Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Raw vs JPEG Is it worth the extra space and effort?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

MGJ
MGJ  6142 forum posts5 Constructive Critique Points
22 Mar 2014 - 11:24 PM

No one has mentioned the business of posterisation which you get the instant you apply a levels or curves adjustment to a JPEG. JPG is an 8 bit format and you only have 256 levels - the combed histogram shows the posterisation. So if one wants to retain that info and the tonality that accrues, you have to take in RAW, and do your editing in 16 bit format. After that you can convert to (8bit) jpg - your printer will do an 8 bit conversion anyway.

Does that posterisation matter? Large areas of even tones (skin and the like) certainly. Most landscapes and lots of fine details - probably not.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
22 Mar 2014 - 11:24 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73885 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
22 Mar 2014 - 11:57 PM

I'm fully fledged to the RAW camp. But that said, if your carful, there's no reason why you should get posterisation with a JPEG file. It's only when you push it to its limits you will get problems. If it does happen add a small amount of noise (yes noise) to the image. Also put curves / levels in luminosity mode.

MichaelMelb_AU
23 Mar 2014 - 12:32 AM


Quote: I'm fully fledged to the RAW camp. But that said, if your carful, there's no reason why you should get posterisation with a JPEG file. It's only when you push it to its limits you will get problems. If it does happen add a small amount of noise (yes noise) to the image. Also put curves / levels in luminosity mode.

I agree. All depends on the photographer's skill.

JPG, if taken thoughtfully, may need only minor corrections where posterisation and other processing induced image defects will not be an issue. This sort of trouble only comes when a JPG needs a "surgery" - and it won't take it well.

RAW is more "forgiving" by allowing to produce some unnaturally looking albeit smooth images. Some of them may even look as an abstract art - and still be acceptable technically.

However, keeping things right at the moment the shutter clicks might be as good practice with RAW as it undoubtedly is with JPG.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315463 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
23 Mar 2014 - 12:49 AM


Quote: I lost the Fuji to my daughter who's off to Brighton next year to study photography, not seen it for a few months now!

So soon Smile

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315463 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
23 Mar 2014 - 2:49 PM


Quote: I'm fully fledged to the RAW camp. But that said, if your carful, there's no reason why you should get posterisation with a JPEG file. It's only when you push it to its limits you will get problems. If it does happen add a small amount of noise (yes noise) to the image. Also put curves / levels in luminosity mode.

I agree. All depends on the photographer's skill.

JPG, if taken thoughtfully, may need only minor corrections where posterisation and other processing induced image defects will not be an issue. This sort of trouble only comes when a JPG needs a "surgery" - and it won't take it well.

RAW is more "forgiving" by allowing to produce some unnaturally looking albeit smooth images. Some of them may even look as an abstract art - and still be acceptable technically.

However, keeping things right at the moment the shutter clicks might be as good practice with RAW as it undoubtedly is with JPG.

The only time the Jpeg can fall apart is under testing conditions or under lots of post processing.

99.9 % of the time and with care the jpeg only can work out ok, but I find that it is not best to let the camera decide on the settings, I tend to match the jpeg`s output to my custom raw profile that I will be using.

TanyaH
TanyaH e2 Member 11541 forum postsTanyaH vcard United Kingdom41 Constructive Critique Points
24 Mar 2014 - 12:54 PM

I saw a really good analogy the other day which (for me, anyway) describes the Raw vs JPEG issue ... A RAW file is like a home cooked meal - you know exactly what's gone it, used only the freshest ingredients and slaved lovingly over the stove to produce something that people can enjoy; whereas a JPEG is like a ready meal - great when you come home raging hungry, and you can bung it in the microwave, but ultimately you don't know what's in it. Grin

Last Modified By TanyaH at 24 Mar 2014 - 12:55 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315463 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
24 Mar 2014 - 6:18 PM


Quote: I saw a really good analogy the other day which (for me, anyway) describes the Raw vs JPEG issue ... A RAW file is like a home cooked meal - you know exactly what's gone it, used only the freshest ingredients and slaved lovingly over the stove to produce something that people can enjoy; whereas a JPEG is like a ready meal - great when you come home raging hungry, and you can bung it in the microwave, but ultimately you don't know what's in it. Grin

Full of flaws is that, a raw file has no taste, its a little like eating raw meat, it needs flavoring and cooking.

Jpegs are more like ordering your own pizza, you choose your own ingredients and toppings Smile

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014836 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
24 Mar 2014 - 6:22 PM

how about this....

pick your favourite 20, say, photographers off EPZ
send them a message asking whether they shoot RAW or JPG

which ever the majority is - go with that

there's that old theory that if you want do get what other have, you need to do what they do

lawbert
lawbert  71713 forum posts England15 Constructive Critique Points
24 Mar 2014 - 6:41 PM

The Camera takes both files simultaneously if selected in its set up menu.....memory is cheap nowadays...You get 2 pics for every one you take...Its like a supermarket bogofTongue

jken
jken  81672 forum posts United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
25 Mar 2014 - 9:32 AM

RAW everytime, simple reason is you are shooting at the very best your camera can achieve, the shot still needs to be correctly exposed, composed etc

The jpg is a compressed format, the RAW is not.

Nick_w
Nick_w e2 Member 73885 forum postsNick_w vcard England99 Constructive Critique Points
25 Mar 2014 - 11:41 AM


Quote: there's that old theory that if you want do get what other have, you need to do what they do

True, but it doesn't create creative ideas, or innovation. Wink if Darwin hadn't challenged the church we would all still believe we're descended from Adam and Eve.

Seriously Ade has a good point, I'm pretty certain at least 19 out of 20 would give you the same answer to your original question.

If you could get a Ford Fiesta with all the trimmings, satnav, climate control on etc etc, for the same price as the stripped down model with nothing other than the steering wheel which would you chose?

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014836 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
25 Mar 2014 - 11:53 AM


Quote: True, but it doesn't create creative ideas, or innovation. Wink if Darwin hadn't challenged the church we would all still believe we're descended from Adam and Eve.

fair point - then again, if you want creative ideas and innovation, you probably want something different to what others are doing... so do yer own thing then Wink

RAW was once a bit of a pain - when RAW editors didn't really do much creative stuff, it was an extra step which took time...

These days, it's just a no brainer

Just get them into Capture One or Lightroom and you can do most of your editing there and then - without faff.... and do all your key wording, water marking, cataloguing whilst you're at it.

Other than editorial/press/sports photographers, where you may need to send smaller photos over your 3G phone to the news-desk, I really can't see why you'd choose to use the inferior option that is JPG

Just doesn't make sense

MichaelMelb_AU
25 Mar 2014 - 12:56 PM

Camera developers put considerable amount of money and their fantastic team experience into developing JPG algorithms and camera automatics to allow an ordinary Joe take photographs that could be seen as nothing but outstanding by just 10 year old standards.

I would never think that taking family holiday photos really requires RAW capture and clever processing. "Simple" bunch of JPGs will print out just fine.

Does anyone need a military fighter to fly to a holiday? Could be fun, but terribly impractical.

However, all of creative folk are not forgotten either. Any "serious" camera gives them a chance to challenge the manufacturer's collective intelligence by shooting images in RAW and maybe manual, and then doing their own creative best to express themselves.

Should one shoot in RAW? Up to everyone, I do both depending on circumstances. Oh, and also do some film photography on B&W film with fully mechanical camera. It's a pleasure, but I am not into pushing it onto anyone.

We all have our freedom of choice and nowadays, as never before, the choice is limited not by our hardware, but only our creativity.

Are RAWs worth extra space on the hard drive? Well, how much does it cost? Our time costs more, and JPG is perfectly fine when one needs to save some time with it for simple pleasures of life.

Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 25 Mar 2014 - 1:03 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315463 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
25 Mar 2014 - 7:36 PM


Quote: RAW was once a bit of a pain - when RAW editors didn't really do much creative stuff, it was an extra step which took time...

These days, it's just a no brainer

Yep only because the out of camera jpegs were once so bad.


Quote: Just get them into Capture One or Lightroom and you can do most of your editing there and then - without faff.... and do all your key wording, water marking, cataloguing whilst you're at it

If your getting it all right in camera, is there any point.

Other than editorial/press/sports photographers, where you may need to send smaller photos over your 3G phone to the news-desk, I really can't see why you'd choose to use the inferior option that is JPG.

It makes a whole load of sense to some people, but its still good do have a raw backup just in case.

Personally I prefer Raw.

ade_mcfade
ade_mcfade e2 Member 1014836 forum postsade_mcfade vcard England216 Constructive Critique Points
25 Mar 2014 - 10:11 PM


Quote: Yep only because the out of camera jpegs were once so bad.

no they weren't


Quote: If your getting it all right in camera, is there any point.

yes


Quote: It makes a whole load of sense to some people, but its still good do have a raw backup just in case.

The raw is the seed - which you can grow in which ever way you like - you may choose to edit it as bright colourful thing one day, then return and from the same DNA, create a moody, dark mono

I wouldn't call it a "backup"

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.