RAW vs JPG (6 months on ...) - 21st December 2007

[Jason Cole]

The whole reason I started looking at RAW was some of my PRO friends, who shoot for a lot of the big name magazines and customers wear by RAW, thats the whole reason it started. All im saying is try it out, see how you go, but dod it over several months just to make sure, then go back to RAW, there isn't (in my opinion) and comparison.

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by heartseye

[B]

RAW does NOT produce "far superior results" unless your technique is sloppy and you need to repair errors which need never have occurred in the first place.

The exposure latitude of Jpg is so thin, it's easy to foul up the exposure, even if your not being "sloppy".
It's just the nature of the beast.

Jpg's are "baked in" right out of the camera. Exposure data is buried into the file.
If you change exposure after the fact, your throwing away data.

Just check out the histogram of a level adjusted Jpg. Those gaps are missing data, thrown away by PS. If the data's not there, the lab can't print it.
That affects tonality....and image quality.

Raw is different.
Exposure values can be changed before the data is baked in. (converting Raw to Jpg).
The result is superior to an identically exposed Jpg.

Raw workflow is faster, more forgiving, offers more controlability.
Does that qualify is "far superior"? ...I think it does.

Originally Posted by Jason Cole

The downside to shooting raw files is much greater file sizes and thus more flash cards and more storage needed for each wedding...

True, but storage space is unbelievably cheap these days.
Hard drive space is hovering around .75 cents a Gig.
Memory cards are $15 per Gig.
CD storage is aprox .35 cents per Gig
DVD's are close to the same, if purchased in bulk.
It's just too cheap to call it a liability anymore.

I think the time spent burning the backups is more of a liability.

I would agree, though, it's up to each person individually to select which format works best for them.

[Mark McCall]

Case in point....
I'd posted this image to another thread, but it applies to this discussion.

If I'd have shot this in Jpg, I could not have captured it.

Highlight exposure would have put the shadows too deep into underexposure to recover.
Shadow exposure would have blown out highlights making them unrecoverable.

Jpg capture can't record the wide range of exposure values that Raw can.

By shooting raw, converting out once for highlights, then again for shadows, then merging, I'm able to shoot around the limitations of digital exposure latitude.

Can't do that with Jpg.

[heartseye]

Mark, I completely agree. As I said, there ARE times when only raw will do, and this was one of these times.....Bob

[zero rc]

to me its like the old coke vs. pepsi debate. some people prefer one over another, but in no way is it a comment on their level of skill or dedication to their craft. with that said, i personally shoot RAW about 99.99% of the time.
for me, i think RAW gives you the most lattitute and control when working with your images and dont mind the extra post time. along with all the other reasons mentioned by the previous posters, the one most compelling reason i see to shoot raw is as technology moves foreward so can your shots. rember ACR when it first came out? it was pretty basic, but it has evolved over time and improved dramatically. (i dont rember who said it but as RAW improves its basically like "reprocessing your film with fresh emulsion") i see this trend continuing and i cant wait to see what inovations are in store for the future. on the down side, if you want to go out and buy the latest camera body, ACR may not support that model yet and you will ahve to use the processor that ships with the camera. i prefer RAW and some dont. its their perogative. hey if you like pepsi, then by all means drink pepsi, if you like coke then there are plenty in the fridge (just be sure to not take the last can!)

[dougsmit]

How often have you heard someone say, "I wish I had shot that in JPG"? I was slow to accept the value of RAW and do not consider its strongest virtue being able to save trashed photos. If nothing else, the white balance controls are worth the effort unless you are shooting in a controlled situation or are willing to accept lower quality for faster turn around. Most people I have heard say they don't need RAW have no idea that there are fine controls that could make their images 1% better or don't care for such a little amount. If I were a pro and time were money, I might feel different but shooting RAW allows the option of converting to JPG and throwing out the RAW (if you must) while shooting JPG assumes you will want what you get even before you see it. If I only made a 'correction' to 5% of my images when converting, I would consider it worth the effort. If I only found my images 1% better for the extra work...... If I only 'saved' one image a month...... Your priorities may differ.

[Mark McCall]

Originally Posted by zero rc

for me, i think RAW gives you the most lattitute and control when working with your images and dont mind the extra post time.

I think this has been the main point of Jpg shooters.....processing time.

Computers are multi-tasking.
During the coversion process, you can still work in Photoshop, send/receive email, type invoices.....everything you'd normally do in the course of a photographer's day.
I don't feel you lose any time because of processing time....simply work on other tasks during the process.

Also, processing time is shortened by converting out at a smaller file size. ie: Who needs 24 meg files of wedding images?

In our studio, we'll cut 1/2 of the file size off during conversion. We simply do not need all that data.
The exception would be family or bridal portraits where we know there'll be a large sale.

[Unkl Buck]

Originally Posted by dougsmit

How often have you heard someone say, "I wish I had shot that in JPG"?

I'll have to remember that one.

[Goofup]

Course, I've never heard film people say "Wish I'd have shot that in raw" either.

[dougsmit]

Originally Posted by Goofup

Course, I've never heard film people say "Wish I'd have shot that in raw" either.

This is a good point but there is a parallel in film terms between JPG and RAW. In the film world some people sent their film to a processor who applied the standard best guess to the process parameters and produced a negative (or roll) that could be compensated in printing to some degree unless it was just too far off. Other people (some used the term 'Zone System') considered the scene and exposure before applying time, temperature and chemical choices. The result was a negative that should print on standard paper with relative ease. This was the film equivalent of RAW. While he did do things like dodging and burning (which we still do after RAW conversions), Ansel Adams was not a major consumer of contrast 0 and contrast 6 papers. His game plan was to expose and process in a way that considered the situation rather than applying times and temperatures copied from the package instructions for average situations. Admittedly, some digital JPG shooters do change some parameters (contrast, saturation and manual white balance) for individual shots so they participate in some advantages most of us associate with RAW which are really common sense.

With digital and RAW we added the possibility of doing it again if we guessed wrong. With RAW we gain the advantages (great or small) of more than 8 bit data. We also allow using tricks like HDR which reminds me of selecting a film (Super XX was my favorite) which gave an improved tone curve. Digital also allows the choice of processing one shot at a time with changed choices (like sheet film) or a long roll all at once (remember the 250 exposure 35mm accessories anyone?). It even allows seeing a 'proof sheet' of images before making decisions about processing and committing ourselves to a decision. We can even process part of a 'roll' one way and part another. Cut film frame by frame processing controls in the film era meant we lost 'motor drive' options but now we shoot 5 frames a second and each is available as an individual. I spent a lot of years working as a professional lab processor/printer/QC tech. I think back about several situations where my job would have really been easier had the photographer shot RAW. I still have black and white prints on my wall made from my 8x10 view camera and my digital images are still short of their image quality. I hope that changes before I die. Otherwise, I do not miss film. You may if you wish.