Raw versus Jpeg

[gordon_greene]

Mark,

I have another suggestion for your dilemma... (Although I would suggest RAW for it's tweakability) I also am going to Europe (Italy), leaving Saturday. I recently bought what is called a hyperdrive. A small blackberry size device, that has a laptop hard drive in it. See it here: http://www.hyperdrive.com/HyperDrive-COLORSPACE-O-80GB-p/hdcso-080.htm

(This is the one I bought) It works well and there are several different types to meet your budget. 25MB/s backup.

Backup 1GB in 1 minute. 32-bit copy verification and ECC Error Correction Coding.

It is also file format independent.It will handle files from 11 different card types.

No card adapters required. They plug right into the device. It will even scan and repair memory cards. On the unit I bought it also displays the photos as they are downloaded. Then some of the money you would have spent on a bunch of cards, can go toward the device.

Sorry to ramble... Have a great trip...

Gordon...

[dennisgg]

There is a freeware (for home users) software called FastStone Viewer. It can view and edit raw images and convert to jpeg. It works with Canon and Nikon raw image files (as well as Adobe, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Minolta and Pentax raw files). It has batch conversion as well. It is quite good and also a very fast raw viewer as well. www.faststone.org is the website.

 

 

 

 

Dennis

[raffal]

Nice....but should you have used graduated ND filter you wouldnt have had to do your improvments in Photoshop, correct??? So if one likes to take or takes mostly landscapes should invest also in filters, polarizers, ND and so on-- instead of " correct" this in PS, using " filters"....Again it is nice to have last option to correct something, as I said above, --but we cannot look at PS like some type of magic pill...

BTW, the more picture is manipulated, the more noise will occur???-raf

[raffal]

When i say " magic pill" i refer to PS and RAW converters... :), raf

[bernardwest]

It's true, an graduated ND filter would have helped here. But they can be fiddly and you don't always want a straight graduation. The good thing about digital editing is the ability to create almost perfect masks from the image itself. I should point out, the majority of the work in the corrected image was done in Lightroom. At the end I exported a 16 bit tiff to photoshop, and gave the sky a bit more density.

[tk_rdg]

Mark:

 

I just started shooting RAW myself with my D70 and do like the range of possibilities for post production. I use Photoshop Elements 5.0 for processing. However I do agree with William that it takes a considerable amount of time to convert the files to be shared. I recently shot 340 pictures at a local bike race on 06/05/08 and am still going through the conversion process. So my answer would be for speed from shutter release to sharing use JPEG. If you have the time and want more options post shutter release then use RAW. Hope this helps.

 

Enjoy your trip

 

Troy

[garrison_k.]

"Russ Konrad [Frequent poster] , Jun 18, 2008; 12:22 p.m. Not correct. I print RAW files from Capture NX all the time."

 

No, you're incorrect. It's impossible to print raws. There isn't a printer in the world that supports the bit depth of raw as they're all 8 bit. Printing raw from NX just process it to 8 bit before hand, the same as saving as a jpg.

[bernardwest]

There are two different arguments going on here. Some people say it is time consuming to convert raws to jpgs, and other say it isn't.

 

Here's the reality: If you've got your camera manufacturer's raw converting software, you can capture raw only and produce jpgs on your computer at home that are identical to those that could be captured in-camera in no more than about 5 or 10 seconds an image. This is all batch processed (ie. you start it running, and then go get yourself a cup of tea, and by the time you drink your tea, they are all converted). Simple! You don't have to treat images individually, and you will get exactly the same jpgs as you would have if you set your camera to capture jpgs in the first place. The great benefit of this is that you will still have the raw data should you need to do anything extra to certain images (ie. like the blown sky example I posted).

 

The people who are arguing that it is time consuming are not distinguishing between the raw conversion process and any EXTRA post processing work that is necessary. Setting you camera to capture in-camera jpgs WON'T magically eliminate any extra post processing your images may require.

[andrewg_ny]

One small factor is that RAW processing is more demanding on your PC, both in terms of storage space and processing power. I find RAW a joy with a fast machine & Adobe Lightroom. Using ACDSee Pro on my old (4-5 years old) PC worked great for JPEG but once I switched to RAW, I found that the slower processing speed was distracting and held me back. I haven't tried any other RAW processors on my old PC so I don't know how much to blame ACDSee for the slowness but I will vouch for RAW + Lightroom + fast computer.

[alexeygulenko]

I think RAW gives you more flexibility thanks to post processing, but jpeg is small size file format, and whatﾒs more important it saves your time (no need to be converted). I think if you have large memory card it's never bad to use raw + jpg mode. You'll have ready to share jpg file and best possible quality capabilities of raw.

[damir rajle]

My opinion is, if you want something more from your images go .nef. You can always visit any internet caffe,

download your images and burn them to DVD bought in any store. If you have laptop with you, you can download

NikonView for free from their page. You can convert your nefs to jpgs easily (let it works overnight).

I would always use Nikon converter (or Canon if I am Canon user )... the simple thing you doesn't fix your Toyota

at Honda mechanics. If you visited Thom Hogan's page you could see there are some differences in nef conversion

(color shifts - especially reds) regarding to software for conversion (Capture or Photoshop). But Nikon provides

you the closest what you took whether you like it or not, but it depends on your skills (which is another issues).

And of course, when you decided to by DSLR you have decided to become a "mule". A bit more equipment is necessary

here (card reader, extra CF cards at least).

[blades]

My Word !!!! That was just an amazing read...thank you so much for your efforts, some of those repies would have took a huge amount of time and thought, i really appreciate this fact. Thanks.

So what will i do? a pocket full of sd cards...RAW here i come !!! the main reason is i would love to learn how to process my images well at some point, so why not keep the data until i can? I have so much to learn, that im sure i will be seeking advice again.

 

We leave New Zealand on the 5th July, Land in Paris, few days there, meeting some family from my home town of Newcastle upon Tyne(howay the lads) in A small village 45mins out of Nice, one week there, then through Italy taken in Florence, Venice, Milan, Lake Como, Rome, Fly out from Pisa to home Newcastle (see me mam and dad and Family) two weeks then back to NZ where ive been for 20 years. Travelling with wife, 22 year old son and his Fiance.

 

Hopefully my friends i may have a coupl eof pics for you to critique.......be gentle im new :]

 

Thanks again

Mark

[eric_glass]

Raw is not at all hard to learn. It's just having the right program to convert it with is the question. I can honestley say I will no longer use JPEG to capture images with. I am RAW all the time. It is not hard to learn, it makes me feel better to use RAW because, of the flexibility it has.

 

RAW completley rocks! no more disscussion.

 

Eric

[primoz.zupancic]

There's really no need to shoot raw+jpeg. Shoot raw only and then use Capture NX to convert shots to jpeg. Keep the good ones and fix the ones that need fixing... simple as that. If you have series of underexposed shots, running a batch is how you can apply same changes to multiple shots. Same goes for adjusting WB, etc.

[cguaimare]

Nikon D80 gives you an option of shooting RAW with a copy of JPG. You will need more space or more cards of course but the you can decide which pictures need post processing and which not. Then erase the raw pictures that are perfect and keep the jpg copy. Then you just post process the one you are not too happy with. (I am sorry about my english) I hope it helps. That is what I do. I have 3 memory cards og 2g each. I also have the Nikon D80

[manuel barrera houston,]

contributing nothing but to mention one of the best discussion on photo.net that I have had the pleasure to read

[garydem]

more raw vs jpeg.

 

for me, and i shoot jpegs all the time, if get the pics back to my pc and look through them and find ANY MORE THAT 5% that are off in exposure or wb. my conclusion is very simple- i messed up in the field, period. i expect that when the camera and i go intot the field all rpt all pic are correctly exposed and wb if fine. if not then i did not apply the knowledge skill care and effort to accomplish what i should have done right. and, i give myself no excuses whatsoever. i should get them right when shot.

 

when people defend their use of raw one of the most common examples is one like bernie west's up above. in it he says the shot was 2 fstops off look at what was recovered. i say why was the shot so screwed up when it was taken? i want to know why the shot was taken so improperly when shot. did the user not know how to use the meter or camera? the meter is broken, and if it is why is the camnera not going to the repair shop? the camera is not broken and that is how it shoots. well, why did the owner ever buy a camera that has a metereing system that does not work? the metering system is design flawed or was built wrong or is just a lemon or what?

( bernie, no personal offense, i am using your pics as an example).

 

the simple fact is that jpeg can deliver quality shots for any purpose that one wishes. people tell each other look at how poor the jpegs are from my camera in comparion to the raw shots. fine, did you spend the time necessary to properly setup the camera to make the max quality jpegs that i did as soon as i got my dslr. it took me 2 1/2 hrs, how long did it take you? you didn't! oh. so you are really comparing a raw shot to a jpeg that is still in factory default. how do you expect to get a good jpeg that way? your test was invalid before you even did it.

 

the jpeg can deliver a quality pic if the user puts the skill knowledge time and effort into each shot when taken. and the camera is already setup. because of the way i shoot my jpegs they are very good. i am currently doing 5% or less pp at all on my shots with NO cropping. i do my cropping in the camera with lenses and zoom and changing position to get the shot i want when shot. all that i am really using my pc for is sorting storing and printing at this time. any pp, i usually use pe6 though i have cs2 and can use it, is confined to auto level auto focus and auto sharpen. 3 buttons and sometimes i do not even use them though all pics get sharpened.

 

i spent 32yrs shooting film slides. with slides it is definately what you shoot is what you get. pp and photoshop was not even thought of. you did it right in the camera or you threw the slide and the money out. you learned how to take good quality pics without any pp because you had to, or you went broke buying and processing and mounting the slides that you were throwing out. in simple terms i learned how to shoot pics because i couldn't see my money just being thrown out. that has carried over to my digital shooting. to me slides is just like digital; there is nor headroom margin for error in either way. and the DR is the same.

 

you might be interested in the following-

you might be interested in this; which i posted a while back.

 

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1036&message=23677257

 

for a difference that i cannot see, i am supposed to use raw. someone is kidding.<div></div>

[ilkka_nissila]

Gary, what if the scene has higher contrast than can be recorded in 8 bits per channel, and you want to burn and dodge it so that the final print looks as good as it can? Many subjects in photography lead to situations where the dynamic range of the capture system is inadequate. To solve this, some people use graduated ND filters - but that only works if you need a consistent gradient along one axis. People merge images taken at several exposures to one, to obtain HDR images, but movement in the scene between the exposures can compromise the effort, just as with stitched panoramas. So that there is enough good data for local adjustments, the system dynamic range should be maximized in the capture process. JPG throws away good data in hopes of saving a bit of card space and post-processing time. I call it like it is: the JPG photographer is lazy, instead of aiming for the highest quality they go for the "usually good enough". I have no sympathy for people who take short-cuts like this, basically leaving half of the photography process (and IMO the artistically more demanding part) of post-processing to the camera manufacturer's algorithms with the limited in-camera settings available. How do you know that the image could not be improved with a tone curve twist, or a burn or a dodge? I frequently shoot in situations where there are multiple people in high-contrast natural light, and I must balance the exposures between the people. Why should I throw away data which can help do this with a higher quality end result? No, flash is not the solution (although pros frequently use it, delivering what they think is "good enough" with all sorts of unnatural glare and effects that come with it).

 

Post-processing is an integral part of photography. By doing it with the limited in-camera settings you're closing your eyes and ears from having to actually learn how to make a good image with all the tools available.

[ilkka_nissila]

Garrison, Epson has 16-bit drivers:

 

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/support/supAdvice.jsp?type=highlights&noteoid=101603

 

"These Epson Leopard drivers are all new. They are being designed to take advantage of the latest technologies introduced with the Leopard OS. One major feature is the 16-bit printing path. We are designing the drivers to function so that if you are printing 16-bit files from 16-bit capable printing applications, the data remains untouched in native 16-bit form as it arrives into the Epson printer driver for color and screening processing."

 

I also noticed that when I print from Capture NX the file which is spooled, appears to be a 16-bit TIFF-like image based on the file size. It's certainly much bigger than what is submitted from the same raw file converted into TIFF and sent to the print driver by Photoshop.

[ozmen]

Most of the time, I shoot RAW. Sometimes I use to modify them to pseudo-HDR.

I choose the pictures for HDR conversion in the beginning and leave them as RAW.

The other pictures are batch converted to JPEG.

Thanks.

[russ_konrad]

Wow!

 

I guess that I am not as "perfect" as Gary!

 

And unless you are as "perfect" as Gary and you shoot critical once-in-a-lifetime shots (like a wedding - or a TRIP TO EUROPE!) - you might want to give yourself some added insurance and shoot RAW.

 

Yes - I have shot slides for many years as well but I am not so arrogant to claim that I NEVER make a mistake. My customers just want the shot captured beautifully and in a fast paced wedding in mixed lighting it is always best to use every tool available to make sure that happens.

[manuel barrera houston,]

Gary here is a link to some photos I took in raw this past Friday, I took about 300 photos and had them posted by midday the following day, two-three hours post processing, most of it selecting the photos to use. Raw does not take that long, if the exposure is correct, but there are times when most of us mess up and then it comes in handy. Some of the photos were taken by my daughter who did not follow my instructions but since I set the camera to raw, using exposure compensation I was able to salvage some of those photos. http://www.pbase.com/memejr1949/souls_of_my_sisters

[riverfront studio]

Mark, most DSLRs have option to shoot RAW+JPG.

[raffal]

'I call it like it is: the JPG photographer is lazy, instead of aiming for the highest quality they go for the "usually good enough". I have no sympathy for people who take short-cuts like this,"----- to say something like this , makes me to say that you dont know how to take pictures, thats why the only hope for you is to manipulate them in PS, or RAW.....We already stated that there are times when RAW is more advised and times that Jpegs... End of story ! Try my friend take fast action shots , sports or car races or similiar in 6fps or more in a RAW...SO ALL THOSE PROS ARE LAZY AND UNSKILLFULL, because thay take those pics in Jpgs...ask them why I dont want waste my time...lol-- raf

[lauren_macintosh]

There is only one choice and thats yours: if your comfortable with JPEG then shoot that way But if your uncertain then go with RAW and get Lightroom of some other raw file converter; and since CF cards are cheap and SD cards are low at this time stock up and have fun: enjoy your trip :

And for heavens sake just do not take one shot of some thing take four or five and then you will some choices to edit later: