Jump to content

JPEG Vs Raw


Stick

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 10/17/2019 at 5:22 AM, Herr Barnack said:

With JPEG files, you have data loss with each opening of the file, which erodes image quality over time

Why is that ? Is it depending on what you use to open the jpg?

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/17/2019 at 5:22 AM, Herr Barnack said:

Photojournalists are shooting in JPEG more nowadays, as news outlets are of the opinion that it prevents or at least minimizes the possibility that the image has been manipulated in post processing,  therefore changing the content and rendering the image a falsehood from a journalistic and/or editorial perspective.

 

You have me at a loss here. JPG files are the ones that have been processed, the original raws are unaltered. This is the reason why some high-profile photo competitions demand the inclusion of the original raw with each submission.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 38 Minuten schrieb LexS:

Why is that ? Is it depending on what you use to open the jpg?

As long you don't safe the JPG File again then there will absolutely no loss!

If you save the jpg file it can be that the save file/export function applies some modifications like sharpening and
if you do that several times then you will have loss as each time sharpening will be applied again.

RAW files are different as the big programs like Lightroom, CaptureOne, etc use on-destructive editing what is basically:
the raw informations are edited describing what is edited, then displayed and exportet to create a new file.
The original file has attached/stored in the catalog a second file with the description of what was modified so that the raw file remains original.
I'm not really sure how Adobe Raw and Photoshop do that, but i guess that it's basically the same

Chris

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a misconception running through this thread: All cameras shoot raw. To set them to JPG only means that the raw from which the JPG is processed in the camera is deleted. Why should anybody want to do that, except in very special circumstances?

  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, PhotoCruiser said:

As long you don't safe the JPG File again then there will absolutely no loss!

If you save the jpg file it can be that the save file/export function applies some modifications like sharpening and
if you do that several times then you will have loss as each time sharpening will be applied again.

RAW files are different as the big programs like Lightroom, CaptureOne, etc use on-destructive editing what is basically:
the raw informations are edited describing what is edited, then displayed and exportet to create a new file.
The original file has attached/stored in the catalog a second file with the description of what was modified so that the raw file remains original.
I'm not really sure how Adobe Raw and Photoshop do that, but i guess that it's basically the same

Chris

That is exactly it. If you open and resave you are applying compression on compression.
As to your comparison of processing programs: Photoshop works losslessly, but will be destructive sometimes - unless you use the history panel to revert to earlier steps, or (and) work on layers, which is done automatically when you are in the adjustments panel, as you should be for basic editing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Quote

Photojournalists are shooting in JPEG more nowadays, as news outlets are of the opinion that it prevents or at least minimizes the possibility that the image has been manipulated in post processing,  therefore changing the content and rendering the image a falsehood from a journalistic and/or editorial perspective.

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

You have me at a loss here. JPG files are the ones that have been processed, the original raws are unaltered. This is the reason why some high-profile photo competitions demand the inclusion of the original raw with each submission.

That is what I have read in more than one online source. 

Not that requiring photojournalists to shoot in JPEG is rational or logical, since the files can still be altered/processed by the photographer after the camera has automatically altered/processed them. 

This line of thinking has me at a loss, too.  If news editors want unaltered files, they should ask for RAW files.  If they publish RAW images as they came directly off the memory card, the image quality is going to look very poor.  That can be addressed though.  How?  By processing, which news editors apparently abhor. 

Apparently processing is an abomination only when it is done by the photographer.  🙄

Edited by Herr Barnack
Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add 2 things:

1) There is not a big thing "developing" RAWs. Very often the initial Raw looks quite fine. When exposed coctly then there is no need to tough it. I work a lot with the brush to correct details here and there. That takes me a lot of time. But not because of the RAW but because of me.

2) Most time I (and that is only me) could accept the JPG generated by my camera but it would take as much brush work as with the RAW. A JPG is no time saving (and I am no photojournalist). Plus there are many cases where the RAW is just my better source. Think of landscape where it is important not to have blown out hightlights in the clouds, etc (note that the the histogram in your camera shows you the JPG and not the RAW. With the RAW you have some reserves (the RAW is not blown out when the JPG shows overexposure).

As a consequence I stopped taking JPGs plus RAWs. Just RAWs. 

Photojournalists might shoot JPG as they have to relay on a minimum standard and transmit photographs immediately (by Wifi) before working on them on their computers. This is a different reason fot shooting JPGs. For me photography is a hobby. Even if I have a paid assignements (before Corona) it takes me 2 to 3 days until I can deliver my photographs because I want to work on them in Lightroom first. If that is not accepted by my "customers" then I am not interested as the quality of my output/work is key to me. 

Edited by M10 for me
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, BenSh said:

10 Years ago i would have written a whole Story about that.. But i just let it stay this way;-)

That's a shame i was hoping you were going to give me a list of "real cameras" and  what methods of capture amount to "photography".

Link to post
Share on other sites

I really struggle with this mental block against raw. In most postprocessing programs, certainly in Lightroom, C1 Affinitty, ON1, etc. there is no difference in workflow between the two. One has to look at the extension of the file name to know which is which. I also have my cameras set to raw only, but for a different reason: it happened too often that I couldn't get it quite right and it turned out that I had opened the JPG instead of the raw, resulting in insufficient data.

Does it date back to old versions of Photoshop when ACR did not have the  editing tools that it has now? -obviously it should be set to open Jpegs in ACR.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I really struggle with this mental block against raw. In most postprocessing programs, certainly in Lightroom, C1 Affinitty, ON1, etc. there is no difference in workflow between the two. One has to look at the extension of the file name to know which is which. I also have my cameras set to raw only, but for a different reason: it happened too often that I couldn't get it quite right and it turned out that I had opened the JPG instead of the raw, resulting in insufficient data.

Does it date back to old versions of Photoshop when ACR did not have the  editing tools that it has now? -obviously it should be set to open Jpegs in ACR.

You have articulated your views which is fine but there is no need to assume that people with different views have some terrible "mental  block"  or perhaps some strange illness which prevents them from using the holy grail that is raw.

Photography is just a bit of fun and most of us on here are just a bunch of amateurs of varying abilities enjoying the experience.

By all means put your opinion across but really its not important if we use raw,jpegs,full frame,micro four thirds,iphone,colour negative or slides.

I used kodachrome until it was discontinued and i cannot remember manipulating it in any way,,not sure you were able to?

I see a lot of photographs now that look stupidly over manipulated,in fact they border on disney cartoons  with weird colours and any number of obvious added effects,whats that all about?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not a view, it is signalling an incomprehensible phenomenon.

This is not the same as different kind of film or a different camera system. BTW, even smartphones output raw nowadays. 
It is the same as buying an M3 and Summicron, putting a film of choice in it - and then only making cheap photobooth prints, proclaiming it a virtue in the process..
Of course it is possible to do so, and of course everybody is free to do so too, and there are even special circumstances that can make it an advantage, but in general it does leave me wondering about spending a lot of money on the best  hardware and then wasting the quality it is capable of?
I could even understand if there were some difficult process involved, but a digital photograph has to be run through a computer anyway and it is no more complicated to do so through raw as it is through JPG.
BTW, I used Kodachrome too, and I did crop, work on exposure and colour balance, and do  dodging and burning when making my Cibachrome prints. Still, slide film was mostly an end product which could only be "manipulated" as you call it (I call it photographic skill)  during exposure. A digital file out of a camera is not, it is always a half product that needs  to be processed - which is something else than being manipulated.
So yes, it is a strange mental block, throwing away the data that one went to great expense for to obtain because of a fictitious obstacle.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 15 Stunden schrieb Herr Barnack:

If news editors want unaltered files, they should ask for RAW files.

There is a difference between newspapers and magzines as newspapers have a very short timeframe to publish the photos while
a magazine has usually much more time to publish.

In mid 80's i was employeed as manager in a courier company in Zurich and we where one of the companies who collect the negative films at the zurich stadium
during the Zurich Leichtathletic Meeting and bring it to the processing facilities to process them and then to AP who sold the photos.
Also one of my best freinds is sport journalist and from beginning of the 90 they worked online during games to be able to send the photos and text
to the redaction where the layout crew inserted it and finished the layout to be able to print at midnight.
.
Particularly in events where every second counts if a photo get sold or not as it must be online ASAP.
I guess they record RAW + JPG so that they have the High-Res and High Quality RAW in case they need it, or at least thats what i would do.

Sending numerous quantitiy of RAW files would saturate the lines and explode the servers and most newspaper use low res photos as the printing process
will be low quality as well.
While for magazines the things change, they want beautiful photos for high gloss printing or online versions and there photo editing is common,
and i guess they will use RAW files for quality purposes.

Chris
 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever your sellingl (Raw of jpeg) it's up to the individual photographer to decide how to use the equipment..  Yes there are pluses and minuses in each format. Colors are within the photographers purview, we all see colors, shapes, shadows etc. etc differently.. Remember what you feel about another photographers work is how someone might just be thinking about your work..  Respect All...  L

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 4 Stunden schrieb steve 1959:

I used kodachrome until it was discontinued and i cannot remember manipulating it in any way,,not sure you were able to?

I had no access to color film and negative developing and printing system, but i spent uncountable hours in the darkroom to do that in BW.
Where is used small, different shaped dodge tools to correct over exposure and playing with exposure time and the right photographic paper to pimp my photos.
Today i do the same, just in a less dark, unhealty and uncomfortable environment then then on my computer, but on th end there is no difference.

There where two kind of photographers:
1° photographers they sent the roll to the processig facility and got back the negatives and the printed photos / or the slides
2° photographers they developed first the film and maybe applying already pimping tecniques and the blew-up the single photo using again pimping techniques

This should not judge who is a good or a bad photographer and
honestly the better photographer would be the one who is able to shoot the perfect photo without editing anything.
But there are not a lot of them, including me ...

However, photography is a very personal hobby or profession as each of us has his own belive how the photo has to look.
some like the blurry david hamilton look, some like the razor sharp truth a Lika lens produces
some like oversaturated colors, some undersaturated
some are happy with the result OOC, some like to pimp the photos

Thats the vaste world of photography and it's good like this!

Chris
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 11 Stunden schrieb steve 1959:

You have articulated your views which is fine but there is no need to assume that people with different views have some terrible "mental  block"  or perhaps some strange illness which prevents them from using the holy grail that is raw.

Photography is just a bit of fun and most of us on here are just a bunch of amateurs of varying abilities enjoying the experience.

By all means put your opinion across but really its not important if we use raw,jpegs,full frame,micro four thirds,iphone,colour negative or slides.

I used kodachrome until it was discontinued and i cannot remember manipulating it in any way,,not sure you were able to?

I see a lot of photographs now that look stupidly over manipulated,in fact they border on disney cartoons  with weird colours and any number of obvious added effects,whats that all about?

 

But what you describe is just that mental block. Sorry to be that direct.

After all you shoot with a very high range camera. Why then not use the best base material for your photographs? As I said it before. MY experience is that in most cases the RAW looks better than the JPG plus the RAW has much more reserves. Why NOT go for JPGs? There is no reason for hobby photographers. 

For professionals (press photographers) it might be different when they have to transfer pictures very fast. This then is a requirement in their profession. I am not a professional and I am committed to make things better. Otherwise I would walk around just with my mobile phone or a small pocket camera.

I do really not understand the discussion. So I wonder if you ever have looked at a RAW file.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 7 Stunden schrieb lykaman:

Whatever your sellingl (Raw of jpeg) it's up to the individual photographer to decide how to use the equipment.. 

Its about learning what the differences and the advantages are. Its not respecting an opinion. Of course I respect other opinions. But an opinion must have a logical base about which we can talk about. Otherwise there would be absolutely no need for that thread. 

When someone claims that photography is just a bit of fun, then I fully accept that. Fine of course. But when this same person puts down his foot and claims that something is his opinion and thats it then that is not very bright. That opinion is worth very little.

After all we want have discussion here.

Edited by M10 for me
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, M10 for me said:

But what you describe is just that mental block. Sorry to be that direct.

After all you shoot with a very high range camera. Why then not use the best base material for your photographs? As I said it before. MY experience is that in most cases the RAW looks better than the JPG plus the RAW has much more reserves. Why NOT go for JPGs? There is no reason for hobby photographers. 

For professionals (press photographers) it might be different when they have to transfer pictures very fast. This then is a requirement in their profession. I am not a professional and I am committed to make things better. Otherwise I would walk around just with my mobile phone or a small pocket camera.

I do really not understand the discussion. So I wonder if you ever have looked at a RAW file.

At least twice on this thread i have explained my viewpoint/reasons for shooting jpegs so i really think that's enough.

Not a great fan of bigots to be frank.

I learned a long time ago that we do not all think alike and accept that fact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, M10 for me said:

Its about learning what the differences and the advantages are. Its not respecting an opinion. Of course I respect other opinions. But an opinion must have a logical base about which we can talk about. Otherwise there would be absolutely no need for that thread. 

When someone claims that photography is just a bit of fun, then I fully accept that. Fine of course. But when this same person puts down his foot and claims that something is his opinion and thats it then that is not very bright. That opinion is worth very little.

After all we want have discussion here.

"but when this same person puts down his foot and claims that something is his opinion and thats it then that is not very bright"

That sentence makes no sense at all to me?

"after all we want have discussion here"

In the discussion people put there points of view across and accept that some people do not have the same view as oneself.

This is normal and does not mean that a person with a different point of view is a total idiot.

As stated already i came to digital very late in life 2014 or 2015 and decided that jpegs allowed me to continue almost as if i was still using good old kodachrome and i am very happy with my olympus and  now mostly leica jpegs .

Is that a particular problem for you?

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Having just purchased a Leica Q, I note that most opinion favours RAW to JPEG. Where were RAW and JPEG when I was shooting my Nikon F5. I’m sure that having more control of the finished product is something many photographers like and need. I have the utmost respect for RAW shooters, but I’ve taken some stunning shots with JPEG. Perhaps it’s my experience developing and printing my own work, who knows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...