Anyone go back to JPEG after shooting in RAW?

<p>I work with JPEGs, but I capture RAW files in case I ever need it. If I get this "million" dollar shot by chance, I sure want to have RAW along with it to get most out of the file. I separate RAW files into another folder and sort JPEGs in ACDSee.</p>

<p>I switched to RAW and will never look back.</p>

<p><em><strong>To those who complain that RAW takes more processing time:</strong></em><br>

If you have stuff waiting to get done, your PC must be more than capable of multitasking. Work on unfinished stuff while Lightroom or whatever program does its processing in the background, that's what I do. If you don't have unfinished stuff to work on, go shoot while your computer does its thing. Either way, it's no excuse. My PC isn't near top of the line anymore, and I can process a full 4GB card of RAW files and export to JPEG in about 30 minutes. It's your own fault if you just sit there and watch the progress meter grow to 100%. You can even continue to use Lightroom while it processes!</p>

<p>Memory is more than affordable enough. $250 will get you 1TB. At least with my camera, that's about 100,000 RAW files, or about 4-5 years of shooting (for me -- I have a very specific and quick system of keeping only the very best shots)! By the time 4 years go by, I can get 4 or maybe even 8TB for the same $250.</p>

<p>The dynamic range of RAW absolutely slaughters JPEGs from my D40x.</p>

<p>Never going back.</p>

<p>I've never shot RAW. Due to my work flow it would require extra steps and more time. Also, shooting with a Fuji S5 gives me some of the advantages of shooting RAW while actually shooting JPEG. For example, I can recover some blown highlights on a Fuji JPEG. But I might try RAW if I could deliver a better image by using it.</p>

<p>But, here is a question that I have never had answered to my satisfaction about shooting RAW. Some of the RAW advantages touted by many are the increased bit depth and dynamic range that RAW files provide. I am well aware that this is true since we're not throwing away any data in a RAW file. If you shoot JPEG you loose some of that. But, here's my question. I can't print from a RAW file or a TIFF. My lab needs a JPEG. I can't display a RAW file on my web site, it needs to be a JPEG. So, once we get to the point of conversion aren't we going to be right where we would be if we shot JPEG in camera in terms of dynamic range and color depth? If we have a gradient color in the image, won't banding appear in the JPEG (that we need to print from) that wasn't there in the RAW file that had more data? Don't we loose the extended dynamic range the RAW file gives us when we convert it to a JPEG? We're knocking the file down to 8 bits from 12 or whatever we started at, the same as if we converted in camera. At some point I need a JPEG to show people. I don't understand the claims of increased file quality when shooting RAW since I'll never show anyone the RAW file and can't print from it. What am I not understanding? How do you get more out of a RAW file when at some point it has to be turned into a JPEG in order to show it?</p>

<p>Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this for me. If I stop shooting with my Fujis (which I may have to since thay may not be making any more) I wouldn't mind trying a RAW workflow if it would give me a better final product.</p>

<p>A 1GB card holds around 140 RAW/NEF files for me. My camera (D50) allows 2GB cards max and considering how cheap they are now, 2GB is about the same as a roll of decent film. I will never ever shoot jpeg in camera again, unless I am at a family function and know RAW adjustements will 100% never be needed. Even then, I shy away from switching to jpeg in case I forget to put it back to NEF! I'm attaching an example - the left side is the unprocessed NEF file, the right side is processed. Pretty drastic positive difference I'd say and jpeg is just not capable of these corrections.</p><div></div>

<p>By the way, when you shoot raw you will still benefit from thinking about color balance. If you don't it will eventually come back to bite you.</p>

<p>Jay--I'm not a technical person, so someone can explain better--but basically, the advantage to shooting RAW over JPEG is you can mess around with a file to manage and tweak the image data before creating the final JPEG--maybe pull in data from the highlights and from the shadows that wouldn't have been there in a JPEG straight from the camera. One thing that I really like about Lightroom 2 are the adjustment brushes. With these, you can bring exposure and other settings up or down on selected areas of the RAW file. The big advantage for me is the fact that the color does not shift when you do this like it does in Photoshop. This is really great on skin tone, which is important for all of us wedding photographers.</p>

<p>To the folks supporting the 'get it right to begin with' argument, I agree with the premise, but when shooting true candids at a wedding, I appreciate the fact that I CAN wait until later to tweak the file, and can concentrate on getting the shot at the time, if necessary. For static shoots, where you have control, I agree that shooting JPEGS makes sense. However, if you shot in RAW AND got it right, the post processing takes minutes, and you have the added insurance of having all the data for each file, in case you really needed to do some major work on it for some reason. In addition, I doubt that all the photographers shooting RAW are using it as a crutch.</p>

<p>Still, a wedding photographer, or any photographer, should evaluate the pros and cons specifically against his or her own image standards, workflow, time usage, client expectations, and almost every other aspect of being in the business, and then decide for him or herself.</p>

<p>For me JPEG is preferred.<br>

If I print, the size is four inches by six inches<br>

If an item goes to an internet site (rarely)<br>

the image gets knocked to 72 dpi in any event so superb quality<br>

is not an issue.<br>

Yet another reason I sold all my DSLR GEAR and now use<br>

just a CanonA590 P&S for my digital work. (JPEG only)<br>

Film is the Nikon F100 and is the preferred method, for me.</p>

 

<p>Nadine - Thank you very much for your quick response. I fully understand the tweaking advantage as well as most other advantages of RAW. I also understand why many if not most would prefer to use it. But, again, I fail to understand the perceived quality advantage of RAW since it must be converted before delivered to a client. Does a JPEG converted from a RAW file have more dynamic range and color depth (is it a highr quality file?) than a JPEG straight out of camera that is taken properly? That's my question. I have no idea but I'm having trouble understanding how it could. I've never understood the argument that RAW can provide these quality advantages when all RAW files must be converted to JPEGs at some point.</p>

<p>Jay--OK, I didn't understand exactly what you were after. No, there isn't a difference once a RAW file has been converted to JPEG. A JPEG is a JPEG.</p>

<p>This is what I thought, so where do all the claims of greater dynamic range and so on come from? I understand that the RAW file has that advantage but we loose that as soon as we show the image to anyone as a print or JPEG on the web? Is that correct? Some of the sites that review cameras go into great detail on how a certain camera has great dynamic range but to take full advantage of it you must shoot RAW. I'm not understanding why there is an emphasis on that if you can only see it on your computer when looking at the RAW file or maybe a TIFF.</p>

<p>I understand the concept that Jay is trying to prove and to certain extent I understand him. This will apply if the RAW image is not processed or altered in any form via LR or any other photo tweaking program. But Jay, I just realized that if you alter the RAW image in any program the results of converting it later to jpeg will be noticeable, a simple example is the two pictures posted above by ND Trivette. Those are jpeg images, but the second one-on the right side-has been altered to obtain the final image posted as jpeg, and the original image was a NEF.This NEF captured image was what made it possible to be altered later and converted to jpeg. What you are seeing there are two jpeg images, but they originally were one NEF image. It is understandable what I am trying to explain here?</p>

<p>Well I'm assuming that the greater dynamic range is 'pulled' out of the RAW file before it is converted into a JPEG. Say you take a RAW picture of a scene that has a greater dynamic range than would ordinarily be possible to show in a JPEG straight from the camera. You manipulate the highlights and shadows in such a way that when you convert to JPEG, the highlights and shadows in the JPEG show more dynamic range than the one straight from the camera.</p>

<p>Robert, believe me, I'm not trying to prove anything, just to understand. I'm not sure the example by ND is a good one. It's a great example of how you can pull back the highlights with RAW but I'm not sure it shows that RAW has more dynamic range. I bet if the JPEG in that example was exposed for the background it would look the same as the image that was converted from RAW. There are tons of great reasons to shoot RAW. I'm questioning whether or not increased dynamic range, color depth, or better looking huge prints are reasons as well since we have to go to 8 bit to show images to anyone not sitting at our computer.<br>

Nadine - you won't block up some of those shadows and blow out some of those highlights when you convert? If a JPEG is a JPEG is a JPEG, I'm still missing something. Sorry, I've just never understood this and it's not for lack of trying.</p>

<p>Jay, I understand you now and I agree with you 100%. You're right, the final image is in jpeg and it wouldn't show any increase in dynamic range or color depth. The results of large prints won't be any different from an original well exposed jpeg image.</p>

<p>No, you won't, because you pulled them into place when you mess around with them in processing. I guess you might be having a hard time understanding if you've never played around with a RAW file before. In processing you can compress the dynamic range without losing the data in the highlights and shadows. In shooting a JPEG file, that data is lost upon writing the file because it is outside the range to begin with.</p>

<p>I think it depends on your subject. I primarily shoot sports, both day and night. I only shoot sports in JPG because RAW causes my camera (Nikon D80) to drag in those situations. I prefer RAW for everything else. ND's example is a good one showing how adjustments in RAW are made easily. With wedding photography especially, I would think RAW would be the only way to go. If the pictures are perfect then running a simple batch file would quickly convert from RAW to JPG. Better yet, just to be safe, shoot in RAW + JPG.</p>

<p>Thanks, Nadine. I've shot plenty in RAW but I've never adopted it for work. A test would be great but I'm totally not qualified to set one up. I can understand how you can process the shadows and highlights in RAW to maximize something like dynamic range. I don't understand why you wouldn't loose that at conversion time when you have to throw away a buch of that data. How come that data is lost when shooting in JPEG because it is outside the range to begin with but you can shoot the same scene in RAW, process the file, covert to JPEG and not loose the data or have it outside the range of that 8 bit JPEG? Isn't it still a JPEG that is still only capable of holding the same amount of data as a JPEG out of camera?</p>

<p>Again, sorry that I'm still not understanding. I'm just having a hard time grasping the concept. Thanks a bunch for all your help though.</p>

<p>You don't lose the extra data at conversion because you have manually pulled both ends in during processing and ensured that the data is withing the range capable of being shown in a JPEG. The data is lost when shooting a JPEG because the camera makes a decision which part of the dynamic range it wil show, and if that range is bigger than it is capable of showing, part of it gets dropped right off the bat.</p>

<p>That's starting to make some sense. Thanks so much for hanging in there with me!</p>

<p>RAW all the way. You can't afford to miss the push/pull power of shooting in RAW with weddings; and any other occasion when conditions can be difficult and you get just one chance!</p>

<p>Jay,<br>

This is a vastly over simplified analogy but I hope it helps. </p><p>The difference is that a jpeg can only reproduce x number of colours and shades, a RAW file produces x+ number of colours and shades.</p><p> Suppose your photo is two staircases, they are the same height, the jpeg has 100 steps, the RAW file has 150 steps. At the top is white, at the bottom black.</p><p>Now if you think of each colour and shade as a step on a staircase, the jpeg takes your lightest colour and your darkest colour and just divides all the rest of the colours/shades in a linear fashion, it doesn't care if most of the detail is between steps 80-100, it still pushes all that information into the 20 steps on the staircase it allows so looses information. The RAW file captures the information, it has more steps in the first place, then by applying a curve(non linear adjustment) you can spread the information captured between values 80-150 in RAW to cover more than 20 steps of your convertion to a jpeg 100 step staircase, thus giving you more detail. You do compress stuff elsewhere but you can choose where that is.</p><p>The above example shows how it works, the important information is in the lighter areas, steps 80-100 on the jpeg staircase, and 100-150 on the RAW staircase, so lots of the light detail in the jpeg is lost. Now before you convert the RAW file you adjust your curves to enhance the light areas, you can spread ths enhanced area to spread over the top 30 stairs on your new saved jpeg, you have a better photo! The payoff is that other areas get compressed, there is a lot more black and dark detail is lost in the example above but it makes the picture work even better, so in this case it is a win win.</p><p>You are right, they do hold the same amount of data, the RAW just lets you spread the important information out so you can see it.The important thing is that the in camera jpeg is the cameras tiny computers division of the RAW data into an 8bit file in a linear fashion on the fly, the RAW image allows you to adjust that division to better work with your image into the same 8bit space in a non linear way. It is particularly important for wedding shooters because of the ability to pull back detail in white dresses, especially when they are standing next to dark suited grooms!</p><p>Hope this helps, Scott.</p>

<p>Well Scott, that makes sense, now I understand better, I am at the same level than Jay, didn't understand clearly how was possible to conserve the amount of data of RAW into a jpeg.<br>

Thank you</p>

Jay, what Nadine says is correct. It's a nice sunday morning here, and I don't feel like getting all technical over my wheaties, but if you want the full technical definition, let me know and I will post the details. The basics of it are this: It is not the fact that the image file is 'raw' or 'jpg' which determines what it's dynamic range is. The reason the out of camera jpgs will have reduced dynamic range is due to a programming decision made by some technician in Japan as to how the raw data should be converted. Basically, some data at the highlight end is essentially thrown away. But if one chooses to process the data themselves, it is possible to conserve that highlight data and not just chuck it out.<p>

 

Here's an example of an in-camera jpg vs a raw-to-jpeg conversion.<p>

 

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QTjS-63617584.jpg"><p>

<img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QTjW-63617684.jpg"><p>

 

Please, no comments about how boring this image is. It was taken for scientific purposes. Cheers.

<p>I shoot RAW all the time, with a small jpg for screening the images. I shoot for fun, and I don't care if it takes a little longer. I'm fishing for a great image I may find one day, and if I eventually find one, I want everything available to work on it later. If I make a mistake with WB or other factors, I want every tool to fix it as best as possible.<br>

So it was a bit of a surprise for me to learn that, in a recent survey, most professional shooters on the Sportshooter website shoot jpg, not RAW. Of course those guys do it as efficiently as they can, and they work on a timeline to get images out to the wire service. Also, they often have exposure and WB adjusted correctly in the first place, so they don't need the extra work and hard disc space that RAW entails.<br>

Ultimately a professional also wants great images, but he's not willing to sacrifice that extra half-hour every day for a (usually marginal) difference in quality. Like most of us, he works efficiently so he can get home to be with his family.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p>When I started shooting digital as a pro (Canon 10D) I always shot JPG as I was in the studio and I felt I was on top of my game. I also felt that the time spent using RAW was a cost I did not wish to bear in my business.<br /> I began testing with RAW and found that the in camera JPGs showed artifacting from the conversion that were not present in JPGs converted from RAW. In truth one could not see the artifacts in print at moderate sizes. It did bother me from a purist viewpoint however that my files were not as clean as they might be.<br /> I also noticed that even though I was very careful in WB and exposure, I almost always opened each file in PS for some retouching or tweaking. Once I did that almost all the alleged speed advantage of JPG was lost.<br>

Lightroom has removed the limitations of Bridge in my work flow. I heartily recommend this and other pro-level RAW processors( such as Capture One and Aperture) for quality and speed.<br>

More importantly, in the very competitive world of wedding, portrait and commercial photography, clients were no longer settling for images that looked like studio work from the 70's with a few fixed poses and lights. The studios that were prospering were those studios that were leveraging the advantages of extensive post processing. Starting with JPGs can be done but starting with RAW allowed a much greater range of interpretation. In addition using RAW allowed me to return to the original file for new versions of the image incorporating ideas and knowledge I had gained in the intervening time.<br>

<br /> A JPG contains the image info that was baked into it when it was created. By making a JPG from RAW I get a JPG with MY DECISIONS in it and not the compromises of a hardware component of my camera.<br>

With regards to sports shooters and PJs....they are usually working in an environment where the conditions are very tightly controlled. They test the venue extensively and know exactly what they need to do to get an image FAST. Does anyone think that at the recent inauguration that a JPG would not have been ideal when the demands are speed and more speed? Sure a lot of jpg +RAW was shot, but the JPGs made it to the net in 5 minutes or less.</p>

<p> </p>