RAW verses JPEG

[Canadaguy]

I  have been with Alamy since 2006, my sales are fine.

Some members tell me that shooting RAW is no longer in style.

They shoot Large JPEG's. Can anyone offer some help on this topic.?

[Betty LaRue]

Style, Smyle. It's not like you're wearing your raw file out to dinner!

All anyone sees is the finished JPEG. Nobody knows how you got there but you. Give me the latitude of Raw any day.

[Matt Ashmore]

I guess the biggest advantage to shooting in JPEG rather than RAW is that it potentially speeds up your workflow which might be useful if you shoot a lot of Live News and need to try and beat the opposition.

Otherwise, I would just say do whatever works for you and gives you the best results.

[Jill Morgan]

So much flexibility with RAW I just can't see submitting an out of camera jpg every time.  So easy to make adjustments that are non destructive without having to resort to layers.

 

Jill

[TokyoM1ke]

So much flexibility with RAW I just can't see submitting an out of camera jpg every time.  So easy to make adjustments that are non destructive without having to resort to layers.

 

Jill

True Jill but worth noting that you can import JPGs into LR/ACR and apply the same non-destructive changes, if not as effectively.

 

But on a different point, the real difference, depending on your camera, is that most RAW files have at least 12 bit colour depth (that's 4,096 levels in each of the colour channels, Red, Green and Blue) while the JPGs allowed on Alamy only have 8 bit colour (256 levels in each of the colour channels). Of course you are converting to JPG but before you do you can usually recover detail and generally change with the look better when you have a larger number of steps in each of the colours.  Of course if you do the conversion in-camera then you have to be confident that your camera is doing a good enough job under the circumstances - perhaps fine for a well-lit red carpet but less so for those bats flitting in front of a full moon.

 

I should add that RAW files can go up to 16 bit (65,536) colour for some of the crazier kit (the new 100 MP Phase One) but 14 bit depth is not unusual nowadays (16,384).  To my mind, much more important than relatively small changes to resolution.

 

Edit: to clarify - the reason I'm talking about colour channels separately is that each pixel on your sensor (element of data in your RAW file) records information for a single colour. So the total number of colours available by combining the three channels is somewhat misleading (the numbers are huge and eclipse the important point which is the detail that can be recovered per channel).

 

Please forgive me if I'm in grandmother and eggs territory.

[dustydingo]

Restricting my comments to stock photography . . .

I was traipsing about in my garden last night, the night pitch black and full of the wonders of Australian summer insect night-life, armed with camera and flash, as I have the most magnificent Pitahaya flowering (aka Dragon Fruit) . . . bear with me, I get to the point soon . . .

It's the first flowering of this particular species in my garden, the whole family loves the fruit, plus I have a very specific, specialised path planned for these images stock-wise, so I took a bucketload of photos, perched on a variety of chairs, tables, bamboo frames etc etc, half hanging from overhead grapevine, balancing camera and a small torch for avoiding previously mentioned insect life and to assist focusing. But I got exactly the images I sought.

Loaded them into computer, sorted for suitability etc, and opened the first in PS . . . and realised I'd shot it in JPG--camera thus configured from previous day's test shots for timelapse experiment (timelapse experiments, drafts of technique if you like, are transitory and don't get post-processing--they are simply to try out different techniques before they are despatched to the great universal trash bin and I commit to taking the "real" sequence . . . in RAW :-) ).

So . . . with the fact these images are bound for a very particular future as stock photos, meaning I require the absolute best images my camera is capable of producing, and then in turn the best I am capable of producing, meaining in turn I need maximum flexibility in processing, there was to me absolutely no question--I reloaded the gear, steeled myself against the so-far avoided insect-life, and did it all again . . . this time in RAW.

Although my camera of course gives me the option of JPG and RAW, for images that are bound for the open stock market and therefore competing with some of the best there is, as far as I'm concerned, there simply is no choice to make . . . even if it means braving, twice in one night, my outside garden and all its little inhabitants :-)

dd

[Davey Towers]

A long time ago in a galaxy far away!!!!! I was led to believe that shooting in JPEG was a not so good idea because each time you "save" a JPEG file you loose a tiny bit of information from the said file. Eventually degrading the original image. Whereas, you loose nothing when saving RAW. But, and there's always a but, I'm no tech guy so maybe this theory was made redundant as technology advanced!!!!

[TokyoM1ke]

A long time ago in a galaxy far away!!!!! I was led to believe that shooting in JPEG was a not so good idea because each time you "save" a JPEG file you loose a tiny bit of information from the said file. Eventually degrading the original image. Whereas, you loose nothing when saving RAW. But, and there's always a but, I'm no tech guy so maybe this theory was made redundant as technology advanced!!!!

A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out).

[dustydingo]

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far away!!!!! I was led to believe that shooting in JPEG was a not so good idea because each time you "save" a JPEG file you loose a tiny bit of information from the said file. Eventually degrading the original image. Whereas, you loose nothing when saving RAW. But, and there's always a but, I'm no tech guy so maybe this theory was made redundant as technology advanced!!!!

A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out).

 

 

I really do need to update my knowledge of JPGs . . . I was positive that, as Davey states, every time you save a jpg you lose some data.

 

dd

[TokyoM1ke]

 

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far away!!!!! I was led to believe that shooting in JPEG was a not so good idea because each time you "save" a JPEG file you loose a tiny bit of information from the said file. Eventually degrading the original image. Whereas, you loose nothing when saving RAW. But, and there's always a but, I'm no tech guy so maybe this theory was made redundant as technology advanced!!!!

A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out).

 

 

I really do need to update my knowledge of JPGs . . . I was positive that, as Davey states, every time you save a jpg you lose some data.

 

dd

 

Sorry, wording was sloppy - there is always some loss if you re-encode each time.

 

You only get it once if you save to JPG in camera

Then once more if you modify using LR or ACR (but only once, even if you make multiple changes).

[Jill Morgan]

 

 

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far away!!!!! I was led to believe that shooting in JPEG was a not so good idea because each time you "save" a JPEG file you loose a tiny bit of information from the said file. Eventually degrading the original image. Whereas, you loose nothing when saving RAW. But, and there's always a but, I'm no tech guy so maybe this theory was made redundant as technology advanced!!!!

A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out).

 

 

I really do need to update my knowledge of JPGs . . . I was positive that, as Davey states, every time you save a jpg you lose some data.

 

dd

 

Sorry, wording was sloppy - there is always some loss if you re-encode each time.

 

You only get it once if you save to JPG in camera

Then once more if you modify using LR or ACR (but only once, even if you make multiple changes).

 

 

Is this not the main reason to do jpg only? Otherwise you are having to save to tiff and then back to jpg.

 

Jill

[TokyoM1ke]

 

 

 

 

A long time ago in a galaxy far away!!!!! I was led to believe that shooting in JPEG was a not so good idea because each time you "save" a JPEG file you loose a tiny bit of information from the said file. Eventually degrading the original image. Whereas, you loose nothing when saving RAW. But, and there's always a but, I'm no tech guy so maybe this theory was made redundant as technology advanced!!!!

A lot depends on the JPG and this doesn't happen in LR or ACR, of course. But you always lose the additional colour depth on the first save (in camera or out).

 

 

I really do need to update my knowledge of JPGs . . . I was positive that, as Davey states, every time you save a jpg you lose some data.

 

dd

 

Sorry, wording was sloppy - there is always some loss if you re-encode each time.

 

You only get it once if you save to JPG in camera

Then once more if you modify using LR or ACR (but only once, even if you make multiple changes).

 

 

Is this not the main reason to do jpg only? Otherwise you are having to save to tiff and then back to jpg.

 

Jill

 

It's the reason to do JPG only once and not to modify the image once you've saved as JPG. I suppose that would be the best way to put it. In LR/ACR you don't save to TIFF, you save adjustments to the original (RAW or JPG) and only save to JPG when you export.

 

All of this is a bit moot really - ultimately it's a matter of which workflow gets you to the end result you want, at the quality you want. A recurring fault of mine to think about optimising the technical side first before looking at what I want the end result to be. I'd be amazed if the losses from 2 JPG saves would be enough to cause significant problems in Alamy.

[spacecadet]

I did the experiment years ago. There's no discernible loss  after a dozen jpg re-saves at PS 12.

[MDM]

I  have been with Alamy since 2006, my sales are fine.

Some members tell me that shooting RAW is no longer in style.

They shoot Large JPEG's. Can anyone offer some help on this topic.?

 

The idea that raw is out of style is silly. JPEGS may have improved but you lose control if you don't shoot raw. These are a few of the reasons to shoot raw: dynamic range (highlight and shadow detail), white balance, exposure latitude, noise control, capture sharpening, bit depth. 

 

If you want the definitive on why you should shoot raw, then I recommend reading Jeff Schewe's book http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0134033175/ref=rdr_ext_tmb. (the UK link but is available worldwide). 

 

The discussion on re-saving JPEGs and losing quality in that is irrelevant to the original question.

[TokyoM1ke]

 

I  have been with Alamy since 2006, my sales are fine.

Some members tell me that shooting RAW is no longer in style.

They shoot Large JPEG's. Can anyone offer some help on this topic.?

 

The idea that raw is out of style is silly. JPEGS may have improved but you lose control if you don't shoot raw. These are a few of the reasons to shoot raw: dynamic range (highlight and shadow detail), white balance, exposure latitude, noise control, capture sharpening, bit depth. 

 

If you want the definitive on why you should shoot raw, then I recommend reading Jeff Schewe's book http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0134033175/ref=rdr_ext_tmb. (the UK link but is available worldwide). 

 

The discussion on re-saving JPEGs and losing quality in that is irrelevant to the original question.

 

I still think that bit depth is the whole difference (from a purely technical point of view), the others factors are a consequence of having the additional bit depth available.

 

This site has a really good summary of the technical differences: http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/what-is-a-raw-file.html#b

 

I've not read Jeff Schewe's book but was wondering if it's mainly a step-by-step approach? I have someone I want to buy an easy-to-follow, non-mathematical book for to get the started. Does it work on Kindle or would a physical copy be much better? [sorry for going off at a bit of a tangent]

[MDM]

 

 

I  have been with Alamy since 2006, my sales are fine.

Some members tell me that shooting RAW is no longer in style.

They shoot Large JPEG's. Can anyone offer some help on this topic.?

 

The idea that raw is out of style is silly. JPEGS may have improved but you lose control if you don't shoot raw. These are a few of the reasons to shoot raw: dynamic range (highlight and shadow detail), white balance, exposure latitude, noise control, capture sharpening, bit depth. 

 

If you want the definitive on why you should shoot raw, then I recommend reading Jeff Schewe's book http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0134033175/ref=rdr_ext_tmb. (the UK link but is available worldwide). 

 

The discussion on re-saving JPEGs and losing quality in that is irrelevant to the original question.

 

I still think that bit depth is the whole difference (from a purely technical point of view), the others factors are a consequence of having the additional bit depth available.

 

This site has a really good summary of the technical differences: http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/what-is-a-raw-file.html#b

 

I've not read Jeff Schewe's book but was wondering if it's mainly a step-by-step approach? I have someone I want to buy an easy-to-follow, non-mathematical book for to get the started. Does it work on Kindle or would a physical copy be much better? [sorry for going off at a bit of a tangent]

 

 

 

It's not a step-by-step book but it is very clearly written and easy to follow but it's not written for a beginner in photography. It starts with some basic theory on digital imaging and then goes on with several chapters on raw processing in ACR and Lightroom. I've actually got the 2012 edition - the new one has been updated to take account of developments in ACR and LR since 2012.

 

I have been a Jeff Schewe fan for a long time as I originally learnt about raw processing from the Bruce Fraser and Jeff Schewe Real World books. It is available as a Kindle book which is what I now tend to go for as there is a Kindle app for use on computers even if you don't have a Kindle reader (Santa brought me one this Christmas).

 

Martin Evening's Lightroom book is also excellent. It's not step-by-step tutorial style but is a very comprehensive manual. 

 

You might want to take a look at Victoria Bampton's website (http://www.lightroomqueen.com) for your friend as she has a free ebook aimed at beginners. I've not seen it but I would expect it to be very good. 

[spacecadet]

OP, just give it a try. You may only notice the difference in detail at high ISO, but the improvement in brightness range you get at any setting.

I shot both for a while as a trial, but quite soon I stopped bothering. I've even deleted most of the duplicate jpegs now to save space- after all when I need one LR will oblige.

[Broad Norfolk]

Always RAW for me and if I need to save an image in my files after any post processing then I save it as Tiff and 16-bit. It's then easy to convert to jpeg and 8-bit for any other onward use. Separate from stock, this is a good way to go if you send images out to National and International Salons - no image degradation especially if the image is used a number of times.

 

Jim.   

[Phil Robinson]

RAW + JPEG for news shots, for speed.

RAW for everything else.

There may be very little difference in the quality of the results, but if you can have a little bit of extra quality, why not?

[spacecadet]

 if you can have a little bit of extra quality, why not?

....or a QC pass (or 2, or 6) instead of a fail.

[TABan]

I thought I'd pipe in here as I mentioned that I now usually shoot jpeg in another thread. I have never had a QC fail because of a jpeg artifact. I do have occasional failures due to not paying attention. If you look at my Alamy file and can actually tell which photos started off as raw as opposed to jpeg, have at it. I use raw when shooting inside under mixed or tungsten light or when shooting an assignment for a client. Canon's auto white balance is sketchy with tungsten light sources, usually erring on the warm side. I'll also shoot raw when carefully shooting landscapes and other subjects when I'm using a tripod. If I'm slowing down while shooting, I'll take the extra time on the raws.

 

But, if I'm walking around a city, shooting random subjects and street photography, I shoot jpeg. I got into photography decades ago using transparency film, which has way less latitude than even jpegs, so I know how to get exposure right and I know when to bracket. I use Canon's Neutral in camera picture style and turn the sharpening and contrast down a couple notches. The jpegs this produces stand up to most adjustments when necessary. Boosting the vibrance and saturation a bit in Lightroom isn't usually a problem. You can posterize skies if you overdo it, so I don't.

 

My understanding from reading reviews is that some cameras don't produce very good in camera jpegs. Canon's are fine and from what I read, Olympus does a really good job. Some of the others, not so much. So, it may come down to what camera you're using.

[John Mitchell]

I switched from shooting RAW to JPEG for awhile last year. Had no problems with QC, but I became frustrated with not having the RAW files to work with. I also found that shooting JPEG didn't really speed up my workflow significantly. As a result, I went back to shooting RAW. I do occasionally use RAW+JPEG as well for the best of both worlds.

[MircoV]

Both have some advantages.

 

I have a feeling that shooting JPEGs saves time on post processing while loosing time on shooting itself. Raw the other way around.

 

Mirco

[domf]

Thanks Philippe your point, "RAW is like the old negative: the only real proof you are the copyright owner", has convinced me to switch to RAW. Up until now I have been shooting in JPEG because of the convenience and have been wondering whether I should shoot in RAW instead, not anymore.

[Alexandre Fagundes]

When you process a RAW into a JPEG you are doing a destructive process, there is no turning back from the RAW to the JPEG.

If you let the camera do this for you you are loosing an important part of the creative process and letting the camera do it for you.

If you later process the jpeg files than you are loosing quality

During those digital years, (I´ve been shooting digital since 2004), I have seen a lot of upgrades in the RAW converter softwares.

This allows me, or even encourage me to go back to those old images and process them again, just to realize new potential on those images.

Its not only better quality, more detail, etc, but sometimes I try to process it differently, in B&W for instance, apply new filters, use new techniques I discovered on the way.

So, yes, files are much larger, but I go for it, larger memory cards and so on, but for me is a no brainer.