Jpeg-Raw question

[joseph_leotta]

<p>The obvious aside that raw is is a much better format for post processing purposes, I been noticing other advantages. Tell me if I'm right.<br /> I've shot primarly in Jpeg (large) since I went digital in 2003 with a D100 and stayed that way till recently.I used my D200. D300 and D700 all the same way thru the years.<br /> Since I started shooting more in Raw I'v noticed that the Image quality is better, even without any post processing. They just seem sharper, to have more accurate colors and saturation, better contrast and lets call it snap.<br /> My theory is since that the camera sensor only produces a raw image, the processor in the camera cannot do the same job that software running on a computer can in converting the image to Jpeg.<br /> I'm looking at images shot on a D300 and converted to Jpeg in Nikon NX2 with no other post processing.<br /> Am I just crazy this or is it the case?</p>

[bruce_margolis]

<p>Joseph, the quality of your JPEG images if you shoot only JPEG are largely dependent on your camera settings. You can adjust sharpness, color, contrast, saturation, etc, to your liking.</p>

<p>With RAW, most of the work is done by NX2. For example, it allows you to adjust white balance or picture controls to your liking before you ever make a JPEG, something you can't do if you shoot only JPEG.</p>

<p>IMO, there is much more flexibility with RAW than JPEG. However, that also means more work in some cases. This is more about how demanding you are about image quality and how much work you are willing to commit to get to that level. </p>

 

[bobcossar]

<p>I don't think your crazy........but I do think that, if your exposure and WB are close to correct, that raw adds nothing but extra work to the process....</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<p>I second Bob's response. There is a difference but if you're shooting JPG correctly, the difference IMO is not worth the extra work / file size.</p>

[cooltpmd]

<p>A general rule is that RAW, right out of the camera, is actually less sharp, less contrasty, and less saturated. If you pulled them into a neutral program, it would probably scare you.</p>

<p>Your editor (like Adobe Camera RAW) then applys some basic corrections when opened that make these issues go away.</p>

<p>The key is then you have SO MUCH control of how sharp, how saturated, how contasty, and how white balanced ... that the end products can be much more satisfying.</p>

<p>I agree with Bob, that if you are photo savant, hitting white balance, lighting, and composition perfectly each time ... and your camera creates a .jpg to your liking each time, then RAW is a waste of your time and strorage space. BUT, if you like to muck with your photos, the .jpg will deteriote over time.</p>

[charles_stobbs3]

Sort of like Kodachrome, you have to get it the best you can before you click the shutter.

[don_e]

<p>Raw isn't an image format. What you are seeing in your raw converter are the default settings (or your own preset) applied to the raw so that you have something to see.</p>

[don_e]

<p>I don't think shooting raw adds extra work. The raw data has to be converted to an image format. One can do it in-camera or in post. Running a raw through conversion takes maybe a second. Actually, if the shooting situation has complex or often changing lighting , if you have to shoot indoors and outdoors, if one set of contrast and saturation is adequate or not for every shot, it is a lot more convenient to shoot raw than to manipulate the camera's ip for every change of circumstance.</p>

 

[paul_aylett1]

<p>I'm fortunate in that I have a screen on the back of my camera that enables me to see if my settings are adequate or not ;o)</p>

[garydem]

<p>a jpeg CAN equal the IQ of the raw shot. but, only if you assume and do certain items. 1. the dslr has to be setup to shoot the quality jpeg. the way the camera comes from the factory is not it. below is a howto on jpeg setup. 2. time care effort skill and knowledge MUST be put into the jpeg shot. the user MUST think that this is the time to get the shot not during pp. for all practical purposes the jpeg should be coming to the pc ready to go except for sharpening and mild touchup. unlike raw where you get a further chance to adjust things in the converter and pp, the jpeg has to be pretty well nailed in the field. 3. after the jpeg is sharpened and touched up use save as to save as a tiff. in the future all work is done off the tiff(which can be saved repeatedly forever with no deterioration), the original jpoeg is put into a holdall folder for storage and burning to a disc if desired when the folder gets to 4.1gb. 4. simply put the jpeg if it is a quality image is harder to shoot than the raw, nbecause so much more effort must be put into the field work. if the user doesnot/cannot/willnot wish to this then the shooter is better off with the raw images.</p>

<p >to setup for jpeg with new camera- </p>

<p >there are 4 functions that may be adjusted. the color mode(or whatever it is called) saturation contrast and sharpening. i assume you are using a calibrated monitor. simply select a scene immediately outside your house. hopefully it has lights darks and colors. all settings in the camera are at zero or default. adjust color mode first then check the shot on the monitor, decide if ok, if not adjust reshoot and recheck. go on to each of the other adjustment settings. the object is to get the monitor scene as close a possible to the real scene outside. do not be concerned if the finished monitor scene has enough color for your tastes; the amount of color can be adjusted in pp. you are going for accuracy between the 2 scenes. the real and the one on your monitor; when done the 2 scenes should look identical or as close as possible. do not hurry. the adjustment process could take several hours. but once done leave the settings alone. at this point you know that the camera will accurately make the best most accurate pics possible of the scene. after i set my dslr up 3+ yrs ago about, i have not ever moved the settings. It took me 2-3 hours to setup my dslr.</p>

<p >if i needed/wanted more color or whatever that is what pp is for. i also try very hard to do my composing in the camera and not crop heavily in the pc. my thinking is why buy a 10mp camera and crop away 40%. you are then no better that a 6mp that is not cropped. besides which the cropped 10mp is noisier.</p>

<p >i would not adjust the contrast to get more DR. to me you just have to get used to the idea that digital has DR limitations. i shoot slides for 32yrs; the DR in digital(jpeg) and slides is about equal. i never had a problem. While DR limits exposure, lighting should/can be adjusted to compensate. if you want more headroom in your camera for taking jpegs, use adobeRGB color gamut. it gives slightly more headroom.</p>

<p >if you have NOT done this then jpeg vs raw test cannot be valid. and any opinion of the jpeg quality from your camera is not based on what the camera CAN do.</p>

 

[charlesheckel]

<p>JPEG is a lossy format--how lossy depends on such things as compression factor--and pixel peeping commonly reveals squiggly things called JPEG artifacts. Editing a JPEG and resaving it repeatedly will produce image degradation. RAW is <strong>theoretically</strong> unprocessed data straight from the camera sensor, with no compression and hence no loss, but it usually needs some post-processing to look its best. The processed RAW file should be saved to disk in a non-lossy format such as TIFF or PSD, which will enable you to do further editing with no loss of image quality.</p>

<p>No law says you have to bypass in-camera processing in favor of your own, and if you're happy with your JPEGs and don't plan to edit them further, it's a more economical format. If you want full creative control over processing, it's RAW and you're the sushi chef.</p>

<p>Another consideration is whether you want to work with 8 bits, 12 bits, or in the case of some DSLRs 14 bits. If you don't post-process, the output is with rare exceptions 8 bits, so the question is academic. If you do post-process, the extra bits create much finer tonality, so you can modify your sensitometric curve with much less combing and posterization than would result from the same modifications on an 8-bit image, and when you output your final image, the water will still look limpid and the skin tones will still look smooth and creamy.</p>

[jason_hall5]

<p >Shooting RAW did at one time add extra work, so much so that I did like to use it. That is until Lightroom came out and I started to use it. With Lightroom there is no difference in working with a RAW or a JPEG in terms of work flow and interface. I went from shooting all JPEG (while wanting to take advantage of RAW but could not get past the long workflow) to shooting all RAW over night.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Lightroom is completely a nondestructive global (now a regional editor with the addition to the brush tool) editing software. So you can screw with your JPEGs with no fear of lost of quality.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do believe the computer can and does do a better job in processing the image data over the camera its self. With the camera calibrations that can be applied to the entire session with a couple mouse clicks now available in lightroom, I don't have the need to spend time with each image. I still work to get WB and exposure correct at time of capture, but keep the right to modify in post processing. Shooting JPEG would not change that.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As I said, for me in Lightroom, I can edit JPEG, RAW, DNG, TIFF, PSD, and a few others side by side seamlessly and with no change in workflow. Its all nondestructive and can any adjustment can be reversed, including cropping. The only other thing is storage space, however, with a terabyte drive selling for about $200.00 these days, that is now a mute point as well.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Jason</p>

[don_e]

<p>"I'm fortunate in that I have a screen on the back of my camera that enables me to see if my settings are adequate or not ;o)"</p>

<p>That's swell. So do I. What is the point?</p>

<p>I have a camera that only shoots raw with jpeg -- raw+jpeg. The jpegs are the same resolution as the raw. If you have one, shoot the day, morning, noon, night, indoors, outdoors, just snap thru the day. Don't change the ip settings from whatever is set up. Convert the raw files according to some default preset (this amounts to downloading, in LR with a selected preset, no more work than downloading the jpeg), and jpeg with no preset. Compare the raw and the jpeg. Easy.</p>

<p>Sometimes it is worth it to shoot jpeg only, sometimes not. Depends on the pace and flow of the work. Given time, I can shoot jpegs that can go right to the printer from the camera.</p>

<p> </p>

[jason_hall5]

<p>>>>"I'm fortunate in that I have a screen on the back of my camera that enables me to see if my settings are adequate or not ;o)"<<<</p>

<p>I don't think (rather I know it doesn't) such a camera exist. Take you camera and put beside a decent color calibrated monitor, and see if there is a difference...bet there is. ;o)</p>

<p>The little LCD should never be used to make a final judgement on an image.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Photograph a blue sky full of interesting clouds. Or a colorful sunset. Shoot both in maximum resolution JPEG and in raw. Convert the raw to max rez JPEG (avoid over-tweaking that may skew results). Compare the results side by side.</p>

<p>If you don't see any differences in smooth gradation and lack of artifacts between the in-camera JPEG and the JPEG made from raw, then keep doing whatever you've been doing.</p>

<p>I specifically suggest photos of skies because some other subjects will not as readily reveal these subtle distinctions. For example, in my candid casual photos of people I don't see enough difference between JPEG and raw to worry about so I mostly shoot JPEGs. But there's a very definite difference when photographing any subject involving large expanses of same/similar color or tone. Another exception is photographing events under weird lighting, such as stage productions. Raw offers a bit more to work with when trying to finesse some gradations out of badly oversaturated reds.</p>

[paul_aylett1]

<blockquote>

<p>

<p >"I'm fortunate in that I have a screen on the back of my camera that enables me to see if my settings are adequate or not ;o)"</p>

<p >That's swell. So do I. What is the point?</p>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p >Well my point is the screen immediately tells me if my settings are correct, so I have no need to switch to RAW and fix it later. </p>