RAW or Premium JPEG?
Posted 07/07/2011 - 10:14
Link
A comparison in print quality is only telling a small part of the story though! Did you 'stress test' the image files in Photoshop/Lightroom? I like this from Miserere's blog:
Quote:
Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
Shoot JPEG if you don’t enjoy postprocessing and have your camera set up such that the photos that come straight out of it are to your liking. If you are strapped for space on your computer, shooting JPEG will allow you to store many more files, and you can also fit more images on each memory card when you’re out shooting. Many people are not computer savvy and would like to stay as far away as possible from a laptop—there’s nothing wrong with that, and these people are one of the reasons engineers spent so long programming the JPEG engine in those cameras.
Whatever you choose, don’t consider it a decision for life. There may be shooting conditions when one or the other is better, and a wise photographer will change format if the situation requires it. Be at the mercy of the Photograph, not at the whim of your idiosyncrasies.
Most of all, dear reader, don’t think you have The Answer; don’t diminish your fellow photographers if they don’t shoot the same format as you. Each of us has different needs and tastes; we’re all individuals; but maybe more importantly: We don’t need another war.
I don't think really that there's anything anyone needs to add to that! But I'm sure that won't stop the debate
Shoot RAW if you enjoy postprocessing or you feel the subjects you shoot are too complex from a dynamic range perspective and/or the camera cannot capture the scenes you shoot as you see them. If you shoot B&W and want to do more than just press the monochrome button, then RAW is probably the best option. If you are shooting under tough lighting conditions (and pressed for time) and are not sure the camera will meter correctly, shoot RAW to give yourself some leeway if you need to adjust a shot in postproduction.
Shoot JPEG if you don’t enjoy postprocessing and have your camera set up such that the photos that come straight out of it are to your liking. If you are strapped for space on your computer, shooting JPEG will allow you to store many more files, and you can also fit more images on each memory card when you’re out shooting. Many people are not computer savvy and would like to stay as far away as possible from a laptop—there’s nothing wrong with that, and these people are one of the reasons engineers spent so long programming the JPEG engine in those cameras.
Whatever you choose, don’t consider it a decision for life. There may be shooting conditions when one or the other is better, and a wise photographer will change format if the situation requires it. Be at the mercy of the Photograph, not at the whim of your idiosyncrasies.
Most of all, dear reader, don’t think you have The Answer; don’t diminish your fellow photographers if they don’t shoot the same format as you. Each of us has different needs and tastes; we’re all individuals; but maybe more importantly: We don’t need another war.
Posted 07/07/2011 - 10:22
Link
Good quote Will. As I have said before in other discussions: do what works for you.
Kris Lockyear
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera… they are made with the eye, heart and head. Henri Cartier-Bresson
Lots of film bodies, a couple of digital ones, too many lenses (mainly older glass) and a Horseman LE 5x4.
Posted 07/07/2011 - 10:31
Link
I agree with that.
The absolute delight of my Pentax KR is I can add a RAW while the image is still in buffer from the preview or plan to take a RAW using the Green button if I think lighting tricky.
Avoiding burn out seems to be the big thing with digital unlike film days when you were aiming to get more light in. bracketing is of course still a option.
Now I have a much higher resolution LCD than on my old KX I find screen and graphs help me take the picture correctly in the first place.
I rarely post process other than a little contrast or cropping or brightness correction if printing to frame.
Jpegs for me then (mostly)
The absolute delight of my Pentax KR is I can add a RAW while the image is still in buffer from the preview or plan to take a RAW using the Green button if I think lighting tricky.
Avoiding burn out seems to be the big thing with digital unlike film days when you were aiming to get more light in. bracketing is of course still a option.
Now I have a much higher resolution LCD than on my old KX I find screen and graphs help me take the picture correctly in the first place.
I rarely post process other than a little contrast or cropping or brightness correction if printing to frame.
Jpegs for me then (mostly)
Posted 07/07/2011 - 11:58
Link
I've traditionally shot RAW. Recently though, I came across a situation that demanded JPG.
I was shooting an equestrian event with my son and to avoid having to convert raw files to jpg prior to printing, we shot jpg.
Later, during the same shoot, we switched to RAW+ as a trial. The resulting RAW images produced better images after post processing than the jpg's did without.
The difference however might only be due to the jpg settings in camera.
I was shooting an equestrian event with my son and to avoid having to convert raw files to jpg prior to printing, we shot jpg.
Later, during the same shoot, we switched to RAW+ as a trial. The resulting RAW images produced better images after post processing than the jpg's did without.
The difference however might only be due to the jpg settings in camera.
Peter E Smith - flickr Photostream
Posted 07/07/2011 - 12:36
Link
I've traditionally shot JPEG for the last 6 years and only this year started to use RAW. I currently shoot RAW + JPG images and am processing the RAW files.
Although I'm getting quicker, I still find it time consuming to process the RAW files and although subjectively different, I'm still not convinced that the developed RAW images are better than the JPG out of the camera (and yes, I have tweaked the image settings in camera to my liking).
By coincidence I also shot an equestrian event for the organisers recently and ended up with a little over 400 images to be delieverd within 2 days. I did this with the JPGs - there was no way I could have done this with 400 RAW images.
My current thinking is to use RAW when I am out taking just a few shots of which only a couple will be keepers to put in my folio and to use RAW when it is event coverage and I will be taking a large number of images.
Although I'm getting quicker, I still find it time consuming to process the RAW files and although subjectively different, I'm still not convinced that the developed RAW images are better than the JPG out of the camera (and yes, I have tweaked the image settings in camera to my liking).
By coincidence I also shot an equestrian event for the organisers recently and ended up with a little over 400 images to be delieverd within 2 days. I did this with the JPGs - there was no way I could have done this with 400 RAW images.
My current thinking is to use RAW when I am out taking just a few shots of which only a couple will be keepers to put in my folio and to use RAW when it is event coverage and I will be taking a large number of images.
Posted 07/07/2011 - 13:28
Link
When I was lucky enough to get my K10 I thought I'd better start using RAW to get the most out a sensor I've always coveted. Then I read an article about how set up the camera for "best" JPEG results and I've been so pleased with the images which require only levels and sharpening.
However, it's great to jab that RAW+ button on the front if I think the dynamic range is too great. This weekend I was photographing dark locomotives with lots of white fluffy clouds in the sky: could you imagine a wider range?
The amount of cloud detail which was recoverable is extraordinary. White steam issuing from a safety valve was beautifully rendered but, and here's the strange thing, highlights glinting off highly polished brass were in every way smoother and more naturally rendered in the JPEGs, without harshness or strange jaggy artifices of the RAW files.
Try as I might, I couldn't get the RAW shots to look as good and, of course, couldn't recover any meaningful detail from the steam or clouds in the JPEGs.
Odd, but as I say, the conditions were extreme. I sometimes think that there is almost too much scope for changing RAW files and it's possible for me to get in a mess with tinkering whereas dear old Doctor Pentax clearly knows a thing or two about building a decent processing system!
However, it's great to jab that RAW+ button on the front if I think the dynamic range is too great. This weekend I was photographing dark locomotives with lots of white fluffy clouds in the sky: could you imagine a wider range?
The amount of cloud detail which was recoverable is extraordinary. White steam issuing from a safety valve was beautifully rendered but, and here's the strange thing, highlights glinting off highly polished brass were in every way smoother and more naturally rendered in the JPEGs, without harshness or strange jaggy artifices of the RAW files.
Try as I might, I couldn't get the RAW shots to look as good and, of course, couldn't recover any meaningful detail from the steam or clouds in the JPEGs.
Odd, but as I say, the conditions were extreme. I sometimes think that there is almost too much scope for changing RAW files and it's possible for me to get in a mess with tinkering whereas dear old Doctor Pentax clearly knows a thing or two about building a decent processing system!
Best wishes,
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050
http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Andrew
"These places mean something and it's the job of a photographer to figure-out what the hell it is."
Robert Adams
"The camera doesn't make a bit of difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."
Ernst Hass
My website: http://www.ephotozine.com/user/bwlchmawr-199050
http://s927.photobucket.com/home/ADC3440/index
https://www.flickr.com/photos/78898196@N05
Posted 07/07/2011 - 13:49
Link
RAW adds flexibility in processing, snd is non destructive to the file.
Posted 07/07/2011 - 13:55
Link
I am primarily a manual, raw shooter, however, there are some in camera tricks that only work with jpeg, so why not? heck I've even been using some of the Auto focus and modes.... they're there so why not?
Fired many shots. Didn't kill anything.
Posted 08/07/2011 - 08:56
Link
Well the talk was done last night, with a fair bit of interaction from the audience, which is always good.
Everyone looked at the two A3 prints prepared and of all the people there only one was confident that he could say which was the RAW image. He was right, but it was a 50/50 chance!
Once told, some decided they could just see an better result in the RAW print, others preferred the rendition of the JPEG. All agreed that there was so little in it that it was a moot point.
However, let's be clear that the images were shot with the K-5. As a contrast I showed some images from the Sigma DP2x, with its Foveon sensor, and the JPEGs from that were just poor. Older cameras as well may not show the same JPEG quality.
So, with those caveats in mind, the conclusion was that there was no quality difference worth worrying about unless a lot of manipulation was anticipated and that JPEG also offered quite a few useful in-camera tricks. One of our professionals was rather taken with the "remove colour" facility, for example.
I shoot 99% Premium JPEG, but RAW when needed for some particular purpose.
Everyone looked at the two A3 prints prepared and of all the people there only one was confident that he could say which was the RAW image. He was right, but it was a 50/50 chance!
Once told, some decided they could just see an better result in the RAW print, others preferred the rendition of the JPEG. All agreed that there was so little in it that it was a moot point.
However, let's be clear that the images were shot with the K-5. As a contrast I showed some images from the Sigma DP2x, with its Foveon sensor, and the JPEGs from that were just poor. Older cameras as well may not show the same JPEG quality.
So, with those caveats in mind, the conclusion was that there was no quality difference worth worrying about unless a lot of manipulation was anticipated and that JPEG also offered quite a few useful in-camera tricks. One of our professionals was rather taken with the "remove colour" facility, for example.
I shoot 99% Premium JPEG, but RAW when needed for some particular purpose.
Best regards, John
Posted 08/07/2011 - 10:40
Link
I'm aware that there are limitations to everything, but we have to start somewhere. I chose this image as there were lots of colours, shapes, shadows, bright areas and as the DOF has been limited also the gradation from sharp to the out of focus areas.
http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/x-rite-colorchecker-passport-review-16829/ima...
It could be argued that another image would be better, but then where do we stop? It's up to the individual to take the point further, do his ir her own assessment and reach a conclusion based on what their own work and output is. This was a talk of ideas and limited experimentation, setting the scene if you will.
http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/x-rite-colorchecker-passport-review-16829/ima...
It could be argued that another image would be better, but then where do we stop? It's up to the individual to take the point further, do his ir her own assessment and reach a conclusion based on what their own work and output is. This was a talk of ideas and limited experimentation, setting the scene if you will.
Best regards, John
Posted 08/07/2011 - 11:01
Link
There's no doubt that RAW shooting does mean there is more headroom for post processing. But you can still post process jpgs and achieve good results also.
Posted 08/07/2011 - 12:32
Link
Blythman wrote:
Of course the comparison can only be valid for that particular pair of prints. Would be interesting to see the image concerned.
Indeed. When I post process RAWs, some require very little and some require a helluva lot.Of course the comparison can only be valid for that particular pair of prints. Would be interesting to see the image concerned.
There's no way a Jpg would stand up to the heavy PP I apply to some of my RAWs. On others it probably could.
I would use JPGs for journalistic photography where I need to shoot and upload the pics ASAP to the editorial office.
For more artistic photography RAWs everytime
[i]Bodies: 1x K-5IIs, 2x K-5, Sony TX-5, Nokia 808
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Lenses: Pentax DA 10-17mm ED(IF) Fish Eye, Pentax DA 14mm f/2.8, Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8, Pentax-A 28mm f/2.8, Sigma 30mm F1.4 EX DC, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.2, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-FA 50mm f/1.4, Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7, Pentax DA* 50-135mm f/2.8, Sigma 135-400mm APO DG, and more ..
Flash: AF-540FGZ, Vivitar 283
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
24423 posts
24 years
Tyldesley,
Manchester
It's a while since we've done this exercise, so it's overdue. Constantly challenge the current paradigm just to see if things are the same or have changed.