DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> RAW vs JPEG Debate
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 64, (reverse)
AuthorThread
07/12/2007 05:21:15 AM · #1
Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. I wish to share with you some of my own observations and how it might aid in your decision as to which to choose. It will not be a technical discourse as I am not in a position to do so. It will be based on my observations and how the decision will affect the final outcome i.e. the print media.

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 08:52:43.
07/12/2007 05:27:01 AM · #2
Originally posted by benjikan:

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compresssion and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening.


and it's important to note that most of us has no issue listening to MP3 music on our stereo systems without complaints of quality loss ;)
07/12/2007 06:24:21 AM · #3
Well, I agree with RAW usage for artistic pictures, not for the higher quality (the human eye will probably not see the difference between a good quality JPEG and a RAW for most of the times) but for the advantages that it brings in editing the picture without degrading it.

However, I see no reason to shoot in RAW for every day picture. Im refering to those pictures that will probably never enter a competition - family portraits - or will never be heavily edited. As I said, the differences are minimal to the human eye.
07/12/2007 06:50:48 AM · #4
I think it all really depends on the assignment. I have two modes when I'm shooting pictures: my artistic photography mode and my casual point and shoot mode. I usually shoot in JPEG for events that are not particularly important and I KNOW that I'm not going to do any post processing i.e. going out clubbing, parties, or everyday occasions. However, I'll shoot in RAW if I'm planning a shoot with a model or a specific event that entails something significant. If I'm not quite sure what I want to do with the pictures, Iíll either shoot in both RAW and JPEG or just simply RAW. There's no reason why you should cut yourself short on the quality of pictures if you have the option to shoot in RAW. If space/storage is an issue, erase the outtakes or get an external hard drive for $120 (it's well worth the price). To me, the answer is simple: shoot in RAW if you care about your shots...if not, then shoot in JPEG.
07/12/2007 07:06:46 AM · #5
To add to this discussion, ' . substr('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31_N.gif', strrpos('//www.dpchallenge.com/images/user_icon/31_N.gif', '/') + 1) . ' ronbigelow has a website with a number of excellent articles, including this one on reasons for using RAW over JPEG, even if they're "everyday" pictures. It's worth reading.

07/12/2007 07:07:02 AM · #6
DNG.
07/12/2007 07:25:35 AM · #7
with new conversion tools/software like Lightroom I've stopped shooting jpg entirely. It's a hell of a lot easier now.
07/12/2007 08:04:31 AM · #8
Lets say your shooting a kids sporting event and your selling the pictures at the event. Your shooting 1200 pictures a day. Good luck converting all those raw files in time to show them. I can't think of another time I would shoot jpg.
07/12/2007 08:06:15 AM · #9
Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

DNG.


Good point. If you are shooting for future generations, RAW is probably not the best choice. It is likely jpeg conversion will be available in 100 years. I doubt it will be easy to find RAW conversion software for many cameras. Will DNG be available? Who knows.
07/12/2007 08:16:36 AM · #10
Originally posted by cloudsme:

Originally posted by Man_Called_Horse:

DNG.


Good point. If you are shooting for future generations, RAW is probably not the best choice. It is likely jpeg conversion will be available in 100 years. I doubt it will be easy to find RAW conversion software for many cameras. Will DNG be available? Who knows.


As far as jpeg conversion, you can walk into the library of congress and get code from a book todo it. For now well stick to getting off the internet or prewritten object libraries.

DNG isnt one universal format its like a quasi container format and if you dont domasiacise (cant spell) the image soem DNG readers wont be able to convert it.

However if its supposed to be open spec, and either way if it ends up like PDF their will be code floating around onhow to write a covnerter yourself.

I wouldnt resort to saying JPEG is anymore future proof then another non raw format, if your that worried then convert to a lossless or lossles container format. Uncompressed Tif, mind as well make it a bmp same thing. LZW Compressed Tif? Could also consider PNG its open spec and open source as well, weather either will be around dunno. But atleast you didnt use jpeg to archive your raw's!

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 08:22:08.
07/12/2007 08:56:19 AM · #11
Originally posted by Niten:

...Your shooting 1200 pictures a day. Good luck converting all those raw files in time to show them.


It's no big deal on a Mac. iPhoto and Aperture handle RAW files just as easily as JPEGs, and you can batch convert all the files for white balance, saturation etc. in no time. The only reason for me to shoot JPEG anymore is Minimal Editing. ;-)
07/12/2007 08:59:49 AM · #12
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Niten:

...Your shooting 1200 pictures a day. Good luck converting all those raw files in time to show them.


It's no big deal on a Mac. iPhoto and Aperture handle RAW files just as easily as JPEGs, and you can batch convert all the files for white balance, saturation etc. in no time. The only reason for me to shoot JPEG anymore is Minimal Editing. ;-)


Yeah scalvert even if it was 12,000 most people arent like me, If it can be done in batch then wtf is ur problem. Set it up and goto bed or even if its early go out with your siginifigant other go see a movie goto dinner. When you get back itll be done or alot will be done.

I scan 35mm Negatives at 4800 dpi, WITH Infrared dust reduction passes. They take 6 to 11 minutes per frame and the scanner holds 12 frames. Not only that I can set each individual image to different settings. Ill do that and go take a shower or go watch some tv, eat dinner go out whatever.

Dont waste time waiting for it to be done go do something with yourself!
07/12/2007 09:37:23 AM · #13
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Niten:

...Your shooting 1200 pictures a day. Good luck converting all those raw files in time to show them.


...you can batch convert all the files for white balance, saturation etc. in no time. The only reason for me to shoot JPEG anymore is Minimal Editing. ;-)


Yeah scalvert even if it was 12,000 most people arent like me, If it can be done in batch then wtf is ur problem. Set it up and goto bed or even if its early go out with your siginifigant other go see a movie goto dinner. When you get back itll be done or alot will be done.


The point was made for on-site sales of event photography.
Like a Prep State Basketball tourney where you are selling actual prints literally seconds/minutes after they are transferred (or shot if sending wirelessly to the kiosks).
Someone doing this should be able to nail there exposures and white balance pretty decently so adding extra time for a RAW workflow wouldn't help in this situation.
The key is to be as efficient as possible.

But I totally agree with the batch it up and do something else concept for the non time critical.
07/12/2007 09:42:25 AM · #14
Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Niten:

...Your shooting 1200 pictures a day. Good luck converting all those raw files in time to show them.


It's no big deal on a Mac. iPhoto and Aperture handle RAW files just as easily as JPEGs, and you can batch convert all the files for white balance, saturation etc. in no time. The only reason for me to shoot JPEG anymore is Minimal Editing. ;-)


You can batch process RAW files using RawShooter Essentials too, so us PC users don't have an excuse either.

One argument I have heard in favor of jpeg though is for those people that shoot sporting events and want to shoot in burst without filling up their buffer after 3 shots. However, I think most higher end serious amateur/pro cameras can really go to town in burst mode now, even with RAW files, so I think that's becoming less of a valid argument.
07/12/2007 09:47:09 AM · #15
Originally posted by jpeters:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by Niten:

...Your shooting 1200 pictures a day. Good luck converting all those raw files in time to show them.


It's no big deal on a Mac. iPhoto and Aperture handle RAW files just as easily as JPEGs, and you can batch convert all the files for white balance, saturation etc. in no time. The only reason for me to shoot JPEG anymore is Minimal Editing. ;-)


You can batch process RAW files using RawShooter Essentials too, so us PC users don't have an excuse either.

One argument I have heard in favor of jpeg though is for those people that shoot sporting events and want to shoot in burst without filling up their buffer after 3 shots. However, I think most higher end serious amateur/pro cameras can really go to town in burst mode now, even with RAW files, so I think that's becoming less of a valid argument.


I barely think that's an issue now... even the D200 with a lower end 4gig card can buffer at least 20 shots in a burst, and frankly if you need more then that, get a video camera
07/12/2007 10:49:40 AM · #16
Originally posted by cudjoem:



I barely think that's an issue now... even the D200 with a lower end 4gig card can buffer at least 20 shots in a burst, and frankly if you need more then that, get a video camera


Precisely.
07/12/2007 11:02:59 AM · #17
If you want to do some postprocessing, then RAW is viable. If you don't, it's not.

I don't think there's one answer for everyone, and it comes across as pretty arrogant to say that if you care about your shots, shoot in RAW. I doubt that's how you meant it, but it's how it sounds.

What's DNG?

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 11:03:19.
07/12/2007 11:16:55 AM · #18
DNG is is Adobe's Digital negative format it come as a converter from adobes website for ACR 3.5 and up.
07/12/2007 11:26:07 AM · #19
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

DNG is is Adobe's Digital negative format it come as a converter from adobes website for ACR 3.5 and up.


What's ACR?
07/12/2007 11:28:46 AM · #20
Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

DNG is is Adobe's Digital negative format it come as a converter from adobes website for ACR 3.5 and up.


What's ACR?


Adobe Camera Raw
07/12/2007 11:28:54 AM · #21
Originally posted by levyj413:

Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

DNG is is Adobe's Digital negative format it come as a converter from adobes website for ACR 3.5 and up.


What's ACR?


Adobe Camera Raw the plugin in photoshop, bridge, and lightroom used for raw conversion. Sorry even on their site they say ACR and DNG so i just go by the acronyms.
07/12/2007 01:05:48 PM · #22
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

Adobe Camera Raw the plugin in photoshop, bridge, and lightroom used for raw conversion. Sorry even on their site they say ACR and DNG so i just go by the acronyms.


Thanks! I've never been on the Web site and I'm new to RAW.
07/12/2007 01:29:09 PM · #23
Raw-smaw. IMHO you hit it right with Large JPEG and go on. I shoot 1000-1500 frames a week some weeks and I dont want to deal with the files, neither do the editors. They want ready to print JPEGs and thats what they get. I have shot RAW once in the past 15k frames I have shot and that was at the request of an advertising agency who specifically requested it. IMHO raw has it uses and so does JPEG, for me JPEG is what I use.

Example Monday night I shoot 2 LL ball games leave the park at 9:20PM drive 15 minutes home and have a 10:30PM deadline to have photos to the paper. Do you really think I have the time or the energy after working since 7:30AM to deal with 165 RAW files?

MattO
07/12/2007 01:43:57 PM · #24
165 raw files even in slow Photoshop automaticlt coverting to 8 or 16 bit tiffs automatice an hour maybe, but you have a dealine so might not have it.? I did 230 in an hour they were only 6 megapixel raw's from a fuji.

Thats an hour you could spend editing, true but if you have that hour then its okay sleep for 15 mintues 30 minutes and then 15 again while it processes. I say that becasue 45 or more minutes and you wont wake up lol.

But yeah I mean if u need to i guess so. If your using bridge to view which ones are witch I dont see any more then a few added secons per image. How much time in opening up a few files do you really spend in conversion.

Open up acr/file. White balance, 16 bit, tiff, open. Then edit. Youd dont have to use all the benifits of the converter to avoid the damaging compression of jpeg.

But it goes both ways and your correct it can be application dependant.

Message edited by author 2007-07-12 13:44:22.
07/12/2007 01:45:12 PM · #25
Originally posted by RainMotorsports:

165 raw files even in slow Photoshop automaticlt coverting to 8 or 16 bit tiffs automatice an hour maybe, but you have a dealine so might not have it.? I did 230 in an hour they were only 6 megapixel raw's from a fuji.


But you're missing the question of WHY? He doesn't need to. His editors don't want him to preserve every image in RAW.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 11/26/2020 05:05:51 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 11/26/2020 05:05:51 PM EST.