JPEG legitimacy?

[kevinbriggs]

I just thought I would put up the following question for discussion, for what

ever it may be worth:

 

I use the Canon 5D (and Canon lenses) for my wedding photography work and

landscape. I have always shot in RAW mode for all of the seemingly innumerable

positive reasons noted on this website (and elsewhere).

 

But I have noticed that there are a few professional wedding and portrait

photographers (a select few) that choose to shoot in JPEG over RAW. It is

preferable to them.

 

Question: are there any legitimate and advantageous reasons for ever shooting in

JPEG over RAW (other than simple file size handling and manipulation)?

 

Thanks for all comments!

 

Kevin

[Stock-Photos]

I can't answer your question but I'd like to throw in another along the same lines.

 

Can someone point to side-by-side comparisons of images, made in both JPG & RAW, be it printed or on-line, where the JPGs are obviously worse or have lower DR?

[gdanmitchell]

I think that if you can get perfect exposure and color balance and will not do any significant

post-processing you could get away with this.

 

I prefer RAw myself.

 

Dan

[doug_axford1]

This has been hacked to death on this forum and many others. Those of us who shoot jpg do so because we get identical or better results with a fraction of the work involved. Most of us make the decision of jpg vs raw on the conditions encountered at the wedding and the knowledge of the equipment and settings to produce excellent results.

 

There is absolutely NO difference between prints in the hands of a knowlegable photographer in most (not all) circumstances. The new Fuji S5 produces absolutely amazing auto WB results in the weddings I have shot with it. I would not use this camera for other types of photography, but weddings are wonderful.

 

Doug

[steve torelli]

A JPEG is a compressed file. Compressed meaning that information is discarded to make it smaller. Bottom line is that a RAW file saved as a TIF will show more detail especially in the shadows and highlights. I hear people say that they can't see a difference. That may be, but I do. To me it can be a significant difference. I shoot with a 5D and Canon "L" glass. Why would I want to use the second best format available to me ?

Other than savings of time and HD space, I can't see one reason to shoot JPEG. Good luck.

[brian_coy]

The biggest reasons to use RAW over JPEG is that RAW has more color (12 or 16 bits for RAW, 8 bits for JPEG) information, and it usually produces better results if your exposure is not spot on, though those really good at photoshop may be able to pull out enough on JPEGs to eliminate the latter. Most people will not notice the difference in color information because most workflows are 8-bit after capture. Very few printers can even cover the full 8-bit color range of a JPEG, much less the higher level of color in a RAW (that is starting to change though). So if you want convenience and can get a reasonable close exposure feel free to use JPEG. If you want total control over the image and are very picky choose RAW.

 

Personally I choose RAW most of the time because of the future of printers seem like they will be able to handle the color. I usually only shoot JPEG if I need very fast turn around on the images.

[tony kinney]

As you know, if you shoot RAW you need "developing" software to convert the file to a format that can be printed or displayed on a website. There are many available of RAW-conversion software packages (DPP, Adobe Camera RAW/Lightroom, DXO, Lightzone etc. etc.)and the look of the finished file (jpeg, TIFF) will depend on both the settings you choose and on the capabilities of the software package itself. I have read on this forum that some people believe that a Canon camera does a better job of RAW conversion than any external software package which is another possible reason why someone may choose to shoot jpeg instead of RAW.

 

I like to shoot RAW because I like the process of "developing" photos like one did in a chemical darkroom.

[ben_goren]

When it comes right down to it, I think the only consideration that really matters is how

much post-processing you do.

 

If your workflow is fast-paced, and especially if you nail the exposure, etc., then shooting

RAW is likely to be a waste. (Some in that category shoot RAW+JPEG in case they have a

shot that's a keeper on everything but IQ, but which can be salvaged from the RAW.)

 

If you're the kind who agonizes over the images after the shot, spending lots of time

tweaking this and sharpening that and lightening this other thing, then RAW only makes

sense.

 

It's really not a ``Which is better?'' question, any more than the question of whether or not

Sports Illustrated has better photographers than Arizona Highways. Each has its own

strengths and weaknesses, and it's up to the photographer to (gasp!) choose the tool

that's best suited to the job at hand.

 

Cheers,

 

b&

[k_2]

Another question which comes to mind from the ongoing discussion is that if photographers don't like the 8-bit JPEG images, why not choose 16-bit PNG as final format? Do color labs have a problem with processing and printing PNG images? With the 16-bit output there are *more* colours than an 8-bit JPEG, and PNG is lossless compression.

 

PS: Steve - compressed does not always mean that information is discarded to compress e.g. PNG is lossless.

[jnicholson]

In the Canon world (can't speak to other brands) the only time I ever turn off RAW is to give me a "deeper" image buffer in continuous mode. It's roughly six RAW frames to fill the buffer vs. around twenty eight (I think) JPG frames. That difference speaks volumes of the processing speed of the DIGIC processors and the bottleneck that is Compact Flash.

 

If buffer size isn't an issue I can't see any reason to throw away bits right off the top. Memory is cheap these days.

[chrisjb]

There used to be comparisons on Luminous Landscapes, at that time not much difference, I`ve been shooting Jpeg since 1998 never had problems as I need quick turnaround. most folks convert to 8bit jpeg to print so does not make any difference anyway. sometimes if you get a difficult lighting situation it may pay to use RAW or a novice may have more shots to keep. for larger enlargement eg 20x30+ RAW can help as some printers can do 16bit TIF`s, even the Fuji Frontier can do TIF`s. to me Jpeg is more convenient doing average 3~500/wk. For safety at weddings the more important shots may be shot RAW and casual stuff Jpeg. My 02c

[chrisjb]

And forgot have only used Breeze Browser and Capture one for RAW conversion, Jpeg account for about 98% of sold shots.

[fullmetalphotograper]

In the newspaper chain I work with, there are four photographers. Of the four

photographers, I am the only one who shoots RAW. Of course they shoot EOS Mark II N

(company supplied) while I shoot on the Dark side, a Nikon D2X (personal mecha).

Some of the reasons they shoot jpeg are:

More images per Card (They have only four company supplied 512 cards per

photographer. I carry 12 2gig cards.) In raw Mode I get about 100 images per card.

They use Photoshop CS for editing (I use CS2 and Lightroom).

 

The Three biggest reasons for is personal style, the computers we use and image

requirements we deal with. My personal style is to treat digital like slide film so I tend to

have more saturated colors and contrast, so RAW is the better format for me. My computer

systems are a little more beefier than theirs, so I process images faster. Finally we save

images as jpegs for the web, then change them to eps for our Baseview System and rips.

This is done through Photoshop actions. So with their mind set it is an extra to covert

RAW to JPEG. Realize we work with daily deadlines and shoot 3-4 assignments a day. With

that said my coworkers are outstanding photogs, and from what I seen their system serves

them well.

[steve torelli]

K2 said :

PS: Steve - compressed does not always mean that information is discarded to compress e.g. PNG is lossless.

 

True, but JPEG is not lossless.

 

Good luck.

[chr15w]

I agree that a correctly taken shot will be identical whether its a RAW or JPEG. However I recently shot a wedding with a guy who shot JPEG, I shoot RAW, the BIG difference was he could keep a lot more shots in his buffer than I could (same camera)The reason I shoot RAW is that for me it is easier to correct pp than JPEG and if I dont like the corrections I can stop and start again with JPEG you dont have that luxury unless you make copies

[alan_ginman]

I wonder if this choice is related to what you shot before digital. I have only recently converted to digital. Before that I shot for several years using transparency film. With slides you get used to getting everything right first time. With digital, it is even easier to get everything right first time. I still cannot get over being able to alter the colour balance in-camera without having to use filters. I also have very little time for post processing these days. I have used JPEGS exclusively over the past year without feeling that I am missing anything and without losing shots for technical reasons (although AWB can sometimes do weird things).

 

I also have a vague mistrust of the RAW formats, given that each camera manufacturer has its own formats. Will they still be readable in years to come?

 

Regards

 

Alan

[steve torelli]

I think more than anything, the choice is influenced by how and what you shoot. From reading the previous posts, it seems that the people who shoot in-camera JPEG are the pros, such as wedding photogs who want to save time and effort, I understand that as I think wedding photographers deserve every penny they make just for having to deal with all the crazy people they deal with on "the big day".

 

As for me, I'm an amateur and shoot for my own pleasure other than a small time portrait job now and then. The best IQ I can get is what I'm after. Post processing JPEG can't be undone unless you save another copy. Anything done to it deteriorates the file even further until artifacts become noticeable eventually. That's why a well processed RAW saved as a TIF or another lossless format will beat a lossy format like JPEG every time. I may be splitting hairs, and as has been pointed out, most of your customers won't notice the difference, but to an amateur like myself, the small differences are what it's all about. Why strive to use the best equipment you can, spend years developing your abilities and then use the second best format ?

 

As Alan mistrusts RAW formats, which are just as likely to be as readable in the future as JPEG, I don't trust my camera to get it right the first time everytime or even part of the time. Like they say, if you want something done right, do it yourself. Good luck.

[awindsor]

<blockquote>

Very few printers can even cover the full 8-bit color range of a JPEG, much less the higher level of color in a RAW (that is starting to change though).

</blockquote><P>

 

Bit depth, file format, and colour gamut are almost entirely unrelated. An sRGB tagged 16 bit TIFF converted from a 12 bit RAW file has a smaller gamut than an AdobeRGB tagged 8 bit JPG. [There are some suggestions that the cameras can capture some colours outside the AdobeRGB gamut. If you want to obsess about this then you have to use 16 bit ProPhoto RGB files (and realistically some form of camera calibration). Of course you can't even see these extra colours on your monitor.] <P>

 

The colour gamut is defined by the ICC profile that the image is tagged with. I use AdobeRGB. There is no difference between the colour gamut of an AdobeRGB JPG and an AdobeRGB TIFF converted from a RAW file. In theory the 16 bit TIFF has smoother graduations but at least to me they are invisible. <P>

 

What RAW buys you is more headroom in which to manipulate the image. I don't do heavy exposure manipulation but I frequently have to do very aggressive shifts to get reasonable WB (stage lit with coloured spots in a tungsten illuminated room). Many operations on the image will essentially lose you bit depth (some available levels will not be used). On an 8 bit JPG this can rapidly lead to posterization.

[kevinbriggs]

Thanks for everyone's comments. I'm truly grateful for all the information that has been provided thus far.

 

Kevin

[frank kennedy]

This link http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp at dpreview shows that jpg from the camera has lower noise levels, by a lot at high iso, than post procesed raw files. This must speak to the excellent DIGIX II incamera software that also provides nice color right out of the camera.

[vinke]

This link http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page18.asp

 

 

my eye prefers the RAW/ACR files.

[vinke]

1- I'm an ameteur that doesn't always get it right

 

2- I shoot indoors mainly, no flash, but with mixed lighting, lots of shadows

 

3- I enjoy using ACR more than CS2

 

4- Trying to delete most, while paying more attention to the select few/best.

 

Ironically, I think I'd use Jpeg if I were a paid photographer that shot hundreds or thousands of images per day.

[dave_holland]

Canon cameras allow you to shoot both at the same time. I routinely shoot RAW and a small jpg. This helps later in the computer, as the small jpg files are faster to scroll through. I cull the losers, and then I only upload the RAW winners to my computer. Many times I know that I'll only use the small jpg files, and they are easier and faster to send by email etc without the effort of processing. I can imagine a pro using the small jpg format if he wants to give people the chance to see the shot but not download the large printable file without paying for it.

 

Dave