raw or jpeg?

Just starting out with RAW and post-processing. i've got my camera set to save both RAW and jpg on separate cards. So far, the post-processing is fun. I limit the number of images I have to deal with at any one time. Sort of like film: 36 exposures and I'm usually done. I don't do well with too many choices.

I'm glad I have a choice in the matter. More fun for me! ;~)

With best regards.

Pfreddee(Stephen)
 
I always shoot raw plus jpg. I use the jpg files as proofs to quickly weed out which ones I don't want and which ones I want to work with. RAW has so much more flexibility. - jim
 
back alley said:
have you any experience with the fuji jpegs?
Click to expand...

Jpeg is an 8 bit format even the Fuji ones so they do have less color depth than Raw. So even though they are superb they are still not as good RAW of Tiff. For some digital darkroom magic those missing bits are necessary or the image will degrade earlier.
 
DominikDUK said:
Jpeg is an 8 bit format even the Fuji ones so they do have less color depth than Raw. So even though they are superb they are still not as good RAW of Tiff. For some digital darkroom magic those missing bits are necessary or the image will degrade earlier.
Click to expand...

so then the answer is no...
 
Back alley the problem with jpeg is that the file format is inherently inferior to any other format used for digital photography except GIF and PNG. Current Fuji RAW is 14 bit jpeg is 8 bit. The Fuji jpegs are superb but they are still not as good as RAW. Another drawback of Jpegs is the compression and the inherent loss of information.

The problem with this whole discussion is the "or" the best way to shoot is Jpeg and Raw if the Jpeg is good enough choose the jpeg if the image requires manipulation use the Raw file. For long term storage use tif.
 
I tended to leave compacts on Jpeg, the RX100 Jpegs (after setting the camera up) are great, and one of the big draws to the Ricoh GR is the way it does B/W in camera.

I put them both into Raw & Jpeg today, because I'd be silly not to give them both a try, and discovered that Sony have to have their own daft proprietary version of Raw.

I have to admit that sorting all that out made me think twice about it, but I'm persevering with the experiment.
 
DominikDUK said:
...
The problem with this whole discussion is the "or" the best way to shoot is Jpeg and Raw if the Jpeg is good enough choose the jpeg if the image requires manipulation use the Raw file. For long term storage use tif.
Click to expand...

+1

Skilled users shoot both. Some do it automatically for every image and others, like myself, switch back and forth based on usage. Sometimes, optimal image quality isn't necessary and the in camera JPEGs will serve fine and save a lot of time. All of my serious work is always done in RAW.

Shooting JPEG only is like having film processed and printed by a decent lab and throwing away the negatives.

Shooting JPEG + RAW is the same except you keep the negs and you can hand print the negs when custom adjustments are called for.

Shooting RAW only is like having the negs processed and a proof sheet made (proof sheet = the RAW's thumbnails) and doing your own hand printing.

Those that can't get as good or better images out of RAW files are poor craftsmen, either due to their lack of skill, poor choice of tools, or both.
 
back alley said:
this is a surprising number of responses to my op...
i was talking about the difference between the jpeg output from my fuji as compared to the eos m...the fuji jpeg is just so much better...with the canon i will have to use raw for a noticeable improvement in output.
Click to expand...

Chances are you could easily tweak the jpeg settings in your EOS M to give you something more "Fuji" like.
 
Duane Pandorf said:
This subject is real simple. Shoot RAW+JPG in camera and use which one suits you. Save the RAW file as if it's your negative or post process it for a better final JPG.

The RAW post processing software keeps getting better and future versions can bring new life to those older files.
Click to expand...

Having doubles of every file seems like an incredible amount of clutter.

My suggestion to the "my in camera jpegs are amazing" crowd is :

1 - Shoot Raw only
2 - Buy Lightroom, Its cheap and very easy to use.
3 - Output to whatever file format and size you need as needed
4 - Repeat 1-3 as needed:)
 
Joe, I never found the jpegs from my Canons to my liking. Whereas the jpegs from my Fujis are so superb, I can give them to clients without problems. For myself, I shoot a RAW and a jpeg together no matter what camera I am using. It's a failsafe. I've had glitches where one saved me from having a lost image.
 
for the record...i shoot both.
i am most satisfied with the fuji jpegs and use them pretty much 100% of the time.
the canon will be raw for the most part.
 
I have found that I can pull a good bit of information out of my jpegs (Nikon).

I am sure that the raw files have more latitude but for now I'm happy with the jpegs.

Peace
 
Depends on the camera. To a certain extend also the shooting conditions.

When I used Canon dSLRs I shot RAW most of the time, because the Canon jpg engine was not to my liking (not very sharp, weird colours), and the EOS's WB would get confused whenever there was mixed light sources.

At the moment I am Fuji X only and I use jpg 98% of the time - only in extreme light conditions do I shoot RAW with the Fujis. This saves me a lot of PP time,
 
It is peculiar that all in-camera raw-to-jpg processors have not been developed to the extent that Fuji X cameras have been developed. (I say this, as it seems that Fuji owners are a lot happier with camera jpg's than other owners.)

Why would it be hard for a camera manufacturer to do that?
 
daveleo said:
It is peculiar that all in-camera raw-to-jpg processors have not been developed to the extent that Fuji X cameras have been developed. (I say this, as it seems that Fuji owners are a lot happier with camera jpg's than other owners.)

Why would it be hard for a camera manufacturer to do that?
Click to expand...

Because they have no film manufacturing heritage to permeate their corporate culture?
 
Jamie Pillers said:
In the beginning I used RAW all the time, and based on much web chatter, assumed that using jpeg was for 'beginners' only. But today, I work at trying to wrestle jpegs to conform to my liking. To me, using jpeg is like using film. You are very much constrained by the film's characteristics, with not much wiggle room. I like how using jpeg takes me back to that kind of constraint. Using jpeg, I have to think carefully about the shooting conditions and how the particular camera responds to them. Then adjust the jpeg settings accordingly. Today I feel like when I set the camera to RAW, I'm just being too lazy to consider what settings are appropriate for the moment. And… yes I understand all the technical stuff about how RAW files give one more room for adjustments later. But I've come to a point where I couldn't care less about that. I love jpeg photography… when I get it right, that is. :p
Click to expand...

I've always found film negative to be extremely forgiving. More forgiving than even digital RAW files. Reversal and slide film seems a little closer in philosophy to JPEGs in my mind (though if you have 12+ stops of DR in a JPEG, of course it will be more forgiving than bw reversal or slide film).
 
Ha ha -- every time I read one of these RAW versing jpeg threads, I always hear the "raw guys" talking about how "modern CPU processors make raw easy now, it's way better, more control -- yaddy, yaddy..." They have it -->exactly<-- wrong. The real gains have been in -->the processing capabilities within the camera hardware and firmware<--- RAW? "Maybe" 5 -10 years ago when the processing engines in the camera itself weren't as insanely powerful as they are now, and you had to take those steps manually in post using a real computer (wasting valuable time out of your life in the process...) using pricey, complicated software. Now? Powerful nth generation in-camera processing engines handle those tedious chores real-time and with amazing aplomb. Raw? Pffft. Do that only if you enjoy such silly noodling, or it's how your photographic OCD manifests itself. The quality improvement you allege to perceive, hate t' break it t' ya, are placebo in nature.
 
willie_901 said:
Because they have no film manufacturing heritage to permeate their corporate culture?
Click to expand...

That may be true. I can imagine that some of the entrenched film camera manufacturers, early in the digital age, thought of raw as for the darkroom developers and jpg as for the drugstore processing crowd. To keep the latter happy, all the camera jpg had to do was beat a drugstore print. Thus, the camera jpg engine was neglected. (There were exceptions, but in general, that's true I think.)
It took the fresh thinking of someone who wanted to distinguish themselves in the consumer level digital market (Fuji comes to mind) to make that step change in camera jpg processing.
Why the DSLR kings haven't caught onto this is probably the same reason they haven't taken the mirrorless market seriously. (I stopped waiting for Nikon to figure this out, and a few years back, bought Fuji stuff I slowly sold off all my Nikon stuff.)
 
Keeping RAW files for future software innovations makes sense but at the same time one is not done with them so they turn into a backlog of sorts, like undeveloped film - at least in my case.

I have realized that one should edit and be done with the backlog otherwise there is no estimation of what is one doing, where one is going and not to mention what is one learning. So, I went through all my backlog, and once I had gone through a RAW folder and made a few selections, I'd then batch convert to jpg and delete all the raw files.

This might seem like an unwise move, but I like to be done with my backlog and not to worry about going back and re-editing and processing images. And now by shooting jpg, I basically don't even have to do the batch conversion.

Having said that, I don't recommend that people delete their RAW files. Everyone has a different way of working and learning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top