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

The 'RAW vs JPEG' Depot

Discussion in 'Back Room' started by Amin Sabet, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    This thread will serve as a place to move any "RAW vs JPEG" discussion which finds its way into places where it does not belong :wink:.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    It seems we have carried our jpeg/in-camera processing argument off into other threads, so I would like to see if there is any interest in picking it back up with this thread?

    I have found the various RAW vs. JPEG discussions useful in that it has made me aware of why I like in camera processing. It gets down to where you want to do the bulk of your creative work. Do you want to do it in the field, with the camera, working with your subject and the light present at the time? Or do you want to do it after the fact, in front of your computer screen, with elegant software?

    Do you want the luxury of unlimited options to put forth any and all artistic visions after you get home, in which case the camera must give you every possible vision for you to work with. Or, do you want to get your artistic vision before the moment of capture, set your camera to give you just what you need for that vision, and bring home just your particular vision? In-camera processing causes you to be more aware of what it is about what you are photographing that attracts you, because setting up the camera becomes intimately part of the creative process.

    With JPEGs you have to get it right the first time. You have to make your decisions about absolutely accurate exposure using the histogram, the right WB that accurately conveys the mood you want, the amount of saturation, sharpness, contrast, and everything else that captures what is happening at the time of capture – the light, the magic, the meaning.

    Since you have to make the right decisions at the time of exposure with in-camera processing, you must become totally aware of what you are seeing, what you are feeling, right then and there. To me, that is the joy of photographing with JPEGs. Not making a photograph afterward among all the possible photographs your camera gives you, but making that one perfect photograph at the time you press the shutter.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. vsiddhartha

    vsiddhartha Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Mar 24, 2011
    New Jersey
    I am a JPEG shooter, but I think you're presenting a bit of an extreme case here. This is a false dichotomy. Shooting RAW does not preclude one from "being totally aware of what they're seeing" or expressing their "artistic vision" at the time of image capture. Likewise, shooting JPEG does not preclude one from touching up the photo on the computer later. JPEG does not require you to get everything "absolutely right and accurate" at the moment you take the shot.

    You are just presenting two extremes of a long continuum where 99% of people fall somewhere in the middle.

    I am all for bringing the discussion back to this thread (that's why I subscribed), but I would suggest let's stick to the original topic, which has nothing to do debating RAW vs JPEG (which is totally unproductive and no fun to read), and more to do with with how to improve the JPEGs coming out of the camera. E.g., talking about which JPEG settings work better under certain conditions, with certain subjects, convey certain moods, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 12
  4. wanjeyin

    wanjeyin Mu-43 Regular

    46
    Mar 1, 2011
    I agree. Let's just leave the debate out of this thread and stick to the original subject.

    Regards,
    AJW
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. mick / Lumix

    mick / Lumix Guest

    169
    Oct 3, 2010
    The Holy Grail - Utopia - Winning Formula.......call it what you like.

    After 40 + years in this game I can now have a little smile, not bad for such a miserable old git.

    No more changing, no more money wasted, no time wasting - I have struck gold !............ and this is IT

    Nice subject (possible) + good light (hope) + G1 + JPEG + Mac

    Eureka ! well each to their own.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    Am not sure what the topic is at this point, but I guess it will all settle out with time.

    I probably did present my thoughts in an extreme fshion, trying to make a point as to what I see as the value of in-camera processing and shooting JPEGs.
     
  7. vsiddhartha

    vsiddhartha Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Mar 24, 2011
    New Jersey
    To be frank, I have seen you make this point in dozens of threads, sometimes multiple times in the thread. We get it. You like JPEGs and in-camera processing. These cameras are amazing.

    Your entire post was premised on "RAW vs JPEG". There was no misinterpretation...

    I can't believe this. Just to make sure...you are trying to argue that you weren't arguing about RAW vs. JPEG?
     
  8. sprinke

    sprinke Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 5, 2011
    Pasadena, CA
    Debi
    I think everyone will (hopefully) find what best works for them. I personally shoot RAW+JPEG. The majority of my photography (which I do not put out publicly) is actually of my son, family, and friends. I do make my best efforts to get it right in-camera but when you are chasing down hyperactive four-year-olds, you don't have time to be fiddling with settings or you'll miss the moment. Thankfully, a lot of my shots are "good enough" in the JPEG version and I just immediately load those up to Flickr to share without any post-processing. But sometimes I get excellent shots that are just a little off in one way or another, and RAW gives me the flexibility to try and fix the flaws and end up with something special (or at least acceptable compared to the JPEG). And for "art" photography, I love being able to push and pull in post with the RAW images.

    So, I try to take the best of both worlds.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. pjohngren

    pjohngren Mu-43 Top Veteran

    560
    Oct 15, 2010
    OK, and for consistancy I can assume we won't have to hear any more about the virtues of RAW either. It will be nice to get back to photography.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    I am hoping this was merged in from another thread, because that is NOT the point of this one as Amin posted it ... this thread is for the RAW vs JPG debate ... and I won't be reading much of it. I spend enough time sitting in front of a computer at work, I don't need my "recreation" to require more of that, thankyouverymuch.

    There is another thread in the Panasonic camera section where people are posting up their JPG engine settings, and I will be absolutely following that one closely, as it's pretty amazing what can be done.
     
  11. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Yes this was merged.

    Sent from my Nexus S using Mu-43 App
     
  12. fastcar888

    fastcar888 Mu-43 Regular

    71
    Apr 2, 2011
    Florida
    I prefer RAW

    Although I am shooting JPEG fine with my Olympus E PL2, there is no doubt that I prefer to shoot in RAW. JPEG has very high quality, but IMO not as good as RAW. Currently, I am waiting for the patch in Aperture's latest version with the E PL2.

    When I used my Nikon DSLR (past), then I shot ONLY in RAW. For me, it gave me additional latitude to make modifications. Sometimes strange light or conditions creates those needs. Given the fact that I enjoy doing post SDHC removal work with Aperture on my Mac (wish I bought 8GB to 16 GB of RAM), it is fun for me. Also, for my needs, the Aperture 3.12 program is extremely powerful and robust. It affords me more choices. Therefore, I opt for RAW.:bravo-009:

    Until Apple comes out with the patch for the Oly E PL2, I will patiently wait and remain satisfied with JPEG fine. It still represents outstanding quality.
     
  13. vsiddhartha

    vsiddhartha Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Mar 24, 2011
    New Jersey
    Yeah tc, that post was originally posted in the JPEG settings thread you're referring to. :2thumbs: And I agree with your sentiments 100%!
     
  14. vsiddhartha

    vsiddhartha Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Mar 24, 2011
    New Jersey
    I can only hope so! But I can't speak for all those guys who have time to burn trying to convince a bunch of anonymi that their way is best!
     
  15. mick / Lumix

    mick / Lumix Guest

    169
    Oct 3, 2010
    Nothing difficult to understand. Why pay good money for Aperture then find that it is no good with GH2 Raw when the GH2 is a fine camera. This would annoy me and I would want my money back !

    The GH2 works well with JPEG so there is the answer !
    Spending time and money on software and RAW seems to be pointless. At best you end up with nothing more than a JPEG will give. The G series cameras allow that many choses with settings that a little understanding and thought will give all you want. I read about the "Raw advantage" then look at the photos of those who support Raw. With some I see a good photo, with many I see a vast contradiction, remember that a photo is worth a thousand words !
     
  16. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Until further notice, all off-topic discussion of RAW vs JPEG will be moved to this thread. If you prefer, the entire post can be moved here, but that will look even more out of context.
     
  17. Bokeh Diem

    Bokeh Diem Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 14, 2010
    Toronto
    Every shot I make that I value I work on post-pro. Both jpeg and Raw get the same attention considering the foregoing... and depending on what I want to do with the shot I either work in jpeg or RAW or both, as I shoot both.

    I really hope this discussion focuses more on the value of working through PP, as opposed to shooting so that no PP is done. I for one cannot imagine the latter.

    Photographers have been doing PP since silver met developing solution and dodging in a light room was discovered... I did it when I was eighteen and now I am fifty-nine and love ALL of it.. the sweetness of a good take, confirming that the shot was properly registered as per light and other esoteric conditions demanded, the joy of opening that file up later to rediscover your initial emotions all over again as you lovingly, creatively bring it forward into the world for others to see.

    What's the fuss here? Restriction of modus operendi while forcing a purist agenda, or looking for better ways to work and create?
     
  18. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Actually, this particular thread is likely to become a disjointed mess as we continue to move isolated posts here.

    If anyone wants to start a separate, productive thread to discuss the relative merits of JPEG and RAW, please feel free to do so. This thread was not meant to be the sole place for that discussion. It really is just a "depot" to keep the "RAW vs JPEG" argument from taking over other threads where the topic is something else.
     
  19. vsiddhartha

    vsiddhartha Mu-43 Regular

    32
    Mar 24, 2011
    New Jersey
    Amin, just to let you know I agree with what you're doing. While I typically have a fundamental aversion to heavy-handed forum policing or censorship, in this case I think it is warranted. I'm new to this forum, and within several days became fatigued and distracted by the RAW vs JPEG discussion (including thinly veiled off-topic posts promoting one or the other) creeping up where it didn't belong. Thanks for taking the time to clear it out. Sorry you gotta do it.
     
    • Like Like x 4
  20. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    I have no interest in a 'vs' debate between both. As I have already said, both have a place, both work in synergy. There is no contest that a carefully exposed ooc jpg is the fastest solution to show a good picture on today's hardware. And there is not the shadow of a doubt that the current close connection between hardware abilities and jpg feeble possibilities will be broken very soon, leaving archived jpg-only images dead in the water when compared to newer images. So, for those concerned by the future of their images as well as speed, shooting both raw+jpg is a no brainer.

    The only reason I stepped into those muddy waters is because it has been said over and over again that RAW had no real advantage over jpeg, and even should be avoided because it was supposedly inferior. So, for the last time I hope, I repeat it again : this is totally, absolutely, completely, definitively, WRONG. This is mathematically wrong, physically wrong, this is wrong computing-wise, this wrong technology-wise, and this is wrong photographically-wise.

    That's all there is to this pseudo 'debate'.

    Cheers,
     
    • Like Like x 7