Shooting JPEGS only.

<p>i went from shooting weddings with two d3's to shooting with 135mm film and my work fow has gone from hours and hours, to minutes! hdr, don't need it, i go plenty of dr straight out of the camera, and i rate my 400h at 200asa. but i can't do a slideshow at the reception :) if or when i shoot digital again, i will not go back to raw. </p>

<p>OK, since we're back to civility, I'm going to add even more text to this thread.</p>

<p>The first thing I want to say is that the superior quality (or even equivalent final quality) of JPEG or RAW cannot be proven since, as we see, there are opposing views on which image of the woman above looks better. If we cannot decide what quality is, there is no way it can be proven either way, whether by visual tests or science.</p>

<p>The second thing I want to say is that the choice to shoot JPEG or RAW rests more upon shooting goals, methods and purposes than anything else, IMHO. Let's not forget that this thread is in the Wedding Forum. I wonder how many respondants above are wedding photographers? This latter is not an elitist insinuation that only wedding photographers can reply or have valid input. The reason I bring this up is because most (I admit not all) wedding photographers strive to be photojournalistic to some degree, meaning some percentage of total images taken were taken without posing, and many, without prior intent. A lot of these photojournalistic images are not repeatable in the exact same way. Some are restageable, and can look similar, but not all.</p>

<p>Take Emin's examples, above. I can see myself following the bride out of the hotel and noticing how cool the reflections are around the door. Without stopping the bride, I might just shoot, maybe not even raising the camera to my eye. I sure don't have time to notice what settings are on my camera--maybe I had it on manual camera mode, maybe on an automated mode. I am guessing this is how Emin might have shot this--off the cuff. So lack of photographic knowledge, shooter error, or metering (who would have time to meter a shot like this unless it was purely staged?)--sloppy technique has nothing to do with it, all of you who argue that RAW shooters are lazy.</p>

<p>The above is just one of the reasons I choose to shoot RAW for weddings. However, I have also shot JPEG for weddings. I know it can be done, and well. I can see shooting JPEGS for formals, for instance. I usually have everything nailed down precisely, and when it comes time to converting my RAW files of formals, I am doing almost nothing to the files in Lightroom beyond marking them for conversion. What would I have done IF I shot the same thing in JPEG? I would have looked at the LCD and histogram and seen that it was blown out. I probably would have tossed it and forgot about it. If I were Jeff Ascough, I would have been able to save it and turn into a great image (from a JPEG). Whether that image would have the same quality as Emin's is subject to opinion. And whose opinion? The photographer's or the client's?.</p>

<p>While I don't agree with the idea that JPEG wedding shooters are lax for not caring to give their clients the utmost in quality, I do think clients are far less critical of the technical end. If the image does not suffer from obvious technical flaws, and the image is cool, or makes them look good, they are happy. This in no way is an insult about clients' intelligence. I say this after years of client dealings.</p>

<p>Because the choice to shoot JPEG or RAW depends upon goals, methods and purposes, and because we wedding photographers all have different ones, there is no right or wrong about the choice. These goals, methods and purposes also go right through from the camera to the business end of a photographer's business. If someone thinks you make more money shooting JPEGS--he could be right--FOR HIM. If you have shot a number of weddings, you will soon know what you want to do about this choice. While it is interesting to toss about the science of it all, why are we arguing?</p>

<p>sRGB and Adobe RGB colour spaces both use a gamma 2.2 encoding. Gamma encoding reallocates encoding levels from the upper f-stops into the lower f-stops to compensate for the human eye's greater sensitivity to absolute changes in the darker tone range. This means an 8 bit JPEG file has just 47 brightness levels available in the bottom two stops<br /> <br /> if you want to see the difference between JPEG and raw try this on a JPEG and then consider what the result is like when using a 16 bit native file:<br /> <br /> IMAGE, MODE, 8 BIT<br /> Now that we all have 8 bit files, open the levels command by pressing Control-L on a PC, or Command-L on a Mac. Move the middle slider to the left until it reads around 4.0 instead of 1.0 and click the OK button. Open the<br /> levels command again and move the slider to the right until it reads .10 and again press OK. Now open the levels command once again and adjust the central slider until the image looks as good as possible. Explain the changes that have taken place, both to the image and to the histogram. You may need<br /> to look at the image at a 100% magnification as well. IMAGE, MODE, 16 BIT You are now working in 16 bit mode. Repeat the exercise and report your findings and conclusion!</p>

<p>With an 8 bit/channel file any subsequent image manipulation in Photoshop including basic stuff people generally do - rotating an image,levels/ curves, converting from a colour space to an output profile, and in particular sharpening - can cause damage to the file. With an 8 bit per channel image, such data manipulation around the margins, means no headroom to absorb errors. Worse, because sRGB and Adobe RGB encoding reallocates encoding levels from the higher f-stops into the lower f-stops the total number of brightness tones available - 255 - means that JPEG shadow levels will have considerably less than this - e.g. 47 in total for shadow levels 9 and 10.<br /> <br /> The effect of this can be seen on the 8 bit image: by blowing the gamma from 1 to 4 and then back from 1- 0.1 and back to 1, shadow information shown on the Histogram has been turned into mid tones and then back the other way one is trying to make mid tones become shadow. GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out) there will be coarse graduations/sharp transitions from light tones to almost instant black along with some ugly artifacts in mid tones. By comparison, the 16 bit image, while damaged by this destructive process, manages to retain more shadow detail. While one would (hopefully) not abuse a file like that, it demonstrates the inherent danger of doing too much manipulation on any image unless its RAW. (of course duplicating a layer is a safer bet but its a time bound activity). <br /> human eye's greater sensitivity to absolute changes in the darker tone range. This means an 8 bit JPEG file has just 47 brightness levels available in the bottom two stops</p>

<p><em><strong>Nadine Ohara (Jul 02, 2009; 06:28 p.m.): </strong></em><br>

<br>

Top essay - best of yours yet, IMO. <br>

Brava<br>

<br>

(and I have both: shot a lot of Weddings; and read a lot of your commentary).<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

<blockquote>as for the 5d shot above that is so obviously overexposed. why was it overexposed?</blockquote><p>

 

It is clear that the image WASN'T overexposed on the sensor, or else the photographer wouldn't have been able to make such a wonderful second image. It is simply false to continue to say that an image like that is overexposed, without first qualifying what you are saying. It could be considered "overexposed" in the context of jpg shooting, but in the context of an experienced raw shooter it was a near perfect exposure. <p>

 

<blockquote>jen l-my right is when the image looks as close to the real scene as is possible to get. i do not want it improved in any way later in pping. i simply want tjhe dslr to reproduce the scene as faithfully as possible. this is not a tone curve as such. to tone curve some image means that you are changing the "look" of the image(s) each time you shoot and later in pp. i do not do that ever. i simply wish that the camera record the image as faithfully accurate as is posssible to get it.</blockquote><p>

 

Jen's post was spot on the money. The jpg you accept out of the camera is based on the same raw data that a raw shooter would use as a starting point. Why is it you think your camera processed jpg is any more accurate than the raw data straight off the sensor? The raw data captures more dynamic range than the camera jpg conversion can, so in that case the raw data is MORE accurate than the jpg data. I'm not a wedding photographer, but I would have thought that greater dynamic range would have been something wedding photographers would desire given the traditional black and white outfits.

<p>In the 5D JPEG shot, I could see the point if the interior was normal or dark, while the outside area was blown out white. That is a DR problem then of exreme proportions. And the RAW example looking better- with NO PP adjustments- would indicate superior performance. With SOME PP adjustment, it is possible to retrieve more highlight detail than with JPEG. But that is not the case here. The interior is rather blown out as well! Everything in the frame is over. I can say with certainty that if I were shooting that scene in JPEG, at least with my equipment, by spot metering a mid-tone area or grey card, the exposure would NOT turn out exposed that way. In the JPEG result shown here, exposure is so high there are virtually no mid-tones left in the frame!! I find that odd with the outside bright light in the center coming straight in along with a bright overhead light and light walls. I would expect the metering as shown might render the interior somewhat too dark! That is why I'd spot meter such a scene in Manual, or using the AE-L. </p>

<p>Read my comments below the image<br>

<a href="../photo/9419975">http://www.photo.net/photo/9419975</a></p>

 

<p>Nadine - from your first succinct response to your last exposition, you have encapsulated the debate and poured some needed water on the firery posts (and my own sarcasm).<br>

Funny you mention Jeff Ascough, because I thought to go back and re-read his interview with MaryBall. His perspective on RAW-vs-JPG is an intelligent one, and would fit well into the discussion here. Jeff had to become satisfied enough with the speed and results from RAW workflow - and conversion software in particular - before he could move away from JPEG. I'm curious to know what his ratio is today. The great results he gets from minimal flash and noisy high ISO speak volumes for what he can do with either workflow. I'm not worthy!<br /> <br /> While I remain a committed RAW shooter for my own practical and technical reasons, I will try an experiment during my next wedding: I'll shoot RAW+JPEG. My new batch of Flash cards arrived today. :-)</p>

<p>Mike's shot of a woman above is not really a comparison between jpeg and raw and it is interesting how many fail to see that. It's a comparison between the settings in the camera and the settings in ACR - both used to convert from raw to jpeg.</p>

<p>Cameras of today have highlight tone priority, auto lighting optimizer, automatic d-lighting and what not. Just as raw converters have fill light, shadow and highlight recovery. A few years ago the raw converters didn't have that and the cameras didn't either.</p>

<p>The jpeg shooters are right when they say that the reason to shot raw is to be able to fix mistakes in post. But on the other hand what is bad about that?</p>

<p>I'll leave this thread with an example of how Emin's great but severely overexposed shot could have looked if one tried to recover it in jpeg. I tried to match overall look somewhat as it has some postprocessing applied as well. With some more time and most importantly a high resolution jpeg, I think it would have been an equally strong shot in jpeg. You'll find Emin's original jpeg a couple of posts up in this thread.</p><div></div>

<blockquote>Cameras of today have highlight tone priority, auto lighting optimizer, automatic d-lighting and what not.</blockquote><p>

 

Mine doesn't. And either does Emin's.<p>

 

<blockquote>It's a comparison between the settings in the camera and the settings in ACR - both used to convert from raw to jpeg.</blockquote><p>

 

Exactly. And a user has far greater control in a raw converter than in a camera jpg rendition.<p>

 

Your recovery of highlights in Emin's jpg, doesn't disprove the argument for the use of raw. The argument fundamentals still stand. Raw can capture a greater dynamic range than a camera converted jpg (unless there is a camera out there that allows user control of white balance multipliers, or at the very least uses multipliers of less than one). I could post an excellent example of the benefit of raw over jpg, but cognisant of the warning above restricting posts to more specific wedding examples, I won't unless asked otherwise.

<p>Bernie, we are actually in agreement here. But I wasn't trying to disprove the argument for raw. I was trying to show that all is not lost just because it was a jpeg. For some reason people just seems to assume that it is.</p>

<p>The reason I mentioned cameras of today is that the dynamic range is greater than ever but also because the in camera processing of that raw data is greater than ever too. The active d-lighting does the same thing to the raw data as you when you use the shadow and highlight recovery sliders in your raw converter.</p>

<p>Sure you have more flexibility in the raw converter but there is a lot of unexplored flexibility in the cameras as well. Besides new features like I mentioned there are also customized tone curves and color adjustments that can be changed on the fly by the photographer depending on the situation.</p>

<p>If you want to compare the latest raw converters with in camera jpegs isn't it fair if you do it using the latest cameras as well? And that you put as much time into learning how to tweak the camera settings as you do learning the raw software?</p>

<p>If shooting jpegs is a better approach than shooting raw and do corrections afterwards is a different matter. A matter of workflow and personal preference. The question was, for wedding work, have we reached a stage where JPEGS are "good enough"? I'd say yes.</p>

 

<p>right now, i wonder how many readers of this thread even read my first reply. i stated that i am dedicated jpeg shooter. and the quality of my images are as good as anybodys. but, i also said that for a wedding i would switch to raw instantly and use white test card shots. this is due to the constantly varying lighting and light sources. i would then use the white test shots to determine the wb later. this is fitting the format to the job. not that raw is better BUT for a wedding, in which there is no possibility of reshoots and the wb has to be right, raw would give the advatage due to its wb ability. of course, this means taking the white test card shots in the varying lighting.<br>

the other issue is the setting up the dslr to shoot the accurate high quality jpeg. i have 2 dslrs; it took me about 2 hrs each to set them up to shoot a jpeg. i wonder how many users who criticize jpegs so easily have gone to the trouble and effort to set them up to shoot the good accurate jpeg. or, are they just using the dslr with the factory settings, or changing the settings for each shot, for what reason i do not know, then saying the raw is better? the test is being made from a situation that is the raw is always giving its best due to the work in the raw converter, but the jpeg is coming from a very noneoptimized group of settings, guerenteed to produce inferior images. the simple fact is that to shoot a jpeg well means more effort and work in the filed and that the shooting MUST be done with a dslr that is already setup to shoot the accurate high quality jpeg. the jpeg is harder to shoot than the raw, since the raw shooter KNOWS that there is a fudge factor in the raw image. while the jpeg person has to get to get it pretty much right because there is no fixes but only touchups. why would the raw user make the great effort to get the shot dead on when he knows that an accuracy of a stop or stop and a half is plenty good enough and that the converter can fix the stop or stop and a half? whereas the jpeger has to hit the exposure within a 1/4 of a stop or he blows the highlights and cannot get them back. the jpeger has to put more effort and skill into the shot just to break even with the raw shooter.<br>

much has been said here about the dr range of raw vs jpeg. and that jpeg is only about 5-6stops. i come from a background, as do many many others, who shot film slides, i did it for 32yrs. a slide only has a dr of 4.5-5.0 stops. to me getting the dr of 5-6stops with jpeg is terrrific. not to mention i never had a problem getting the scene recorded with the slide. neither did all the commercial photogs who shot their billions of slides of the last hundred yrs or so. it was simply a matter of adjusting the technique to get the shot. you learned how. also since there is only about a 1/2 stop of headroom with a jpeg, what is the problem? with a slide there is ZERO headroom. if you overexposed at all the info was lost with no possibility of ANY recovery. you tossed the slide. with slides you learned how to shoot accurately or else(you tossed the slide into the waste can, and you had nothing for your efforts). </p>

<p>Whether or not a jpeg is harder to shoot is something that cannot be proven one way or the other, like much of what has been said above. However, I can say that as a RAW shooter (for weddings), I strive to get my files dead on, exposure wise. I do not accept a stop and a half as a fudge factor. If I have any kind of control over a lighting situation, I shoot my files to be dead on or within 1/3 to 1/2 stop margin. I shot that way with negative film. I shot that way with slide film. As I said above, my formals shots are hardly 'fixed' at all before conversion to jpeg.</p>

<p>However, I am certainly grateful for that exposure fudge factor in situations such as the one I described above, because the most quality can be mined from a RAW file (IMHO), in these situations. I also sometimes use the increased ability to recover highlights to my advantage, such as in bright sun conditions. In these conditions, I deliberately overexpose up to maybe 2/3 stop and recover highlights in post. The advantage is not having to pull the shadows up so much, resulting in less noise. Fill flash balance is nicer too--backgrounds don't go as dark as they would if you shot jpegs to achieve zero blown highlights.</p>

<p>"Why would the raw user make the great effort to get the shot dead on when he knows that an accuracy of a stop or stop and a half is plenty good enough and that the converter can fix the stop or stop and a half?"</p>

<p>Because it is good photographic technique to do so. I would not assume that all RAW shooters use shooting RAW as a crutch or because of fudge factors.</p>

<p>I have shot weddings in jpeg, and I shot them the same way I shoot my RAW files now. The only difference is that I do not tune color balance in precisely, in the field. Now here, I do rely upon a certain fudge factor, because I find you cannot precisely get that dead on, accurate color balance (actually great skin tone) with jpeg files in difficult mixed lighting situations, ON THE FLY, such as at events like weddings. And there are lots of mixed lighting situations at most weddings.</p>

<p>FWIW, Gary, I did read your first post. At a Wedding I use two DSLR's and have a third as back-up. Yes I have set the JPEG Picture Styles (or similar) in each camera and they follow a set of four lighting "types" which I have defined and give JPEGS which suit me: I have mentioned this in detail on a few threads, before. <br>

<br>

I find this JPEG "tailoring" exceptional useful for pulling and printing (or posting) JPEGS very quickly at repeat venues I often work. I also have shot positive film (slides), but never for a Wedding, as far as I can recall.<br>

<br>

So yes, I for one do very much understand what you are saying: but I still also shoot RAW + JPEG (L) for everything - that suits me - it is really simple and I like simple. As I first stated - it is one fewer preliminary decisions I have to make. <br>

<br>

Remember "simple" does not necessarily mean "sloppy" <br>

<br>

You seem like a very reasonable fellow so I hope you will not be offended if I take you and me as an example and set us both up at the same Wedding, shooting exactly the same scenes at exactly the same time. . .<br>

<br>

Having read all that you have written I see it this way: we are both aiming for perfect JPEG capture - we are both getting equal scores and batting and equal 99% each. <br>

<br>

But we come across one of those <em>"3 situations where one would switch to raw in an instant without any second thought" . . . </em>well it seems to me I immediately have the upper hand, because I am all-ready in RAW mode - you gotta firstly think and secondly make a change: all else being equal between us, I just gotta shoot.<br>

<br>

That's just the way I see it.<br>

<br>

WW <br>

</p>

<p > </p>

 

<p><!--StartFragment--></p>

<p >The following is not directed towards any one person nor any group of persons.</p>

<p >RAW, it is not an acronym; do we write “uncooked meat is RAW”. I have sat on both sides of this raw vs JPG debate now firmly I sit with JPG Fine; it works best for me. In photography it is the result, never the process. About our work it matters how the client feels not whether we shoot raw or JPG. Is the client is satisfied, nothing else matters. Pinhole camera shots I made for the client they loved. So this raw vs. JPG debate matters for what?</p>

<p >Both raw and JPG deliver outstanding results to quite large magnifications. Whether it is raw or JPG, only photographers care not clients. It has become an ego thing, "I shoot, raw or JPG, I'm better than you, I know more, I care more than you do, see I produce more detail, blah blah blah". Prints set side by side one cannot choose whether they started as raw or JPG. The photographer knows the client doesn't, the client doesn't care. Most times the difference is at best subtle in minutiae: the print chosen is a judgement call. Use the workflow that best fits you. My belief is today's JPG produce pictures better than raw did a few years ago. Our shooting style, lens, lighting, have infinitely more to do with picture quality than raw vs. JPG. Truly to me this raw vs JPG is majoring in minors.</p>

<p >Raw is not a digital negative. Today one can print a one hundred year old negative. Into the future one hundred years I doubt today's raw files will be able to be opened. There is not an ISO raw file standard. The raw file is indigenous to the version of camera, firmware, vendor, an ever changing proprietary file format. Though Adobe has the DNG, to date not one vendor uses it as their default raw format. Where is that standard, the so called digital negative? There isn't any. The phrase, Digital negative, is a non sequitur, possibly a platitude. </p>

<p >This raw and JPG saber rattling is not between photographer and client but, a meaningless futile exercise of photographers. This reminds me what Shakespeare wrote: Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an id10t, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.</p>

<!--EndFragment-->

 

<p>It's not what's best: RAW or jpeg?</p>

<p>It's <strong>what works best for a fast paced environment where potential exposures change fast and there's not time </strong> to have a discussion with your buddy over what exposure might be interesting. </p>

<p>We all have different approaches but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of weddings do not wait around for the exact exposure all the time so it makes one wonder if <strong>the right "tool" to select</strong> is the one that gives you <strong>the most latitude: </strong> seems to me that it's just a matter of being sensible more than a macho thing that serves as a subtle form of bragging.<br>

<em><br /> </em><br>

<em>What's the tool that gives you the most latitude in a fast paced environment in a one time event? </em> I'd pick RAW even though getting a good exposure is not a true challenge for me. What's the best tool to use for the task at hand? What's the wise tool to use if your style is rather hectic and active? The wise choice, imo, is to be responsible and pick the tool that fits the task in a fast paced environment.</p>

<p>If your style is laid back and you're taking calculated even paced shots then jpg might be a perfect fit for you: excellent; but, the tool for me in a fast paced environment that's a one time event is RAW. Why be hard headed about it when you can be safe and the processing is about the same?</p>

<p><strong><em>Acronym? </em></strong><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

<strong><em>R</em></strong>ight capture mode <strong><em>A</em></strong>lways for <em><strong>W</strong></em>eddings = <em><strong>RAW</strong></em></p>

<p>it is only a bit of levity :) </p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>William W. You did well, I like it. Thank you for the levity and humor needed. :-)<br>

Side note: Folks use the phrase, a one time event, as though at will other events can be recreated. In my minds eye using the term, one time event, is meaningless. All events are one time events.<br>

Exposure should not be the issue, white balance may be. During a fast paced event correct WB can easily be accomplished in camera. In PP the minor adjustments either with raw or JPG will provide equally satisfactory results. When WB or exposure is off the mark the photographer has other issues. The choice of raw or JPG is for the connivence of the photographer not the client. <br>

Shoot raw or JPG best fitting your style, both have great value. Debating which one is better is meaningless, futile, mind deadening, boring, accomplishes nothing, is never ending, rattles too many cages. The same as debating Canon vs. Nikon vs. Sony, vs., etc.<br>

Have fun out there.</p>

 

<p>?<br>

Personally I am amazed. I would have never thought there would be such a disparity amongst professionals? To answer the question we shoot Raw + JPEG. In part because of the Golden Rule: do unto others... Frankly, I would be quite upset to learn if any service provider I hired took shortcuts using the rationale that I would never "see" the difference. I hired the service to do something that for whatever reason, I couldn't do. But I have an expectation for that provider to do their best (all within the no margin no mission philosophy of course!). A Raw file has billions of color possibilities. A JPEG has millions. Either has more color possibilities than the human eye can see. But if you are a serious professional do you want to choose from a palette of a billions of colors or from a palette of millions of colors? If the JPEG is indeed "good enough", you have lost nothing by shooting Raw as the software that came with the camera will produce the same JPEG the camera would have (or you can simply shoot Raw + JPEG and have the best of both worlds). THere are plenty of examples of the Power of the Raw file. The bride running down the hall was one. Is the JPEG correctly exposed, no. Had it been correctly exposed would it have been a better shot, yes. But as someone else pointed out- it was a great candid shot. You don't get to do those twice. You don't get to whip out a meter and meter the scene, you are relying on the camera meter to some degree and you simply don't get a 2nd chance. I actually envy those that get it right the first time every time. In well controlled situations it might still take me a few test shots to get what I am looking for.... let alone a wedding shoot where every second counts. So for me, my conscience won't let me sleep at night if I am not doing the best I can do when someone pays me to do something. And my best means choosing from billions of colors- even if the client (or me with many images!) can't "see" the difference. All of that said, I can certainly understand there are times you may need to shoot JPEG only. A sports shooter who needs to shoot as many images as they can as fast as they can is one example. And I think this is such a heated debate because it illustrates two diverging attitudes. And as I said, I would hate to hire a provider laboring under the "they will never know" attitude. </p>

<p>Ric Donato: I am glad. To be truthful, my finger actually poised over the [Confirm] for a moment, before posting that Acronym comment - which is an unusual procedure for me. And . . . I did read and digest, all the rest of what you wrote, too.<br>

Cheers,<br>

<br>

WW </p>

 

<p>Ladies and gentlemen, I believe we have now flogged the ghost of this poor horse to death.</p>

<p>R.I.P.</p>

<p>Oh, I don't think we have seen the last of this ghost. I can predict that within the next 6 months, another opportunity will present itself.</p>

<p>The 5th Horse of the Apocalypse ...</p>

<p>It makes it's dramatic entry to the tune of "Ghost Riders in The Sky."</p>

<p>A grim two headed rider sits astride the gossamer horse ... each head arguing with one another ... for all of eternity.</p>

<p>LOL!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yeah, some day processing raw files would be as necessary as coating your own glass plates are today :-)<br>

No, the images will just look great without human intervention.</p>