Raw vs Jpeg?

<p>Hi everybody,<br>

I would like to know what you think of the following article, as it left me rather unconvinced...<br>

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm<br>

Warm regards,<br>

Dominic</p>

<p>My first reaction is that it is a three-year old article with lots of statements that, if true at the time, are no longer true. And it is by Ken Rockwell and around here that's like lighting a firecracker in a Sunday morning church service and asking people if they enjoyed it.</p>

<p>He writes to confuse people, so that they will ask about the stupid things he says at places like photo.net. The links to his site improve its ratings. I'm not kidding. Warm regards to you.</p>

<p>Dominic,<br>

If you are really serious about wanting perspectives on this, just use Google or search this site--there is plenty of information and Ken R is just one opinion. I am wondering though...your portfolio is very nice and you have been on this site since 2008--you haven't figured out what works for you yet (JPEG V. RAW)? You wouldn't be trolling would you? </p>

<p>I've not read the article, because I would never click on a link to his site.</p>

<p>Whatever he said it's nonsense.</p>

<p>Raw files are the data as captured by the camera's sensor, without modification.<br /> Jpeg files are compressed, possibly with information loss, containing data modified by camera settings.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p><em><a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm#ftc">" if you consider anything I say as an endorsement (God help you if you do, remember, I do this site as a goof)"</a></em></p>

As Michael Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape said once, if when you shot on film you usually kept the prints and

threw away the negatives, shooting JPEG is for you.

<p>Hi everybody,<br>

Thanks very much for your sharp answers that say it all. But let me explain further why I did ask the question:<br>

I spent 3 days, last week, shooting models (in a studio) for an American sarong company, and the owner tried to convince to me to shoot directly in Jpeg in order to make file transfers faster and compatible with PC softwares (I use Mac). I didn't follow his advice, although Raw files transfers from my camera to his laptop took a bit longer, but he kept on trying to convince me that he's right by later forwarding me Ken Rockwell's article. Moreover, my photo-retouching artist told me that there were no differences of quality between High Res Jpeg & Raw files...<br>

That's then the reason why I needed your comments, and your answers in way prove that I was right not to follow the sarongs company owner's advice.<br>

Now, here are below a few dedicated answers:<br>

David: I didn't know that Ken Rockwell's article was 3 yo... I unserstand better now.<br>

Hector: I understand a bit more about the man himself now. Thank you.<br>

Daniel: Thanks very much for the advice. I will follow it, when I'm a bit less busy. And, don't worry: I've always been working in Raw, since my very first Digital camera, but, as I'm not an expert in digital technology (I started photography more than 20 years ago, when argentic techniques were still widely used), I needed to clarify the matter. And it is clear to me now that I should keep on shooting in Raw... ;-)<br>

Leigh: I actually fully agree with you. That's why Ken Rockwell's article made me confused.<br>

Scott: ;-)<br>

Marc: He he... It's absolutely true. That's why I've always been working in Raw!<br>

Once again, thanks very much again to all of you, for spending time in answering my question.<br>

Warm regards,<br>

Dominic</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>my photo-retouching artist told me that there were no differences of quality between High Res Jpeg & Raw files...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not true.</p>

<p>A camera-generated JPEG will use whatever options and settings are set in the camera.<br>

They may or may not be correct. If they're wrong, it's difficult to correct the image.</p>

<p>Shoot raw, or if the client insists shoot both and give them the JPEGs. <br>

Then you have the option to generate new JPEGs if the client decides there's a problem<br>

with WB or color or whatever.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

<p>Thanks very much again, Leigh, for your further answer.</p>

<p>Why not shoot both at the same time, the client can have their faster transfers and you have the opportunity to be more creative with the raw files when and if you feel the need?</p>

<p>Yes his article is dated, but there are some points that are valid. Equally, RAW is overrated and is not the holy grail some make it out to be.</p>

<p>Firstly, a good exposure is a good exposure. If you are not getting correct exposures correct them in front of the lens. PS or LR will not make you a better photographer.</p>

<p>Second, any editing step works by destroying some information contained in the photograph. Editing a jpg can be a quicker slide to lower quality but is not an excuse for using raw. Get it right in front of the lens.</p>

<p>Third, at least half of the cost of RnD for your camera is the processing hardware/firmware. You are willing to pay that much not to use something?</p>

<p>I actually force myself to NOT use raw to take better pictures. I started with film over 30 years ago and still shoot film 90% of the time. No pre/post views. View on development. Don't mistake film for raw, it's more comparable to the jpg - it's baked on development.</p>

<p>I use LR and there isn't a disadvantage when you have exposed correctly. The workflow is optimized to not alter your original file and to optimize the order of your adjustments. I have yet to 'see' anything that would make me think 'i should have used raw'.</p>

<p>Using a light meter is a much better skill to learn that wasting you time with raw.</p>

<p>Let the flames roll.... ;)</p>

<p>There's no such thing as an "excuse" for using raw, any more than there's an<br>

"excuse" for shooting film.</p>

<p>Raw is a way to capture and retain all information available from the subject.<br>

This is the same thing that happens with film. </p>

<p>Creating JPEGs in camera is analogous to always shooting through a cc filter. <br>

It might be right for a given situation or it might not.</p>

<p>It goes without saying that any exposure should be correct. <br>

If you screw up that step there's no way to correct it in a computer.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

 

"...at least half of the cost of RnD for your camera is the processing hardware/firmware." If this is true, that is a staggering figure. Can you please cite your source for this? Also, your use of "hardware/firmware" is confusing.

<p>Hi there<br>

If you check out the camera reviews on on Dpreview you will see that every camera delivers sharper images in RAW mode than in JPEG.<br>

Whilst I would agree that most of the time JPEG maybe fine it is simply untrue to say that they give the same image, once you have lost the detail nothing will get it back.<br>

JPEG conversions are not all the same so taking a raw image and doing an in camera conversion is not the same as having your software do it on a computer.<br>

Anyone who argues otherwise simply doesn't know enough about the science.<br>

Simple facts- JPEGs are all 8 bit per color, raw files can be 10,12 or 16 bit per color. more bits gives more colors and better rendition of subtle changes, that's why high level monitors display 10 bits.<br>

8 bits in a JPEG wasn't selected because that is all you need, it was selected because that was all the computers of the time could mange to work with.<br>

Think of televisions, for years we have had 25 frames per second (30 in the US)and 24 with film. That rate was only selceted because the technology could not support anything faster but as technology developed we had to stay with the original standard for compatibility. Now digital TV and computer games deliver much higher frame rates and the pictures look better for it.<br>

JPEG is like that, its an old standard that we stick with so that its compatible and everyone is guaranteed to be able to view it. It doesn't mean that it cannot be bettered, JPEG2000 was an attempt to do that and it improved the quality but lost the compatibility.<br>

Choosing JPEG rather than RAW will reduce image quality, if you are happy that a JPEG suits your needs as Peter clearly is then great use that, otherwise accept that to get the very best image out of your camera you need to use RAW.<br>

As a professional you may of course have other pressures such as speed of delivery of the finished product but you need to accept, as does your client that you are trading off quality for speed.<br>

Simon Platt</p>

 

<p>I have to say I'm a heretic regarding raw versus jpeg. With Nikon Active D-Lighting with automatic lens corrections, and very accurate white balance and exposure, the jpegs are nearly as good as I can do in raw conversion. I find this true for the current generation of cameras. My old D40 required post processing on almost all shots, so raw was a given, all of the time. It's older technology. My current D7000 demonstrates far better processing intelligence for jpegs and it's hard to equal it processing raw files myself. For tricky exposures and mixed light, raw is still the only way to shoot. But don't underestimate the power of modern in-camera processing. </p>

<p>It's like anything else, in that it depends on your needs and what you intend to do. "Image quality" (however it is defined) and information loss have nothing to do with it. The only advantage of having a raw file is editability before it's assembled into a JPEG. For example, I was revisiting some pictures I took a couple of years ago. Some are JPEGs, some are raw. Because those JPEGs are large and only minimally-compressed, I can do a lot to them in an image editor if I want to, but I can't change the picture controls or styles that were set in the camera at the time the picture was taken. It's like a slide, where the characteristics of the Kodachrome were baked into it. For the raw files, I can change pretty much anything about them in terms of that initial rendering of the JPEG I will ultimately use, including lessening or even removing all sharpening (a major advantage, given that most digital photography is horribly over-sharpened). It's a little like being able to redo part of the taking of that picture.</p>

<p>However, in practical terms, I can still easily modify contrast and do other basic photographic operations on the original JPEGs too, so raw vs JPEG is not a cut-and-dried kind of decision.</p>

<p>If your pictures are poorly-exposed, have only tenuous links to any kind of subject, or are simply devoid of any interest, it doesn't matter whether you shot them as JPEGs or raws, except that you will expend a lot more effort dealing with a memory card-full of useless raws than you would with one full of useless JPEGs.</p>

<p>It's not even a new argument, because I well remember in the mid-1970's when many people had interest in black and white slide film (essentially un-processable after the fact) vs the traditional black and white negative films. It's not BETTER or NOT BETTER. It just depends on your needs and personal preference. Neither choice reduced "image quality", as so many people state.</p>

<p>Some of the things I might have wanted to do a couple of years ago can actually be done by the camera I have now, and it's only one model newer. But I still have to make the choice of letting the camera do it ahead of time (highlight vs shadow control, and to what degree, for example). It essentially does the same thing automatically that I would have done in raw file processing.</p>

<p>I do catalogue work. Even though it is on set and 100% nailed in with exposure, dynamic range, and lighting, I always shoot RAW. I do this because I use an X-Rite Color Passport to create custom camera profiles, I found for accurate colour renditions it is a minimum step to put in the workflow. Batch jpeg creation after profiling is simple and fast, but, it makes sure the sarongs are not only the right colour, but correct in tones against each other. In camera jpegs can not give accurate enough colours for pro catalogue work.</p>

<p>The client doesn't know what he is talking about, there are no Mac/PC interface issues with camera RAW files, though I can well understand why he doesn't want RAW files. I shoot mostly artwork, if it is for the artist I give them the custom jpeg at full size, a 300dpi 8x10 jpeg, and the RAW file. If it is for pretty much anybody else I just give them the custom jpeg sized to their preference.</p>

<p><em>"Moreover, my photo-retouching artist told me that there were no differences of quality between High Res Jpeg & Raw files..."</em> That comment would cause me to look for a new retouching artist, they either don't know what they are doing, or are lying to you. Harsh but the truth, if they can't see differences in processed RAW and jpeg images then they are not worth the money.</p>

<p>Ann: thanks for your post. Well, actually I don't have any problems to shoot in Jpeg if the client requires so. I was just wondering whether Ken Rockwell's article was accurate, and I then got the needed answers... :-)</p>

<p>Peter: I of course use a flash/light meter when I shoot in studio (and even outdoors). Thanks very much, anyway for your clear information & explanations. :-)</p>

<p>Leigh: I fully agree with you and I thank you again for re-assuring me... :-)</p>

<p>Simon: Thanks very much for that great "exposé"... I follow you on all points, definitely! :-)</p>

<p>David & Pierre: Thanks very much for your interesting points of views... :-)</p>

<p>Scott: Thanks very much for re-assuring me too... Once again, I've been using Raw for years and that 's why I was a bit "shocked" by Ken Rockwell's article. Now, regarding the differences of quality between Jpeg & Raw, I'll of course forward your comments to my photo-retouching assistant (he's Indonesian btw)... :-)</p>

<p> </p>

I mostly shoot in jpeg but when it comes to important event sure it will raw so you can have wider control on post

processing

<p><em>A camera-generated JPEG will use whatever options and settings are set in the camera.</em><br /><em>They may or may not be correct. If they're wrong, it's difficult to correct the image.</em><br>

Nonsense! Scaremongering! Half Truths!<br>

Shoot RAW if you want to but I don't to avoid the hassles and drawbacks. Rockwell may be trolling, he's running a blogsite for income I gather, but I have no problems in editing and jpgs and hate to think if I had to work the cumbersome RAW process.<br>

I'm probably trolling too :-) But the statements from RAW fanatics get my ....</p>

<p>Well, JC,</p>

<p>If a camera does not use the settings and options as currently set...</p>

<p>What settings and options does it use???</p>

<p>As to the "RAW fanatics" label, I am nothing of the sort. I'm an engineer.<br /> I made a simple statement that a RAW file contains the unaltered sensor data.<br /> That is an absolutely accurate description of the RAW file content, not based on any opinion whatsoever.</p>

<p>Are you claiming that the statement is incorrect?</p>

<p>And what exactly makes a RAW file "cumbersome"?</p>

<p>People commonly fear that which they don't understand. It's human nature.</p>

<p>- Leigh</p>

<p>I am a RAW fanatic, I know the limitations of camera generated jpeg files and I won't accept them. Even simple, accurate, white balance corrections are often outside the capacity of in camera jpegs, generating accurate colour profiles are well beyond in camera capabilities. This doesn't mean in camera jpegs are worthless, just that they are worthless in a colour important and reproducible environment, as most product work is.</p>

<p>Taking pictures at uncle Bob's 20th wedding anniversary, who cares if auntie Meg's top looks lime green instead of chartreuse? Nobody.</p>

<p>Here is a product shot I took last week, the colors have to be accurate, the colors are an important part of the artists statement. In camera jpegs are unworkable in this situation, along with many others.</p><div></div>

<p>I've read KR's article before. While he makes some valid points, every time I've shot jpegs for something important, I wish I had shot RAW. And yes, I know exposure and white balance. I've never had anyone look at one of my prints and ask if it was shot in RAW or jpeg. In most cases, I can't tell either. I don't do high-volume shoots, but I select a few images and work on them. I post-process every image. So I might as well shoot RAW for the added flexibility of adjusting exposure and WB. I understand that Jay Maisel shoots jpegs for his street work. He shoots three exposures of each shot using AEB, then his assistants select the best one. That's fine for Jay. But I'm not Jay Maisel.</p>

<p>Scott, that image is a jpg. Are the colours accurate?</p>