23 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

Quote: But here's the question: are modifications made to JPEGs in CR 'destructive' also? How does CR work in such situations?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it doesn't actually do anything to the file till you hit the done button. Then its a single write, one write won't do much damage to a jpg.

Quote: this begs the question: do we need to shoot in RAW at all?

I can't see any major advantage to using jpg if you are processing it the same way as you do raw.
Why use good lenses & cameras then throw away a load of the information they capture.

cameracat (e2 Member)

8

29 Aug 2010 - 11:08 PM

• Options
  • Report Error / Abuse

0

First point to make is that you can work on a jpeg in Adobe Camera RAW.

However you do not get all the benefits that come with working with a RAW file in Adobe Camera RAW.

Whilst you are actually making adjustments to a jpeg inside Adobe Camera RAW it is non-destructive, But only at that point.

Here is video that might explain more than I care to type.....

There are similar videos available on " Adobe TV " if your still not convinced.....!!!

Personally I'll stick to shooting RAW, Its far less of a fag.....