Jpeg or RAW? - Page 3
PhotoCamel: Your friendly photo community, with free discussion forums, digital photography reviews, photo sharing, galleries, downloads, blogs, photography contests, and prizes.
Photos of the Week Photos of the Week
 

Go Back   PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-26-2012   #21
Dromedary
 
apaflo's Avatar
 
Location: Barrow Alaska
Posts: 1,017
CamelKarma: 27350891
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrionPhotograph View Post
Ok, I was not thinking about the continuous feature but your card still needs to support a I/O speed to process the images or the cameras buffer will fill up and pause to process images. Not sure what type of camera body you have, but all cameras have different limitations..
The argument that this makes shooting in JPEG mode necessary is not really valid, at least for a professional or otherwise serious sports photographer. An amateur necessarily has to evaluate how to budget for equipment a little differently, and it might not be economically feasible.

A Nikon D4 will shoot at up to 11 frames per second in burst mode, the buffer can hold up to 75 lossless compressed 14-bit NEF images, and a 32GB card can hold up to 872 files. Moreover, with other configurations to produce smaller files (using 12-bit NEF and DX crop size together) can allow up to 200 shot bursts and as many as 2400 images per card!

Note that 200 is the maximum number of exposures that can be taken in continuous mode regardless of configuration. The buffer size determines how many exposures will be at the selected frame rate, and when the buffer is full the frame rate will be reduced as files are written to the memory card. Hence even shooting in JPEG only does not provide more exposures per burst. JPEG only however does allow more than 5000 exposures on the same 32GB card, though with 128GB CF cards available that doesn't seem significant.

If producing the highest quality images is part of the business plan, the tools to accomplish that are not a significant cost.
apaflo is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #22
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Camel Breath
 
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 39,432
CamelKarma: 41825358
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Sports photographers often work under another constraint - time. One sports photographer I know very well works for a national newspaper and covers soccer matches. These are national and inrernational level games. He will return to his ofiice after shooting between 8 & 9 PM. His editor needs the images before midnight so that the editorial team can select and twick the images before 2 AM when the first print run will start. The photographer has no time to individually convert (from raw to jpeg) 300 to 500 images he has taken, nor he is suppossed to do the corrections. Quite often the content of the picture is all important, not the absolute quality. An image showing the ball crossing the goal line with the goalkeeper at full stretch is likely to get published even if it is not of the "highest quality" by conventional thinking. Under or overexposed background is irrelevant. Yes, with his top quality gear (purchased & owned by the newspaper) he can take all raw images and convert tham as a batch, but that would be no different than converting them in camera. He will look through all the images and transfer, may be 5 or so, to his editorial team. They will then twick the images as necessary and select one (or more if the photographer is lucky) to be printed. After transferring the images our photographer will delete all the rest from the card and his workstation. He does not own them and has no right to keep any of them for his personal use, even if they are of the "highest quality".

I am afraid real life professional photography has more constraints than amateurs (like me) often realise.
__________________
gautam
Gautam is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #23
Dromedary
 
apaflo's Avatar
 
Location: Barrow Alaska
Posts: 1,017
CamelKarma: 27350891
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam View Post
Sports photographers often work under another constraint - time. One sports photographer I know very well works for a national newspaper and covers soccer matches. These are national and inrernational level games. He will return to his ofiice after shooting between 8 & 9 PM. His editor needs the images before midnight so that the editorial team can select and twick the images before 2 AM when the first print run will start. The photographer has no time to individually convert (from raw to jpeg) 300 to 500 images he has taken, nor he is suppossed to do the corrections. Quite often the content of the picture is all important, not the absolute quality. An image showing the ball crossing the goal line with the goalkeeper at full stretch is likely to get published even if it is not of the "highest quality" by conventional thinking. Under or overexposed background is irrelevant. Yes, with his top quality gear (purchased & owned by the newspaper) he can take all raw images and convert tham as a batch, but that would be no different than converting them in camera. He will look through all the images and transfer, may be 5 or so, to his editorial team. They will then twick the images as necessary and select one (or more if the photographer is lucky) to be printed. After transferring the images our photographer will delete all the rest from the card and his workstation. He does not own them and has no right to keep any of them for his personal use, even if they are of the "highest quality".

I am afraid real life professional photography has more constraints than amateurs (like me) often realise.
Technically though, nothing in that description requires shooting JPEG, or is even more advantageous due to shooting JPEG. The photographer could just as well shoot RAW and forward the RAW file to his editors. Since they only even see half a dozen or so, and select only 1 or 2 for processing, RAW is not a significant disadvantage.

What is true though, is that RAW is not a significant advantage either. They could flip a coin to decide which workflow to use and it would not change their bottom line by 1 penny.
apaflo is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #24
Dromedary
 
tomrit's Avatar
 
Location: Boone NC USA
Posts: 1,527
CamelKarma: 2684
Editing OK?: Ask First
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

My opinion is shoot raw unless you have a very good reason for shooting jpeg's.

About the only very good reason I know of is if you are a news photographer and are worried about being accused of editing your images.

I used to shoot jpeg's when it seemed to make sense. For instance I did a web article and shot the photos in jpeg. After all why waste all the space when the images were only going to be 1000x750 maximum? Wouldn't you know, a publisher wanted to use one of those images, and I had a heck of a time getting a good 8x10 at 300dpi out of it.

My workflow is normally, raw > psd > jpeg. I consider raw my negative, the .psd my master print, and a jpeg my distribution print. At any time I can go back and redo it if my skills or needs change. If I need a different size jpeg, for my blog as an example, I just go to the .psd re-size it and save for the web as a new jpeg. All I have to do is be careful not to save the re-sized .psd, I want normally want to keep the original.

An advantage I get out of all this is I leave the camera set on "Sunny" white balance, so the camera does not waste time trying to figure out the white balance which I can easily adjust in Photoshop. With my DSLR that is not a lot, but with my P&S it is the difference between two frames a second on one every two seconds.
__________________
Tom
www.tomrit.com
tomrit is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #25
Alpaca
 
Posts: 3
CamelKarma: 10
Editing OK?: No
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Shoot RAW and use a imagetank like hyperdrive.
Than you don't have to make any consesion's.
J.Lipsch is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #26
RV
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
CamelKarma:
Red face Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by apaflo View Post

What is true though, is that RAW is not a significant advantage either.
Please give us a link to some information to a credible sorce that supports your theory. I believe it is your own personal opinion based on nothing factual. IMHO

This is what I found at DPS, and listed other respectable photography sites.

A Raw file is…
• not an image file per se (it will require special software to view, though this software is easy to get).
• typically a proprietary format (with the exception of Adobe’s DNG format that isn’t widely used yet).
• at least 8 bits per color – red, green, and blue (12-bits per X,Y location), though most DSLRs record 12-bit color (36-bits per location).
• uncompressed (an 8 megapixel camera will produce a 8 MB Raw file).
• the complete (lossless) data from the camera’s sensor.
• higher in dynamic range (ability to display highlights and shadows).
• lower in contrast (flatter, washed out looking).
• not as sharp.
• not suitable for printing directly from the camera or without post processing.
• read only (all changes are saved in an XMP “sidecar” file or to a JPEG or other image format).
• sometimes admissable in a court as evidence (as opposed to a changeable image format).
• waiting to be processed by your computer.

In comparison a JPEG is…
• a standard format readable by any image program on the market or available open source.
• exactly 8-bits per color (12-bits per location).
• compressed (by looking for redundancy in the data like a ZIP file or stripping out what human can’t perceive like a MP3).
• fairly small in file size (an 8 megapixel camera will produce JPEG between 1 and 3 MB’s in size).
• lower in dynamic range.
• higher in contrast.
• sharper.
• immediately suitable for printing, sharing, or posting on the Web.
• not in need of correction most of the time (75% in my experience).
• able to be manipulated, though not without losing data each time an edit is made – even if it’s just to rotate the image (the opposite of lossless).
• processed by your camera.

RAW vs. JPEG

RAW vs JPEG (JPG) – The Ultimate Visual Guide - Free Photography Tips Tutorials Reviews and Wordpress Themes tutorial

Mythbusters - More raw vs JPEG myths - - Art and the Zen of Design - -

Raw vs JPEG: The pros and cons of Raw files or Jpeg files | Technology guides | Techniques | What Digital Camera
 
Old 04-28-2012   #27
PhotoCamel Supporter DONATED
Camel Breath
 
Location: South Yorkshire, UK
Posts: 39,432
CamelKarma: 41825358
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by apaflo View Post
Technically though, nothing in that description requires shooting JPEG, or is even more advantageous due to shooting JPEG. The photographer could just as well shoot RAW and forward the RAW file to his editors. Since they only even see half a dozen or so, and select only 1 or 2 for processing, RAW is not a significant disadvantage.

What is true though, is that RAW is not a significant advantage either. They could flip a coin to decide which workflow to use and it would not change their bottom line by 1 penny.
Please remember the picture editor & his team will look not only at the pictures taken by our photographer but all the photographs to be published on that day's edition. I picked up one daily edition of that newspaper and counted 96 pictures. Of course, all of them will not require rapid viewing and editing as some may be months old, some held in the newspaper's picture library or in a feature articles that has been in prep for the whole week. Also the photographer I am talking about is a trusted long term emplyee of the newspaper and is actually a member of the picture editorial team. So he is allowed to make his own choice about submitting a small number of images to the full editorial team. Some other staff photographers simply hand over the card so that an editorial team member can make the choice. So the actual number of images the picture editorial team views each day could be several hundreds. As the images need not be of the highest quality and some are printed to a small size (2" x 1"), getting them in jpeg has the advantage of quickly editing them & sending them for print. After all, newsprint is not the best medium for showing the quality of a picture . But I gathered from this photographer that non-action photographs are often taken in raw format and the raw file is retained if the picture is published. It is important to retain the raw files of some pictures where the integrity of the newspaper could be in question.
__________________
gautam
Gautam is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #28
Dromedary
 
apaflo's Avatar
 
Location: Barrow Alaska
Posts: 1,017
CamelKarma: 27350891
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by OrionPhotograph View Post
Please give us a link to some information to a credible sorce that supports your theory. I believe it is your own personal opinion based on nothing factual. IMHO
I thought that comment rather clearly applied only to the context being discussed in that article, which was photojournalists shooting sports with a tight deadline.

My whole point was that the claim that requires shooting JPEG is not valid.
apaflo is offline  
Old 04-28-2012   #29
Dromedary
 
apaflo's Avatar
 
Location: Barrow Alaska
Posts: 1,017
CamelKarma: 27350891
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gautam View Post
Please remember the picture editor & his team will look not only at the pictures taken by our photographer but all the photographs to be published on that day's edition.
But the simple fact is that have the RAW file does not preclude exactly the same flexible and fast processing that is possible with a JPEG only. It takes only a few seconds of time to process the RAW file into a JPEG for preview, and that can easily be done as a batch that is automated for any uploaded RAW file. The editors in essence need never see, or even realize the existence of the RAW file unless they decide they need it.

Quote:
I picked up one daily edition of that newspaper and counted 96 pictures. Of course, all of them will not require rapid viewing and editing as some may be months old, some held in the newspaper's picture library or in a feature articles that has been in prep for the whole week. Also the photographer I am talking about is a trusted long term emplyee of the newspaper and is actually a member of the picture editorial team. So he is allowed to make his own choice about submitting a small number of images to the full editorial team. Some other staff photographers simply hand over the card so that an editorial team member can make the choice. So the actual number of images the picture editorial team views each day could be several hundreds. As the images need not be of the highest quality and some are printed to a small size (2" x 1"), getting them in jpeg has the advantage of quickly editing them & sending them for print.
Sounds good... but in fact no such distinction actually exists. For electronic transfers or for someone with a memory card in hand it works exactly the same. Either JPEG or RAW images are uploaded, and an automated process can then convert the RAW files and resize all of the JPEGs, either uploaded directly or converted from RAW, to whatever size is most convenient for the editorial staff.

This stuff isn't computer rocket science, but realizing how it can be done is in fact more of a computer problem than a photography problem.

Quote:
After all, newsprint is not the best medium for showing the quality of a picture . But I gathered from this photographer that non-action photographs are often taken in raw format and the raw file is retained if the picture is published. It is important to retain the raw files of some pictures where the integrity of the newspaper could be in question.
This is in fact important too. You aren't just kidding about the quality, but again that would also be part of the automatic processing done when images are uploaded. Generally the contrast range has to be adjusted, and then the brightness normalized, to have an image that is a good indication of what it will look like in print. (One of my personal pet peeves with newspapers is that they often ask for a photograph of someone, as for example candidates for a political office, but they 1) will not provide technical guidance on what is suitable, and then 2) will not do the appropriate editing.)
apaflo is offline  
Old 04-29-2012   #30
F1 Camel
 
korman's Avatar
 
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 3,544
CamelKarma: 497479
Editing OK?: Yes
Constructive Critique?: Yes
Default Re: Jpeg or RAW?

Apaflo,

I'm not sure whether people are getting through to you: You see it only from an amateur's perspective where a little effort here and a little effort there doesn't matter. For those, using raw all the time is fine. It gives options which might come in handy.

But if you make your livelihood with photography, every minute saved is a minute either not on the job or a minute to make money otherwise. So if the client is satisfied with the quality delivered with jpg and you don't lose any options by not using raw, the additional time spent in saving raw, transferring twice the data of raws, the loading of each image in the viewer. the selecting and exporting to jpg, all this additional time is wasted effort on your part you could do something better with your life, be it by earning more money or having a beer in the bar.

And just to sum it up, here's a thread by someone using jpg for wedding photography: Who shoots JPG on Weddings?

So please, don't call people stupid only because they operate differently than you and have different priorities than you.

Korman


__________________
Members don't see ads in threads. Register for your free account today and become a member of PhotoCamel to open up the site's many benefits and features.
korman is offline  
Closed Thread

« PhotoCamel - Your Friendly Photography Forum > PhotoCamel Lounge > Photography Talk »


Share this topic:

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
jpeg or raw jbrady5150 Canon 26 03-30-2011 01:39 AM
Original RAW file changes saved with Adobe Camera Raw when save as JPEG stealers Image Editing 3 06-05-2009 04:58 PM
RAW vs. RAW + small jpeg (simple question, please help) DANATTHEROCK Image Editing 9 05-19-2008 01:24 PM
RAW or JPEG (again!) rafdaz Image Editing 1 08-10-2007 10:16 AM
Raw + JPEG or just JPEG dvperrin Portraits 5 08-07-2006 04:15 PM