JPEG vs RAW Is it worth the time, effort and space?

[larry_muench]

<p>I have been shooting JPEG, fine, large for several years now and haven't really had any problems. I ran into a couple of semi-pro photographers recently at a shoot and they said that anybody that was serious about photography should be shooting RAW and using Lightroom. I bought the software and an instruction book but it seems way too technical, tedious and difficult to use and share, and the files take double the space. I just upgraded from a Nikon D300s to a D7100 and wonder if the double the megapixels, 12 vs 24, is sufficient to stay with JPEG and Photoshop rather than going to RAW and Lightroom. I rarely print larger that 11 x 14 and do not do this as a living, just a hobby. Even in RAW there are selections to be made, whether to shoot compressed RAW which says that it loses virtually nothing to "lossless" and whether to shoot 12 vs 14 bit. A realworld comparison of JPEG, large, fine vs RAW, compressed and lossless, and 12 bit vs 14 bit would be greatly appreciated. I shoot mostly wildlife and landscape with lenses from 16mm to 500mm. I have over 500,000 photos and just added 2 more 4tb external drives to support the increase to RAW but I don't think that will last very long! At some point I may want to start selling photos but just from a website not as a gallery or pro photographer. Thanks for any insight you may offer.</p>

[JosvanEekelen]

<p>First it is not JPEG + Photoshop vs. RAW + Lightroom. You can equally well use LR with JPEGs, or RAWs with Photoshop. The RAW editor in both cases is Adobe Camera RAW, with equal possibilities in the RAW editor.<br>

Although i'm an avid RAW/LR user myself I would like to point you to this <a href="http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623">http://gizmodo.com/the-inside-story-of-how-olympic-photographers-capture-s-1521746623</a> article about Sotchi: most shots were taken in high quality JPEGs.<br>

You may see a difference in quality when a picture needs lots of adjustments, otherwise the differences will not or barely be visible.<br>

BTW, how do you handle 500,000+ pictures? LR seems to be the ideal program to do so.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"At some point I may want to start selling photos but just from a website not as a gallery or pro photographer."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yup, it's worth shooting raw, even if you also shoot JPEG and are satisfied with the in-camera JPEG.</p>

<p>The first time you need to recover crucial highlight detail from an overexposed area of a photo you'll appreciate the advantages to shooting raw. With JPEG there's nothing to recover - blown highlights are simply lost and gone forever. With raw, Lightroom and other good editing tools offer remarkable ability to recover subtle nuances in highlights. And "correct" exposure has nothing to do with it. Some scenarios simply capture more dynamic range than an in-camera JPEG can render.</p>

<p>There are other advantages but that's the primary advantage I see in most of my own photography.</p>

<p>Other advantages include fine detail, noise reduction, white balance and color correction. With in-camera JPEG you're at the mercy of the manufacturer's choices. Sometimes the manufacturer's JPEG processing is satisfactory. Sometimes they make compromises that I wouldn't choose if I had more control over the in-camera JPEG processing. With raw you can choose to reinterpret a photo to suit your own preferences.</p>

<p>As my own skills improve and my tastes change - and editing tools evolve - I find myself revisiting raw files from almost 10 years ago to rework them. I'm glad I shot most of a medical documentary project from back then in raw plus JPEG. The hospital lights were occasionally dreadful, making it difficult to satisfactorily adjust white balance and skin colors.</p>

[john_wheeler6]

<p>HI Larry<br>

<br />If you have 500,000 image in JPEG are have been quite happy with our results then you have a pretty proven workflow for you. Since you did not mention the software you use for post processing I cannot offer pros and cons of using Lightroom. As far as Raw vs JPEG there are some advantages to Raw yet you will need to be the judge if that is worth making the change<br>

- JPEG is 8 bit and Raw is 12 or 14 bit. If you are trying to bring out the detail in a high dynamic range image (or one that was way considerably underexposed) you end up with a higher quality result with Raw assuming you keep the image in 16 bits and not 8 bits going in the Raw Converter and for post processing<br>

- JPEG from the camera is processed in the camera which can be time save if you like the results. A possible downside is that is the tonal details in the darkest darks and whiteest whites could be clipped and the detail lost (only noticed if you try and recover those details in post processing)<br>

- JPEG in cameras is saved typically is sRGB color space (narrow color gamut) with the option to use Adobe RGB (wider color gamut), yet no camera of which I am aware will allow saving in ProPhoto RGB which captures most of the color gamut the eye can see. Is this a big deal. Not necessarily as most images don't have colors of that saturation (though the brightest flowers/sunsets/sunrises may) and most monitors and color printers cannot print outside of Adobe RGB in today's technology.<br>

- One you move to 8bit mode or smaller color gamut you cannot recover the lost information. However, you have been a happy camper with 500,000 images so only you can decide if it is worth moving to Raw<br>

----------------------<br>

Just some quick thoughts and hope it is helpful.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>beyond the technical side of it, think of it this way: a RAW file is the digital equivalent of a film negative, and a JPEG is analogous to a cheap 4X6 print from a one-hour lab. Oversimplified, yes, but basically true. When you shoot, you really don't know what you'll be doing with that image down the road. For now, you may just be interested in posting photos on the web, which is really what JPEG files were intended for. But, five years from now, you might look at the shot and think that it might make a great 16X20 print. Starting with a RAW file, getting a good print that size is very likely, all other things being equal. Starting with a JPEG file, the probability of getting a good large print is questionable. In other words, if you have a RAW file to start with, you have lots of opportunities for different applications. Starting with a JPEG file, very few...</p>

<p>Edit: Lex and John got here ahead of me.</p>

[lwg]

<p>I think it's worth the time and space to shoot Raw over JPG. Why don't you take the time to learn how it works. No need to use Lightroom - Photoshop and Camera Raw will open the files just fine and give you the same options as Lightroom (same Raw processing code). But I like Lightroom for organizing, and with 500K shots I bet you will too.</p>

<p>So learn Raw processing and take a month or two and shoot Raw + JPG. Process the Raw files and see if you can get them to look better than the JPG (shouldn't be too hard). You will probably find a few images that were saved by the processing options in a Raw workflow. If after a few months you haven't found an advantage, trash the Raw files and you have lost nothing.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Could you please clarify <strong>what Post Production Software you've used for the 500,000 images?</strong> <br>

Your post implies that you keep (and print from) the JPEG SOOC, (<em>straight out of camera)</em></p>

<p>WW</p>

 

[paddler4]

<p>Space should not be the issue. Storage is cheap.</p>

<p>The issue is <em>control</em>. LG's analogy is close to what I would have used. It's not exact, because even if you shoot JPEG, you retain some ability to edit. However, as others have suggested, you have less ability to edit and to control the result when you shoot jpeg because you are using a pre-set algorithm in the camera to process the image, and in the process of doing this, it throws out a lot of information.</p>

<p>Once you are used to it, the additional time required to shoot raw is quite minimal. The cost is the time involved in learning to use a raw editor, whether it be lightroom or something else.</p>

<p>After I switched to digital, I shot jpeg for a while because raw sounded complicated. Then I shot raw+jpeg for a few weeks while I tried out raw. I quickly abandoned jpeg almost entirely.</p>

[vrankin]

<p>Your D7100 will make perfectly usable jpegs for enlarging, if you're happy with the way they're made. I think the analogy above of jpeg to cheap 4 X 6 prints is ludicrous. I shoot both raw and jpeg and have made gallery prints from both. Today's jpeg engines are so far superior to even a few years ago, that many people are turning out great jpegs with very fine tonal range. As others have said, the main advantage of raw is control and occasional rescuing of clipped details.</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>There simply isn't any reason not to shoot raw. Storage space is no longer an issue now that memory cards and external hard drives are dirt cheap. Time isn't an issue -- many cameras can be set to save both raw and jpg simultaneously. And post-processing isn't an issue -- if you don't have the immediate need or desire to do anything with the raw data, you can simply set photoshop or other software to "save as" jpg and the batch process for an entire memory card can be done in less than the time it takes to eat dinner.<br /><br />You dont' have to shoot raw. If you grew up shooting slides and can nail exposure, color balance and everything perfectly on every single frame, then stick with jpg. But if there's even one frame in a thousand where you wish you had set the exposure or white balance differently, raw is the "time machine" that lets you go back and change it. People who blow off raw can't imagine what we would have given for that back in the days before it was available.</p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

"I bought the software and an instruction book but it seems way too technical, tedious and difficult to use and share"

 

If you are intelligent enough to figure out how to write emails or post questions on an internet bulletin board you have the

technical abilities, patience, and intelligence to learn how to use both your camera's raw format and Lightroom, or any of

the other very capable raw developers.

[ali_baba2]

Im not sure that Lightroom is a must, plenty of other software available and some its not bad at all, but now you bought that particular software so thats it. As for RAW it gives you more possibility of tweaking your image over JPG. It doesnt mean you would work on every single image you shoot but some will inevitably need a bit of retouching, an improvement or correction here and there or even modifications as a progression of your "creative vision" for a particular image if your photography doesnt end at the "click".

I too dont see the analogy JPG= cheap 4x6 prints, but you can sort of intend it as the photographer that drops the roll at the store to have it developed, and eventually asks for some tweaking in printing the negatives if necessary, and the ones that (if you shoot RAW) had their own darkroom and knew how to develop their own film tweaking the process to obtain a particular result all the way to the final print.

As an hobbyist you dont even need to shoot exclusively RAW... if you shoot your bestfriend wedding you might want the RAW file but for other less important things like reference shots etc JPG can be just fine. You will also find that some pictures shot in RAW will end being converted as JPG with no need to keep the RAW file and that, at the end, the way to maintain the amount of storage within decent limits is not to sacrifice the editing freedom skimping on each file size but it is to be ruthless in deleting when you review your work (which its not easy to do).

[jordan2240]

<p>I was a JPEG holdout until I came across this comparison:<br>

http://www.slrlounge.com/school/raw-vs-jpeg-jpg-the-ultimate-visual-guide<br>

Obviously, you don't NEED to shoot RAW, but when it gives you greater options to recover an exposure and can display more detail, might as well in most instances, as long as you have the space on your card. That's not to say it's best for everything. I wouldn't use it at family events and such where you might fire off a bunch of shots that you don't want to spend a bunch of time processing. And it might not be the best choice for shooting action because it takes longer to process between shots. In most cases, you probably won't notice any difference between Raw and JPEG unless you really examine the shot up close, but as others have said, there's really no reason not to use it in many circumstances given its advantages in image recovery.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>What he's using is clear from "stay with JPEG and Photoshop". I work only in raw mode, and it seems to me that handling what will probably be hundreds of pictures in a single session will leave no time to take more pictures in one lifetime. I am not a mathematician but I have a rough idea of how many camera bodies might have been used to take half a million photos.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"he's using is clear from "stay with JPEG and Photoshop""</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you<br>

I read it twice and missed that both times AHHH! - </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Larry, I'd reckon you should have a crack at using Lightroom - it seems money wasted not to.<br>

Shoot <em>raw</em> + JPEG for a week or three and set aside a weekend to really get stuck into learning how efficient Lightroom can be for workflow and its other facilities.<br>

Efficient Workflow, especially for a set of files for the one shoot is one of Lightroom's great strengths: it is really quite easy to get your head around it, the point is you actually need to want to. </p>

<p>***</p>

<p>The 500,000 images stored need not mean that 500,000 pictures were originally taken. For example, I have up to ten versions of the one original image file: though, yes, 500,000 is a big number. </p>

<p>WW</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>It is equally possible, given that few photographers (or none) keep all the images they have photographed, that something of the order of ten or twenty million exposures were made so as to end with half a million "keepers".</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Well that's possible too. And it's also possible that the OP just used '500,000' as an indicative "I have a lot of photos" . . .<br>

<br /> but the OP is asking about Lightroom and raw, so best we stick to the main topic and not have an off topic conversation which could be interpreted as to be grilling a beginner on exactly how many photos that he has or doesn't have: because the exact number of how many photos he has really doesn't matter one iota to the question at hand.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Regardless of the software used - using JPEG out of the camera throws away data in a very early stage of the workflow; when it comes to throwing away data, I prefer to wait till the latest possible moment. Once lost, it's lost, so keep it as long as you can. So, I shoot RAW 100%. I can see a need for JPEG in environments as journalism, where you have to be able to publish in an extremely short timeframe - but in nearly all other cases, I see no single reason to JPEG in the camera if RAW is available.<br /> Lightroom is a bit the default choice, and obviously a well-rounded and pretty complete tool. But, as noted above, there are alternatives to Lightroom, and to Photoshop as well. If you cannot get along with the Adobe software, try one of those alternatives, such as CaptureOne, DxO Optics Pro, RAWTherapee or SilkyPix. Personally, I am using CaptureOne 7 for 95% of what I do (a Lightroom alternative basically; I prefer its UI), but I tend to be rather light-handed at editing, so this software suits me despite offering less functionality than LR5.</p>

<p>I find the argument that RAW costs time editing a rather false one. A good RAW editor will have a very decent default rendering - you can just select the files you want without doing much to them, and export them as JPEG. Your camera manufacterer may have its own software, which will make the "default camera look" available even, usually free (i.e. Canon DPP, Nikon View NX2). It's not a lot of time lost, really. It's not an advantage I'd give to JPEG, and I'd still rather have the RAW with ALL data, even if I am unlikely to need it.</p>

<p>With 500k photos, however, I would start looking at a dedicated DAM program (Daminion, PhotoSupreme for example); it's an awful lot and I'm not too convinced that the built-in catalogs of LR or CaptureOne will hold up well with these amount of photos. Or you need to create seperate catalogs instead, to keep their size down and speed up.</p>

[kari v]

<blockquote>

<p> Today's jpeg engines are so far superior to even a few years ago, that many people are turning out great jpegs with very fine tonal range. As others have said, the main advantage of raw is control and occasional rescuing of clipped details.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>...and the JPG engine of, say, Lightroom will be even better in few years from now. You can always render better and better JPGs from old raw files (or just completely different). JPGs from my original Canon 5D look pretty awful by today's standards, especially at high ISO, but RAW + Lightroom = 5D output upgraded almost a decade in few seconds.<br>

<br>

Even if you don't always shoot RAW I'd give it a change 1) at high ISO 2) with subjects of infinite detail like landscapes 3) when the highlights clearly burn in camera JPG.<br>

</p>

[pablomatsumoto]

<p>Absolutely. RAW files give your much more control on post, from correcting errors on white balance, exposure and framing to digitally manipulating the image. Try some simple PS editing and you will see that RAW is lightyears ahead from what you can do with JPEG. JPEG is an output (delivery) format, is not for processing. <br>

Think RAW as a digital negative and JPEG as a cheap print copy. Also, as previosuly mentioned, space is no longer an issue. Now gigabytes are very cheap.<br>

<br />In my case I always shoot RAW (then convert to DNG for long term storage) and medium JPEG simultaneously. JPEG only to be able to quickly scan the shots using Windows Explorer.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Larry: Do you have any relationship to the landscape photographer, David Muench?</p>

[larry_muench]

<p>Thank you to the many kind and expert members that replied to my question. In summary, it seems that to take my photography to the next level is going to require some effort and time (and stepping outside my JPEG comfort zone!). For landscapes it seems I usually need more dynamic range and for wildlife I usually need better low-light performance. Those are the 2 main reasons that I upgraded to the Nikon D7100. So, I guess it is time to take the next step towards those goals in post-processing as well. Also, I do struggle with orgainizing 500k photos. My organization now is in the folder naming e.g. "2013-05-12 Yellowstone NP bison, elk, wolves". I have the date, the place and the highlights of that folder in the name which makes it a little easier to find things. But then I also have a "best", "best of best", "best photoshopped", and "best photoshopped resized". Not for all folders but most photos are saved at least twice and sometimes as many as 5 times (plus everything is backed up on another drive). I also have folders for contests, facebook, "best" by animal, etc. So, the organizational part of Lightroom will be welcome as well. I also realize that I need to be much more ruthless in what photos I keep. No more "this one has potential if I just sharpened it a bit" or "removed that distracting ...". I also appreciate the references to other options than Lightroom, the workflow tips, and the insight as to actual time and effort required. The discussion of actual benefits recieved from RAW was very helpful and convincing. And to Alan Klein, sadly "no", I am not related to David Muench that I know of. I wish I had his professionalism and talent!<br /><br />However, no one has responded to the "RAW or compressed RAW" or 12 bit vs 14 bit questions. I suspect the answer will be "if you a going to shoot RAW then get all of the data you can. But, practically speaking, what do I lose if I use compressed RAW or 12 bit depth? Can the human eye see it and can printers print it?<br /><br />Again, thanks to all of those that responded. Any JPEG advocates were conspicuously absent and you, collectively, were able to convice me to take the time and effort to switch to RAW.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<blockquote>

<p>But, practically speaking, what do I lose if I use compressed RAW or 12 bit depth?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Again, it's throwing out data early in the chain while you do not have to; the D7100 isn't slowed down much until its buffer is full by large® RAW files (unlike the D300/D300s, which went from 6/7 fps to 2,5 fps in 14 bit mode).<br>

Not sure if the D7100 offers the losless compressed RAW option - that one is fine.</p>

<p>In my view, it really boils down to a simple idea. Capture as much as you can. Keep as much as you can for as long as you can. Loosing data is easy, getting it back once lost is impossible.</p>

[William Michael]

<blockquote>

<p>"Any JPEG advocates were conspicuously absent . . ."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From about six months after cutting over to Canon Digital SLR’s (in 2004), I have captured <strong><em>raw + JPEG (L)</em></strong>.<br>

I 'advocate' that (for myself, my purposes) because:</p>

<ul>

<li>

<p>I sometimes /often use the JPEG SOOC</p>

</li>

<li>

<p>I sometimes use the JPEG with only a (rote) two stage sharpening and then "Save for Web" in Photoshop</p>

</li>

<li>

<p>I often use the Camera’s LCD / Image Review for information and the saved JPEG file and Camera Setting for that JPEG capture, have an impact on that Review Information </p>

</li>

<li>

<p>I save/catalogue images in folders beginning with the date (as you have described) on the first download to whatever device I am using as initial storage, especially if it is my note-book; the JPEG appears as a thumbnail whereas the raw file does not, necessarily</p>

</li>

<li>

<p>I don't have any issue capturing raw + JPEG(L) in respect of buffer problems with Continuous Shooting Mode, as I very rarely use that mode and if I do it is almost certainly only ever a burst of three.</p>

</li>

<li>

<p>As already mentioned, I have up to ten versions of the one original file yet I don't have any issues with storage as it is my opinion that Hard-drives are as ‘cheap as chips’</p>

</li>

</ul>

<p>I have not done a survey of how many other photographers might be in this group: but I have kept ALL the original digital image files I have shot, since 2004. I also have all my <em>personal</em> Negatives and Transparencies (i.e. those which are copyrighted to me) since I began shooting (seriously) professionally, which was around 1976; but I have culled the negatives of the businesses that I have owned on about 5 or six occasions. In my experience storage for negatives and transparencies is much more of an issue than the storage options that are available for digital files.</p>

<p>I do think, however, that many photographers, who only have experience in the digital medium, sometimes make too many captures and in so doing make a rod for their own backs in respect of Post Production and etc.</p>

<p>That is not a criticism of you, or anyone; nor is it an invitation to begin a slanging match between “the good old days” and “the digital age” – it is merely a comment in respect of one of the topics of the thread which is ‘<em>storage space</em>’ - nothing more and nothing less.</p>

<p>I am fully aware and I also ‘advocate’ that because learning with digital is so very inexpensive (compared to film) that one should experiment and shoot away in so doing; but on the other hand it is often better to have a ‘one-shot’ approach to many shooting scenarios.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p> </p>