Raw Or Jpeg

Raw.

raw, because all the info is in the file. why lug a huge camera around, that catches 14bits of data, and then saving it only as a jpg?

---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

RAW because all the setting are not cooked in. Deva Vu on this one.

I shoot RAW also. It's not a style, though, but a format. RAW captures a lot more information than .jpg and will yield better images if you know how to process them well.

Raw. For all of the reasons said by the others.

RAW+Jpeg so I have both. With Raw I always have an original high quality copy.

I only shoot JPEG on some event photography or if shooting for a client or model and that's what they want. Other than that everything is RAW, so I have the most flexibility in post processing. Besides the extended range of luminosity I like the fact that I can adjust the white balance after the fact.

RAW, for the processing options already mentioned, including the opportunity to adjust the white balance,

Same here as Paul Velgos. RAW for when I need it and also for the archives. It's like a digital negative. I normally edit from the JPEG unless I need the extra control RAW gives me

Raw..
Allows photos to be as large as your camera will make them.

I have a Nikon - I shoot both - sometimes - sometimes just jpeg. I'm not really into post processing - just minor tweaking - cropping and straightening because I have a habit of leaning right.

RAW + jpg - the jpg just in case I need it (maybe not having access to a raw converter sometime), the RAW is the one to work from as it gives the maximum flexibility in processing,

100% JPEG. Pick your tool and master it.

Always Raw for me. I like to capture as much data as possible, and have all the highlight and shadow recovery, and white balance adjustments available in post processing as others have mentioned.

Both for me. Jpg gives me the feeling of freedom to experiment and manipulate, to warp the image out of shape and then bring it back. Raw's more the quest for a certain perfection, a clarity of detail, and a particular translucence.

I could just stick to Raw and quick process into jpg - but why not have both?

Raw

Raw+jpg so both are available as needed.

I vote raw.

I like to shoot mostly jpg. Kind of depends on the camera. My main camera converts jpegs really good, Usually better than the raw. I don't want to do too much post processing especially in portraits. Sometimes I shoot both raw & jpeg for landscapes but mostly jpg.

RAW definitely.

jpg will unusually look better than raw, because raw shows you the file without the contrast and sharpness added. side by side they will look about the same, only raw is usually softer and duller. you have to edit the raw, if you compared the amount of light that is really captured, you wouldn't never go back to jpg.


---Mike Savad
MikeSavad.com

Definitely RAW. With the low cost of card and disk storage, the speed of Lightroom processing, and the flexibility of post using RAW, I wouldn't shoot anything else. Even with casual shots as I never know when I'll get a keeper.

The more you know the more you will realize you need to shoot in Raw, unless you are just shooting to post pics on the web for friends and family. In Raw you can adjust the exposure, white balance, color algorithm, and everything else that is not available to change in a simple jpeg.

RAW for everything mentioned above... Unless of course my family asks me to take pictures at a birthday, then I just shoot JPEG and send them... LOL

Raw in the kitchen.

I actually think your analogy is off. Jpeg and raw have the same ingredients. They are just premixed in the jpeg.

I could make homemade brownies but really like Ghirardelli dark chocolate premix. Now I may add my own touches like adding mint chips or pecans but I like the ease of the premixed box and the flavor is right what I want

Well, no, some ingredients have been sifted out of the jpg on the grounds that nobody notices them, anyway.
I'm curious as to what is meant by "old school thinking" in Frank's post.
PS: the argument about the amount of space RAW uses was a major issue at one time, but I just bought a 64GB SD card that should hold about 3,000 RAW+large jpg images from a Canon 6D. It cost me about $50. Memory is cheap and plentiful these days.

The simple fact is that JPG discards data, it also changes the image. I've often noticed that, in the case of skies, JPG often adds some magenta elements, which can't be eliminated in post-procession. There are also edge effects and haloes, as well as other artifacts. Why anyone would want to contend with these is beyond me. Worse yet, every time you modify a JPG image, no matter how slightly, it is degraded during the next save due to compression. Nothing "Old School" about any of this.

quote "Well, no, some ingredients have been sifted out of the jpg on the grounds that nobody notices them, anyway"

LMFAO....that right there is the funniest comparison that I have ever heard. Well done!

Yeah, but Murray, you have to edit and resave a jpg at least 20 times before the naked eye can see the difference. I only edit and save a couple of times.

That said, I know there are circumstances where RAW is a better choice. It's just for me personally, those circumstance are pretty rare.

Murray, I think the halos and edge effects are a result of sharpening (possibly aggressive in-camera sharpening) rather than from the jpg conversion. If people switch off internal sharpening then it probably won't happening, but blocky skies ARE a jpg-conversion problem. Trouble is, a lot of people don't even seem to see the halos and jaggies.
Colour shifts are likely to be due to "photo styles" applied in camera - again, these can usually be switched off, but then you end up with a dull looking picture (i.e. like the RAW output) and need to know how to edit it yourself, which is not easy.

I'm not real sure why feel they have to justify what they shoot and why. It's pointless. It's Ford vs. Chevy. Each has advantages and disadvantages. Better is relative. Neither is better. There are good and valid reasons for shooting both. Arguing about which is better is like a painter and a sketch artist trying to convince one another that their medium is better.

A couple of misconceptions have been thrown about:

Storage space for RAW? Hard drives are cheap.

RAW is old school thinking? Only if you think processing RAW is limited to the choices in software like Digital Camera Professional. Packages like Adobe Lightroom go far beyond old style RAW processing and allow for selective editing, dodging, burning, and all sorts of other things that the camera processor could never do.

JPG is inferior to RAW. Just look at the work folks who shoot JPG do. Can you really say they are inferior?

Bottom line, it doesn't matter what you prefer. It's the end product that counts.

Murray, edge effects and halos have a lot to do with conversion from 16 bit to 8 bit. Convert a 16 bit to an 8 bit tiff. You'll see a lot of jpg like artifacts.

That's false logic, Chuck. Just because someone can produce better work than me when I shoot RAW and they shoot JPG doesn't say anything about the respective merits of the two options. It just means that I am up against someone better than me and he or she has been able to work very well within the limits they have imposed on themselves.
RAW has all the information that the camera recorded at the time, jpg has discarded a lot of that information. There may or may not be enough info left in the jpg file to allow it to produce the best possible output - but vital info may have been thrown out before the photographer even sees it, in which case the image ends up in the bin instead of on FAA.
As I said earlier, I've lost a lot of important files because I tried to save disk space and stick to jpg in the past. My comments in this thread are simply designed to help people not to make the mistake I made, nothing to do with self-justification.
My guess is that the less people know about photography, the more likely they are to shoot jpg (that was the case with me) - and that is exactly at the point in their development where they are likely to need RAW most to rescue them from mistakes. Expert photographers can probably tell whether or not they need RAW files at the time of shooting and switch accordingly (not worth the bother, really) because there are lots of times when you really don't need them, but there are other circumstances when you certainly do.

Know the pros and cons of each, and use what works best for your individual needs. There really isn't a point in bantering about what is better. For me, I notice the difference and limitations of JPEG when editing, for the type of work I do. I shoot RAW, because it works better for me, and my style. I'm typically shooting right on the borderline of what a single file can handle in dynamic range.

If I were shooting sports on a tight deadline, I would probably use JPEG.

Just don't be one of those fools that shoots JPEG and then brags about not doing any post production with this stupid "pure photography" movement claiming it's more "realistic" some how. Because doing so shows a fundamental lack of knowledge in regards to photography and how the camera records a scene. Congrats, the camera did it for you, and yes, I'm sure the trees were actually pitch black when you looked at them in real life mid day LMAO

Newspaper photographers will normally shoot jpgs and often at very small sizes (though sports 'togs might want larger images in order to be able to crop heavily) since newspapers don't need 30MP images to fill a six-inch wide hole and don't want the pictures altered.

Paul -- I'm sorry you lost those images and it seems you're really hurt by that experience. Could it be from years ago when there was high compression jpg files? Today, if you have a newer DSLR jpg compression is very low, and I would even say not existent . (NOTE: As of 2012 I know of no camera whose JPG quality is too low to warrant using RAW for general shooting purposes.). At least the human eye can't see it.


Murray -- the effects you describe, from my experience, is from your camera and not the jpg file itself.

Frank, I have to disagree. I've seen those phenomena in different cameras and across different brands. Oh yeah, and I did forget the skies where differences in color or brightness are severe and observable. This is a JPG thing and the transitions are much smoother in RAW.

Fair enough, Murray, ..... Did you happen to read the articles I linked to? It explains this in more detail.

It is said more and more that the new iPhones, for example, are more a computer in your hand than a smartphone. Likewise with the new DSLR's and processing software in them. In fact, I heard Nikon is coming out with a DSLR that shoots jpg only. And a recent Pentax removed its PEF / RAW including only DNG and jpg. Instead of buying an upgrade to LR we should be looking at camera software. Unless of course you over process like Savad does ( I mean that Mike in a positive way ).

Most of the time RAW ( NEF for nikon ) for art photography and commissioned work. ( not always ).
For event photography when the next day I have to process 800 files then I prefer JPG.

Hard drives are only cheap when you are not budgeted to the penny. Cheap is relative.

Yes, Frank, I read your blog and looked at the links. They're more about the nature of seeing (and processing sight) than about what cameras record. Sort of off the point, I thought. The observations in the blog are pretty much true, though. But what I'm talking about are visual imperfections in a JPG image compared with the more 'true' RAW capture. I think that there is (still) enough difference to justify RAW shooting unless there are dozens or hundreds of images to be processed, and a client who doesn't care if the images could be a bit better.

Thanks, Murray, now I understand where you're coming from.

I don't want to change the topic of,this thread nor be a troll ( any more than I have ) but I have one more question ...


You said " I've seen those phenomena in different cameras and across different brands. " .... Where those cameras by chance older than 2012?

Frank, some yes, some no.

Thanks Murray!!

What happens when you save a jpeg 600 times: http://vimeo.com/3750507

And a blog with jpeg images resaved: http://www.steves-digicams.com/knowledge-center/jpeg-images-counting-your-losses.html I don't see any serious change on those images until the 4th generation, but they are small. Larger images would probably show a lot more breaking down.

His last line sums it all up: "Bottom line: choose what works for you, but be sure to take the pros/cons of each format into consideration."

Frank - no they were not high compression jpg files, they were saved at level 12. I'm not "hurt" by the loss of those files, I'm annoyed by it because it was it was unnecessary. I suspect a lot of people here would not consider that the problems with them are serious enough to matter but I'm a pixel-peeper from the microstock world and if digital image quality isn't superb then I'm going to reject it. It's not about old cameras having poor quality jpg compression, either: up-to-date cameras will give you fewer jpg problems because of their improved sensors but if you are dealing with a scene with a high dynamic range then the image is automatically going to suffer if it is converted to jpg before manual processing.
Above all, RAW/NEF is a form of insurance - oh, and if you have the only RAW version of an image, it also acts as proof of ownership in the event of someone else claiming to own your photo - there has been at least one case of that happening.
PS: I just read your blog and I have to take issue with some of it - how can you claim that a jpg out of a camera is uncompressed when the file size is significantly less than the size of the RAW file? That happens because where colours in adjacent pixels are near identical the jpg conversion averages them and treats them as a single colour. It doesn't seem to make any difference to the finished image because the human eye cannot discern the difference between these colours, but if you start trying to brighten up dark areas then you get to the point where the eye can see the difference and that is what ruins the image. If the brightness falls outside the visible range, the information is removed.
What has changed in the last decade is not the manufacturers' compression of the jpg file, it is the dynamic range of the camera sensor. The broader range of light the sensor is capturing is reflected in wider tonality of the jpg, it has nothing to do with memory storage.
I think to some extent you are confusing lost information with lost dynamic range. The two are quite different. The dynamic range in the jpg will reflect the dynamic range of the sensor, so of course it will be wider than that of a narrow-range film, such as Velvia. But just as you can go hunting in the darkroom for extra information in the dark area of a B+W neg, beyond what normally prints, so you can in a digital file. If the negative is over-developed then the information in the blacks will have been smothered and you won't be able to extract it whatever you do; if you start with a jpg you won't be able to find information beyond what is normally going to print because the "invisible" information was deleted.
To take it a bit further, as you know a B&W neg could have 14 or 15 stops of dynamic range but the paper you printed it on only had four or five stops, so in the darkroom you had to choose the correct exposure for the subject, bits falling outside that range were either blocked in or burned out. A RAW file is like that negative, a jpg file is like the finished print - the invisible bits aren't there any more.
I also disagree with the idea that photographers are trying to mimic reality - they are actually trying to exaggerate or twist it. Reality per-se simply isn't that interesting! Look at the best selling pictures, they are invariably startlingly coloured, air brushed or have some other eye-catching difference from the real world. But if you start with a jpg that mimics reality, then stretching and twisting the colours to make eye-candy may go beyond the limits where the image breaks up. Of course, you can go too far with RAW, too - but it's a longer journey before you get there.
Dan Heller is a good photographer and a useful source of information but he's not necessarily always right. "Arguments from authority" are not proof that information is correct.

Paul. -- thanks for your passion about photography and this subject. The topic of this thread is what format you shoot and why ( not RAW vs. JPG ). With respect to the OP its best we take this conversation elsewhere. To answer your statement though, with regards to compression, I will compromise that both the lossley compression and dynamic range play into the improvements in jpg photography, because it is true. I also agree that not everything Dan Heller says is accurate, but I believe 99% of it is. You must be confusing him with Ken Rockwell, who also shoots jpg by the way ( http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm ), but is less scientific and Dan? Now if both of these photo gurus are saying generally the same thing, and their articles are now ancient when it comes to technology, just think of the improvement in jpg photography we have today!!
I value what Dan Heller says because everything I have implemented, from how I sell RM images, to my photo work flow, even how I present my bio on my sites, has turned to gold for me.

With that said, if you want to continue this conversation I invite you over to my blog post that I linked to.

http://fineartamerica.com/blogs/raw-vs-jpg-images.html

Again, as I first said in this thread, find your tool and master it.

RAW. Because I plan on editing every keeper, and want all those bits of info.

Daniel

Actually, shooting raw is the only way to prove the Bigfoot shot you captured hasn't been altered.

shoot jpeg is only useful for those professionals who need to immediately send a file for publication (sports, journalism etc)

This really is personal choice. Neither is just "better". Like many people have posted, one of them may work better for you depending on your situation. Need to send a file quickly right after shooting? JPEG. Need more options to adjust white balance and other settings? RAW. Need to save file space? JPEG.

For me personally, I edit my images pretty heavily. I originally shot in JPEG and found that I was having problems with the quality of the final JPEG file because of all of the adjustments. Banding, noise blobs, and so on. I then tried doing the same editing using the RAW version. The final JPEG had much better quality with fewer problems. Ever since then I start my workflow by editing RAW. If I didn't do much or any editing, I may not have had a reason to use RAW.

My cameras are all set to RAW+JPEG on the highest quality so I have both for any situation. I have a 4TB main drive and a 4TB for backup so even with 65000 files space isn't an issue for me yet. By the time I run out of space in 2-3 years there will probably be 8TB drives for $150. And if space becomes a problem I can always delete unneeded files or decide to just delete all RAWs or all JPEGs to conserve space.

Use what works better for you.