Raw vs jpg

[prk60091]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have seen some phenomenal photos taken with the dlux4 shot in raw and converted and in jpg (http://www.boxedlight.com)

 

I was listening to a podcast friday am (photofocus.com) and one of the photographers on the episode is wedding photographer who shoots only in jpg, the other photographer shoots only in raw. As an experiment I took some photos Friday with my dlux4 in raw mixed mode (raw and jpg) I then processed the raw image in aperture and the result was to my eyes and taste very close if not identical to the jpg out of the camera.

 

Am I being stupid/lazy for turning off raw altogether? I am not trolling here just seeking the hive opinion.

[Bob Ross]

I have seen some phenomenal photos taken with the dlux4 shot in raw and converted and in jpg (Boxed Light - Photography by Jim Radcliffe)

 

I was listening to a podcast friday am (photofocus.com) and one of the photographers on the episode is wedding photographer who shoots only in jpg, the other photographer shoots only in raw. As an experiment I took some photos Friday with my dlux4 in raw mixed mode (raw and jpg) I then processed the raw image in aperture and the result was to my eyes and taste very close if not identical to the jpg out of the camera.

 

Am I being stupid/lazy for turning off raw altogether? I am not trolling here just seeking the hive opinion.

This is a subject that will net you a dust storm:D

It might be good if you gave us some idea of what your final product is. The artifact differences between raw developers including the propietary one in the camera are best seen at high magnification/very large prints. The point at which the differences show up in magnifying, probably varies by sensor/pixel size, too.

JPEG does best with normal photo situations. Raw can be a savior for bad mixed lighting and goofed up exposures.

I use both according to the scene situation or my desired final product.

Bob

[krandall]

I have shot all my life with SLR's, and since moving to DSLR's (when Canon first came out with the 10D... I now shoot with a 50D) I have shot only in RAW for years now. When I got my D Lux 4 in Jan, I did a similar experiment and came to the same conclusion you have.

 

I love this little camera, and the jpg's are lovely. I sometimes do a little pp, but I'm a "fiddler" by heart. I took both my DSLR and the D Lux 4 to Europe with me in Feb... guess which camera I used more?

 

Attached are a couple of photos out of my D Lux 4, all jpg's. The two indoor shots were hand-held using ISO 800 at 1/25th and 1/30th respectively. I did use a bit of Noise Ninja on the entryway shot, as there was more noise in the smooth expanse of the ceiling than I was happy with. And I straightened the verticals in both indoor shots, but, of course, that has nothing to do with RAW vs. jpg.

 

I WANT my D Lux 4 to be my "fun" camera, I love the fact that the jpg files are so good right out of the camera.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[richam]

Well, here's my 2 cents. I almost always shoot in RAW (DLux-4) or DNG (M8) just in case I get an image that I want to stand up to a lot of post-processing. I also add jpeg in case I want to display an alternate in-camera processing image on the LCD (e.g. grayscale). Storage is really cheap these days, so I normally use 2 GB or 4 GB SD cards, and have 1TB drives that I use for image storage. So cost or storage is not a factor. Here's an example. This is a 1:1 section of a landscape image that I processed approximately the same using the 8 bit jpeg and then the 16 bit DNG (converted to tiff). Note the jpeg sky has bands where I attempted to increase the blue sky saturation. This cannot be seen on the original image, which is rather flat and needed a lot of Photoshopping to get near to what I wanted.

 

First, the 8 bit jpeg:

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

And the 16 bit tiff:

 

Note the banding on the jpeg sky, and the smooth tiff sky.

 

So I do get an occasional advantage with RAW or DNG, and at essentially no cost in storage. I need a good reason to go to jpeg only.

[Bob Ross]

HI Richam,

Your posting 100% clips points up what I was saying about final product size and seeing differences. That would be a sizeable print.

To me, your JPEG looks over processed and your TIFF looks under processed. I played with the TIFF and even at its now 8bit state it has a lot of information we aren't seeing. What I don't know is how what I did would affect the rest of the image.

I don't think there is any question that 16bit will allow more manipulation when needed and the only way to get that is raw. There is again the question of what size is your final product and whether you will see the fruits of your manipulations, at that size.

As for raw developers and the M8's DNG, I have some that don't do much better than the M8's JPEGs, which seem overly compressed. Which raw developer could be a big factor in the discussion.

Bob

[andalus]

I shoot only DNG because I can open in Photoshop and once I'm done doing whatever to a file I can "save as" a JPG at whatever asize I want. So I wind up with 3 files: the original DNG, a TIFF and a JPG. I don't know why anyone would want to shoot "just" JPG's.

[Ed_K]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Agree with Bob, this is a never-ending discussion and could base on your own style, standard plus output. Take me as an example, i shoot 95% in Jpeg as i am quite happy with its straight-out-of-camera result, plus i hardly print any of my pix ... with the limited resolution of my monitor, i won't be able to detect the difference even if there is any

[lct]

...I did use a bit of Noise Ninja on the entryway shot, as there was more noise in the smooth expanse of the ceiling than I was happy with. And I straightened the verticals in both indoor shots, but, of course, that has nothing to do with RAW vs. jpg. I WANT my D Lux 4 to be my "fun" camera, I love the fact that the jpg files are so good right out of the camera.

Frankly your 2 first pics look way too soft to me. Don't know if it comes from Noise Ninja or the smearing effect of in-camera noise reduction but i would try to shoot the same in raw mode and use a good raw converter if i were you.

[richam]

HI Richam,

Your posting 100% clips points up what I was saying about final product size and seeing differences. That would be a sizeable print.

To me, your JPEG looks over processed and your TIFF looks under processed. I played with the TIFF and even at its now 8bit state it has a lot of information we aren't seeing. What I don't know is how what I did would affect the rest of the image.

I don't think there is any question that 16bit will allow more manipulation when needed and the only way to get that is raw. There is again the question of what size is your final product and whether you will see the fruits of your manipulations, at that size.

Bob

 

Bob, I agree with your assessment. This landscape photo is still a work in progress; I'm trying to get an acceptable color image from it, although I previously posted a grayscale version of the same image here: Samaria Gorge. Last year, I posted what I felt to be a successful treatment of a noisy night shot: Arch of Triumph. Certainly the 16 bit image stood up to rather severe post-processing where an 8 bit jpeg would not have produced as nice an image, even a small one for web viewing. So, I'll stick with RAW/DNG + JPEG.

[bill]

You lot need to get out more - or at least use the search function...

 

This has been discussed before.

 

Regards,

 

Bill

[jankap]

Bill

There is another quotion in your sense.

Long ago somebody wrote a very nice article titled: "Real programmers use Fortran".

Just remembered it.

Jan

[Bob Ross]

Bob, I agree with your assessment. This landscape photo is still a work in progress; I'm trying to get an acceptable color image from it, although I previously posted a grayscale version of the same image here: Samaria Gorge. Last year, I posted what I felt to be a successful treatment of a noisy night shot: Arch of Triumph. Certainly the 16 bit image stood up to rather severe post-processing where an 8 bit jpeg would not have produced as nice an image, even a small one for web viewing. So, I'll stick with RAW/DNG + JPEG.

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the link to the whole picture. I can see that what I did with the clip wouldn't have done any favors for the whole image It is a beautiful shot.

Since you are playing with the color, try adjusting the saturation through the B&W (or a negative of it) as a mask or layer, so that the saturation increases into the shadows. This builds up the color density like trannies do. Varying the contrast of the mask by pulling in the white point can add subtle contrast to the resaturated version, too.

Bob

[peterm1_Leica]

Different cameras have differing capacities to handle RAW and JPG images.

 

With my D200 I always shoot RAW. With my Digilux 3 I always shoot jpg. I can usually get away with it because the jpgs from that camera are excellent. But jpgs from the D200 are basically quite ordinary till post processed. (I have a Canon G11 that also produces sumptuous jpg images and so I never bother shooting RAW with that camera even though it can do so. )

 

But just occasionally when shooting jpg I will wish I had shot RAW files due to the exposure of a particular image being problematic and needing the extra latitude afforded by RAW files in post processing. Being 12 bit images they have more information in them. Mostly its hard to see but its there for when you really really need it.If your camera handles jpgs files well, then by all means shoot jpg.

 

I know a few pro photographers who do - but these guys are generally shooting in situations (studios, weddings etc) where they have a lot of control over exposure so do not need to call on the extra capabilities of RAW to get the best from their images.

[lct]

...If your camera handles jpgs files well, then by all means shoot jpg...

Raw converters will improve and your tastes will change so if your camera handles jpegs well shoot raw + jpg i cannot think of a better advise personally.

[richam]

Hi Michael,

Thanks for the link to the whole picture. I can see that what I did with the clip wouldn't have done any favors for the whole image It is a beautiful shot.

Since you are playing with the color, try adjusting the saturation through the B&W (or a negative of it) as a mask or layer, so that the saturation increases into the shadows. This builds up the color density like trannies do. Varying the contrast of the mask by pulling in the white point can add subtle contrast to the resaturated version, too.

Bob

 

Bob, Thanks for the hints. I have been trying out some different techniques. So far, it's still a work in progress, perhaps to sharpen my PS skills as much as producing the image I'm after. I tried your mask idea, but there are so many variables involved that progress is slow with much trial and error. If I get something worth looking at, will post it.

[richam]

Raw converters will improve and your tastes will change so if your camera handles jpegs well shoot raw + jpg i cannot think of a better advise personally.

 

Well said. What's missing in this discussion is the disadvantage, if any, of using raw/dng + jpeg vs. jpeg only. If you have high capacity SD cards and plenty of hard disk storage, I don't see any downside.

[tobey bilek]

If you like the compression algorithm used in camera and can get the white bal and sharpening correct in camera for the size print you want from the file, JPEG out of the camera is just fine. Someone like a wedding photog who does 100 table shots with no post processing, JPEG is the only way to go. Family party pics fall in the same catagory.

 

If you do a brides formal portrait, and do the very best job you can with masked noise reduction, proper three stages of sharpening, burning and dodging, RAW is the only way to go.

 

Once you make a JPEG, large amounts data are lost which severely limits further processing.

 

Proper sharpening is done partially at capture and at final print size. No camera knows what the final print size is going to be, so you can not specify the final sharpening in camera for all possible uses .

 

In the end, to maintain creative options, raw is the best way. If you just want prints strainght from the camera, JPEG is perfectly good.