1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Raw vs jpeg: what think you?

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by crossen, Jan 13, 2015.

  1. crossen

    crossen Mu-43 Regular

    67
    Apr 26, 2014
    Ohio
    Carolyn Hammett (http://www.pbase.com/chammett) shoots JPEGS only. http://www.pbase.com/chammett A well known art historian, and an art and architecture photographer.

    Marco Nero (www.pbase.com/nero) shoots only JPEGS. A leading professional photographer in Australia.

    Gianni Galassi (giannigalassi.typepad.com) shoots only JPEGs. Three published books of his photos, five exhibitions in leading Italian museums.

    How can they attain this level of quality using jpeg?

    Would they do much better if they shot in RAW?

    Puzzled.

    Crossen
     
  2. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I couldn't find anything anywhere that categorically states that they just shoot JPG.
     
  3. zathras

    zathras Mu-43 Regular

    161
    Jul 13, 2014
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Chris Nielsen
    If you ask me what I think, I say RAW all the way. I can do things in DxO with RAW that I can't with JPG so it's a no brainer
     
  4. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    As an aside, if you shoot JPG then that's what you have to work with forever, it's a pre-baked image. But if you shoot RAW, then as RAW developers improve (including OEM), you have the ability to do so much more with your original shots.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I think we should be able to convert JPGs to RAW. Why can't that be done?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Unless you want for something not present in your jpg shoot jpg. If you think you may ever want more ( say, because you learn something as you develop) shoot raw. You can always pull the jpg out of the raw anyway.

    Camera JPG
    5369100994_02a897cf9f.

    Tweaked RAW
    5317791259_f5205bb423.

    And another jpg
    CRW_0446-orig.

    Tweaked raw
    CRW_0446.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  7. zathras

    zathras Mu-43 Regular

    161
    Jul 13, 2014
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Chris Nielsen
    How exactly do you propose converting them? The JPG is a compressed image, RAW is not an image but the raw data from the sensor. How do we reconstruct the raw data from the lossy JPG? Can't be done. That's like taking a finished dinner and somehow reconstructing all the ingredients from it.
     
  8. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Why, oh why, can't forums have sarcasm icons?
     
    • Like Like x 4
  9. zathras

    zathras Mu-43 Regular

    161
    Jul 13, 2014
    Waikato, New Zealand
    Chris Nielsen
    Errrrr, too subtle for me mate
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Sorry. :(
     
  11. letsgofishing

    letsgofishing Mu-43 Veteran

    352
    Nov 21, 2012
    South Africa
    Mike Kaplan
    I only shoot RAW - it's abit of a pain processing dozens of images - but the end results are chalk and cheese - so much more contrast/detail can be extracted especially in very high dynamic range images. If all you're going to do wiith your images is post them oon the 'net, then shooot jpeg by all means. If you're printing (large) images, then RAW is the only way to go.
     
  12. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    RAW - no question. I usually shoot both side by side because for most images, for most 'casual' purposes (holiday snaps, documentation, etc.), modern cameras really do have pretty darn great engines. It's also not as if you can't edit JPGs, there's just a lot less latitude for adjustment.

    As soon as the light gets more difficult, or I plan to print nice and large, there's no question that RAW provides better, erm, raw materials to work with.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Klorenzo

    Klorenzo Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 10, 2014
    Lorenzo
    I think there is no big mistery: it takes more attention and more time to make WB, exposure, etc. right in the camera (grey cards, expo disk, good eye, grad filters, exp bracketing, etc.). RAW can help to fix a few errors and get some "special effects" (open shadows, recovery highlights, etc.) but it is not something that every style of photography requires. Sometimes you do not want even an hint of the HDR look. Good jpegs accepts a few tweaks anyway.

    Maybe shooting RAW they would get sloppy and get worst. Maybe they just hate working on the computer. I think it really does not really matter which "files" do you shoot, to me it feels a lot like the gear debate: what would they do with better gear?

    I usually shoot raw because it is more easy to "fix" my errors.
     
  14. Jpeg does not automatically equal poor technical image quality; far from it. You also don't need to do huge shadow and highlight recovery with every image; have you seen how the proliferation of cheaper 36x24mm Sony sensor cameras combined with heavy-handed processing has brought back the infamous HDR look in a big way? Lastly, producing images for sale, publication, display/exhibition or printing is far more dependent on content than it is the last few degrees of technical image quality.
     
  15. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I thought this would get the point across. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :wink: :wink: :wink: :wink: :biggrin:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I think taking RAW only can make a photographer sloppy, knowing that it can be fixed in post production, but I prefer the best of both options, taking RAW & JPEG, then I can be a sloppy photographer & sometimes I get lucky with an occasional good JPEG. :rolleyes: :wink: :tongue:
     
  17. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    715
    Jul 23, 2010
    Raw, although I don't always do much with images and could mostly get away with Jpeg its sometimes useful, some of my work is done fast in shall we say the less nice areas of town if I mess up an exposure I have more room for recovery. With live music in some of the smaller places white balance ends up all over the shop, here Raw really comes in to its own, the lighting is constantly changing so I could not even measure it. But there are areas where a Jpeg would be fine; studio shots where you have complete control of the light, sports where you want a higher frame rate. For slow and methodical workers Jpeg could work out fine, you stick the camera on a tripod and can see that it is all good on the camera screen after using a grey card to get the balance right and so on.
     
  18. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    842
    Feb 20, 2013
    Tweak the JPEG
     
  19. pellicle

    pellicle Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 10, 2010
    Southport, OzTrailEYa
    pellicle
    Bet you don't get as good a result. Have a go and post back your results :)
     
  20. drd1135

    drd1135 Zen Snapshooter

    Mar 17, 2011
    Southwest Virginia
    Steve
    You can tweak JPEG but the RAWS are more "tweakable". The JPEGS start as RAWs but throw out information. That extra information makes more adjustments possible with the RAW. One viewpoint is "why not shoot Raw?". They take up more space but SD cards are cheap. The biggest drawback I see is that if you like to shoot rapid fire, RAWs can take longer to write.
     
    • Like Like x 1