I do love jpgs!

[geesbert]

For years i was only shooting raw, i even wouldn't think of buying a camera that wouldn't shoot raw. but recently i got so annoyed by the speed of tethering my 1DSmk3 with my mac that i only tethered small jpgs and kept the raws on card. but after having spent time on developping the raws and then comparing the results to the initial jpgs i must say that the stuff out of the camera is great! i would never shoot a commercial studio job on jpgs, but the quick and dirty daily stuff will be handeled in jpgs more often. i just refuse to sacrifice 20GB of my hard drive space (and double backup!) for a quick editorial shot or an event. the 1ds is such a great camera, but the file sizes are just too often overkill.

i love the idea of having sRAW formats on the new cameras. sraw on the 1dsmk3 doesn't save enough.

[Tim Gray]

I hear what you're saying, but my attitude is that if it's worth saving at all it's worth having in RAW.  I handle the endless sucking up of hard drive space by only saving the 1 in 10 (on average) that I work up plus another 10% of maybes.  The remaining 80% goes in the garbage, and the ones that are worked on are, in fact, saved as JPG as the final step in the wf.  It's the multilayered tiffs that really suck up the space.

If you shoot long enough, eventually you'll end up forgetting to switch back to RAW and end up with a bunch of JPGs when you really wanted the RAWs.

[Panopeeper]

I find it shortsighted to record important images in JPEG format in-camera.

Let's face it: JPEG is crap (it could not keep up with the hardware development). It is dead, on artificial life support. It will be around for decades to come, but only as a legacy method.

From raw one can always create the best possible result (from the given shot), no matter what image storage form is required. JPEG is not good for anything reprocessing, not even for JPEG.

Like Tim, I keep only a part of my shots. I am shooting often with exposure bracketing. Before processing I select the shots with the best exposure and throw away the rest. However, I try to bring out the most from what I keep and still archive the raws (and the raw adjustments as sidecar files).

[David Sutton]

I hear what you're saying, but my attitude is that if it's worth saving at all it's worth having in RAW.  I handle the endless sucking up of hard drive space by only saving the 1 in 10 (on average) that I work up plus another 10% of maybes.  The remaining 80% goes in the garbage, and the ones that are worked on are, in fact, saved as JPG as the final step in the wf.  It's the multilayered tiffs that really suck up the space.

If you shoot long enough, eventually you'll end up forgetting to switch back to RAW and end up with a bunch of JPGs when you really wanted the RAWs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218315\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good advice. In the attached image the photos on the left were shot raw and on the right the same scene in jpeg ( think a 1:1 of the originals). Too much detail lost in the jpegs and the colours harder to get right. It really shows up on prints.
David
[attachment=8166:attachment]

[dalethorn]

.........Too much detail lost in the jpegs and the colours harder to get right. It really shows up on prints.
David
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218367\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I tried shooting RAW's side by side with JPEG's once on my first RAW-capable camera.  Then at home I flopped the RAW's over to JPEG and compared JPEG's from RAW to JPEG's shot as JPEG's.  *Big* difference.  But, if there were a camera that did as good at JPEG processing in-camera as the RAW-to-JPEG processing I did on the computer, then there wouldn't be a difference, theoretically anyway.  And storage?  Never a problem.  Even iPods come with 160 gb drives now.

[Panopeeper]

if there were a camera that did as good at JPEG processing in-camera as the RAW-to-JPEG processing I did on the computer, then there wouldn't be a difference, theoretically anyway

One does notrecord raw data in order to do a simply better job than the in-camera converter is doing; they are good at that. One does it in order to do a different job, a special one, which can not be done in-camera, because it requires decisions based on an the actual image, mostly subjectively.

Plus, there are some tasks, which can not be done from JPEG any more; for example developing two different versions from the same image data.

[David Sutton]

But, if there were a camera that did as good at JPEG processing in-camera as the RAW-to-JPEG processing I did on the computer, then there wouldn't be a difference, theoretically anyway.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218465\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

One does not record raw data in order to do a simply better job than the in-camera converter is doing; they are good at that.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218575\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Depends.
You really see the difference when printing straight from the raw file or a tiff compared to printing from a jpeg. Regardless of whether the jpeg comes from the camera or a converted raw file.

[madmanchan]

The main problem with the camera is that it doesn't really have your brain inside of it. Therefore, the camera has a really tough time figuring out how to process captured images to make them look exactly as __you__ want them to look (and yes, the optimal color rendition, sharpening, noise reduction, etc. will depend on image content, subject, lighting, etc.).

[Panopeeper]

Depends.
You really see the difference when printing straight from the raw file or a tiff compared to printing from a jpeg. Regardless of whether the jpeg comes from the camera or a converted raw file.

Hold on, something is wrong. There is no such thing as printing from a raw file. A raw to JPEG or raw to TIFF conversion occurs even then. The same is true re printing from TIFF: how do you think that TIFF came into being?

A raw to whatever conversion is unavoidable; the question is only which raw converter with which adjustments is producing a result more to your liking.

[lovell]

Disk space is dirt cheap, so why are "large" raw files an issue?

If it's worth shooting, it is worth raw, except perhaps journal/sports/news type applications.

Shooting jpg is to surrender nearly all the control to the camera.  When the camera applies post processing to the just made picture, it does it "big bang", meaning that instead of surgically applying, for example, sharpening, or contrast to specific parts of the picture, it applies the tweek to the entire picture....not good, not good at all.

Often, those that shoot jpg mostly, and complain about how long post processing raws take, are those that don't know PhotoShop, and/or have poor post processing skills...all of which is a very lame excuse to shoot just jpg.

[Panopeeper]

When the camera applies post processing to the just made picture, it does it "big bang", meaning that instead of surgically applying, for example, sharpening, or contrast to specific parts of the picture, it applies the tweek to the entire picture....not good, not good at all

I am with you. I have been recording only raw for several years and the vast majority of my "important" images undergo a process like you described (separating sky, water surfaces, some other parts and applying different processing to them).

However, have you seen the thread "File Delivery - 8bit or 16bit? Sharpened or not?"? Obviously our tiresome process is not everyone's beer (or it does not apply for all branches of photography). In cases, when a universal sharpening is satisfactory (and then probably universal other adjustments as well), then the camera's raw conversion too can be satisfactory.

[lovell]

I am with you. I have been recording only raw for several years and the vast majority of my "important" images undergo a process like you described (separating sky, water surfaces, some other parts and applying different processing to them).

However, have you seen the thread "File Delivery - 8bit or 16bit? Sharpened or not?"? Obviously our tiresome process is not everyone's beer (or it does not apply for all branches of photography). In cases, when a universal sharpening is satisfactory (and then probably universal other adjustments as well), then the camera's raw conversion too can be satisfactory.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218995\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, if anyone is a member of this forum, why would they perceive shooting raw as anything but freakin wonderful?  ;-)  lol

To be fair though, there are times I do apply the "big bang" post processing to raw images, but that is the exception and not the rule.  Raw is about providing one's pictures with infinitely more possabilities then jpg provides.  I think that if there was no digital, our types would have a wet dark room at home, yea?

Otherwise, one should just sign up for a facebook or myspace account yea?  ;-)

I tend to work in layers too, masking here and there, and having this skill means the "big bang" effects of in-camera processing really rub me the wrong way artistically and in regard to image quality in general.

Color me arrogant, but I think I can do a far better job of mastering a picture then any camera.  ;-)

[Peter_DL]

The main problem with the camera is that it doesn't really have your brain inside of it. [{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Fuji for example likes to call it [a href=\"http://www.fujifilm.com/image_intelligence/technology/index.html]Image Intelligence[/url] ™
 
 
 

... but after having spent time on developping the raws and then comparing the results to the initial jpgs i must say that the stuff out of the camera is great! i would never shoot a commercial studio job on jpgs, but the quick and dirty daily stuff will be handeled in jpgs more often.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218311\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Raw + JPG is an option, if you don’t mind the additional disk space.
 
 
 

Let's face it: JPEG is crap (it could not keep up with the hardware development). It is dead, on artificial life support. It will be around for decades to come, but only as a legacy method.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=218318\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Good science requires to refer to a reference in order to define differences and to derive terms such “better”, “worse” or “crap”.
Difficult here as I have to admit:

For example, take the JPG from in-camera conversion as it is, send it to a Fuji Frontier lab for printing while allowing them to do their auto corrections (= reference print).  Alternatively, start with the corresponding Raw file to follow any preferred procedure for processing and maybe Epson printing to the same size (OK this is a limiting factor).

Now compare both prints at normal viewing distance. Perhaps you may wish to consult with a friend in order to reduce the subjective element of judgment. I’m the last one denying the merits of Raw, but the more interesting question (as I find) is about the final percentage of “better” in statistical sense across a variety of images compared.

Another level of complexity can of course be added by adjusting the parameters of in-camera conversion (less Contrast,  etc.) and by allowing some retouching with the resulting JPG as well…

At the end of the day, I think I just can’t agree to the absoluteness of “JPG is crap” versus the initial title “I do love JPGs”.


Peter

--
not far away from Munich

[Tony Beach]

Raw + JPG is an option, if you don’t mind the additional disk space.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=219796\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The problem is that optimal EV is different for each.  Whereas I would want to ETTR with a RAW file, I would want to place the subject in a JPEG at a specific EV.  Shifting EV in JPEGs after WB, tonal curves, and color space and profile are applied will cause problems.

It has been my experience that editing RAW files in 16 bits ironically ends up be more expeditious as well as efficacious than editing 8 bit JPEG files.  I also find it less distracting when I'm shooting to deal with optimal image settings (contrast, saturation, etc) afterwards during image editing -- I prefer to only deal with composition, focus and exposure issues when I'm shooting.

[Tim Lookingbill]

What I'ld wish the camera manufacturers would do is supply adequate contrast control because that's what affects whether you get plugged shadows over retaining decent highlight detail.

I can nail the exposure pretty close with in-camera jpegs even for difficult contrasty scenes and be able to pull usuable detail from the extreme ends of the tonal scale. But I still feel the camera manufacturer's internal curves for my camera, a Pentax K100D, weren't thoroughly thought out or very well tested against real world scenes. If I can pull more data out of the raw file, why couldn't Pentax do as well providing options for less contrast within the in-camera settings?

I often have to apply just a slight bump using curves for the difficult shots when Pentax should have given me the option for a less contrasty setting in my camera. How hard could that've been to do? If they would've given me just one or two extra notches to reduce contrast in the menu, I'ld be shooting jpegs exclusively.

I'm sure there are others with similar contrast issues shooting jpegs with their own camera's. Just seems like a lot of work to have to shoot and process in raw just to apply these subtle types of edits.

[360NikonD300]

RAW is some much more forgiving! On a recent family I considered shooting jpg to save space, but I'm glad I stayed with RAW. When I got home, I processed many of the RAW images as pseudo-HDR in Photomatix. Wow!

[KevinA]

Disk space is dirt cheap, so why are "large" raw files an issue?

Not exactly dirt cheap, but not a reason for me to shoot jpg's. I buy my 1TB drives in batches of 3, so as to have two backups. Last time I parted with nearly  £1k.
My 1DsmkIII does chomp away at the disk space noticeably quicker than my smkII. Because I have no idea how my pictures might be used at a later date, RAW is the only way for me. If I was just shooting throw away local paper stuff I could see the attraction of a quality jpg.

Kevin.

[lovell]

Not exactly dirt cheap, but not a reason for me to shoot jpg's. I buy my 1TB drives in batches of 3, so as to have two backups. Last time I parted with nearly  £1k.
My 1DsmkIII does chomp away at the disk space noticeably quicker than my smkII. Because I have no idea how my pictures might be used at a later date, RAW is the only way for me. If I was just shooting throw away local paper stuff I could see the attraction of a quality jpg.

Kevin.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=221705\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

In the USA, one can pay as low as 40 cents per GB of external HD storage...and if that isn't dirt cheap I don't know what is.

[ndevlin]

The issue with storage is where to put all those fucking hard drives and how to index/catalogue them. If you're at all serious, you are running a double-redundant RAID array.  Raid boxes aren't small. They aren't quiet. And they aren't attractive. That's one down-side to RAW.

The other downside is spending half your life squinting in front of a miserable computer trying to process images.  I shot a friend's wedding in May and still haven't processed all the files. I'm doing another next weekend and it's RAW+jpeg all the way.  I will process the one's that matter, but for 85% of the shots, I expect it won't.

What we REALLY need is a new and better compression standard. I would have thought there's a billion dollars to be made in that.  Nerds: are you listening???

- N.

[Panopeeper]

What we REALLY need is a new and better compression standard. I would have thought there's a billion dollars to be made in that.  Nerds: are you listening???

It is called Microsoft HD Photo or Windows Media Photo.

However, do not count on the best compression out of camera. The processes are very CPU intensive; a caera spitting out five or more images per second can't afford performing a very laborous process.