The 'RAW vs JPEG' Depot

tanngrisnir3

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
601
"Photography" means painting with light. So get it right in camera.

"Photography" does not mean knocking it up in a computer.
"Get it right IN CAMERA?" ** sounds of uproarious laughter **

You surely realize, however, that any/all ,jpeg shots are showing off the camera's PP skills and showing off what computers can do?

Unless you're using film, there is no such thing as avoiding someone's PP skills, be it human or a silicon-based entity.

Did you know there's a magic elf in your camera that 'paints' pictures?
 

GaryAyala

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
6,564
Location
SoCal
"Get it right IN CAMERA?" ** sounds of uproarious laughter **

You surely realize, however, that any/all ,jpeg shots are showing off the camera's PP skills and showing off what computers can do?

Unless you're using film, there is no such thing as avoiding someone's PP skills, be it human or a silicon-based entity.

Did you know there's a magic elf in your camera that 'paints' pictures?
Have you ever worked in a darkroom? There is a lot of manipulation going on while printing, down to rubbing a print while it is in the developer, heating up a specific area with your hands to bring up an image. "Dodging" and "Burning" are darkroom terms.

Getting it right in the camera does not mean no post processing, it means less post processing. We should all strive to attain "Getting it right in the camera." Proper exposure and no cropping is all good stuff, post processing just enhances an image which is properly exposed and well composed.

G
 

tanngrisnir3

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 18, 2011
Messages
601
Have you ever worked in a darkroom? There is a lot of manipulation going on while printing, down to rubbing a print while it is in the developer, heating up a specific area with your hands to bring up an image. "Dodging" and "Burning" are darkroom terms.
Yes, I know, but that wasn't my point. You could also say there's 'pre-processing' going on if someone uses a filter, for that matter.
Getting it right in the camera does not mean no post processing, it means less post processing. We should all strive to attain "Getting it right in the camera." Proper exposure and no cropping is all good stuff, post processing just enhances an image which is properly exposed and well composed.

G
That's my point entirely: within a digital medium, there is no 'getting it right in the camera'. Every last bit of information can be tweaked, for whatever reason or taste, and there is nothing special whatsoever about the least processed image, as ALL images are processed.
 

Hikari

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 26, 2010
Messages
1,531
"Getting it right in the camera" means what it has always meant--composed and exposed properly. This is not unique to film nor digital. And you better have your exposures right--you cannot make up what you don't have.

The film folks are really deluding themselves if they think that somehow film photography is "true." A lot of engineers have been working on the spectral sensitivity and contrast of these images. The darkroom adds another layer on that.

Look the film/digital wars are over and everybody lost.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,013
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I'm a GH2 user also.

I've borrowed the OMD to try and my thoughts are similar to meyerweb.

I really like the idea of two dials but the real dial can't be reached easily so it's as if it's not there for me.

The jpeg quality is really better. For lazy shoot and forget people, this is the cam for you.
Raw is for amateurs who can't get their settings right the first time. :wink: :tongue:

I shoot jpeg mostly (only raw for critical shoots) and a friend who shoots raw. Whenever he shoots under/over exposed images he always harps how it's okay, he shot raw. I always get on his case and ask him, "why don't you just shoot right the first time?" In my eyes, I see raw shooting as a crutch for some (not all) photographers who can't get their settings right or someone who fiddles more in post production than focusing on the moment and mood.
 

Jonathan F/2

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2011
Messages
5,013
Location
Los Angeles, USA
Yeah, but which is for REAL photographers?!?!

The only thing I know about REAL photographers is that if you define people that way, you're probably not one.

-Ray
I was just joking, notice the tongue. :wink: You should probably have a morning snack and/or coffee, you seem a little on edge for being on the internet. :smile:
 

tuanies

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
227
Location
Graham, WA
Real Name
Tuan Huynh
I shoot RAW for archival purposes and treat it as a digital negative for storage, just like film negatives. You wouldn't get film developed and toss out the negatives would you? Storage is cheap, but your precious moments and memories can't be recreated not to mention RAW processing improves over time (ie Light room 4) whereas with a JPEG you're stuck with it.
 

jnewell

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 23, 2011
Messages
1,751
Location
Boston, MA
Raw is for amateurs who can't get their settings right the first time. :wink: :tongue:

I shoot jpeg mostly (only raw for critical shoots) and a friend who shoots raw. Whenever he shoots under/over exposed images he always harps how it's okay, he shot raw. I always get on his case and ask him, "why doesn't he just shoot right the first time?" In my eyes, I see raw shooting as a crutch for some (not all) photographers who can't get their settings right or someone who fiddles more in post production than focusing on the moment and mood.
Hmmm, I thought that jpegs were for the folks who used to shoot consumer Polaroids. :rolleyes:
 

~tc~

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Oct 22, 2010
Messages
2,494
Location
Houston, TX
I shoot RAW for archival purposes and treat it as a digital negative for storage, just like film negatives. You wouldn't get film developed and toss out the negatives would you? Storage is cheap, but your precious moments and memories can't be recreated not to mention RAW processing improves over time (ie Light room 4) whereas with a JPEG you're stuck with it.
There is an argument (valid IMHO) that since RAW is all proprietary formats, it is in no way "future proof", where JPG most certainly is.

If you are going to archive as RAW, you might want to seriously look into converting them all to DNG.
 

GaryAyala

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Jan 2, 2011
Messages
6,564
Location
SoCal
Yes, I know, but that wasn't my point. You could also say there's 'pre-processing' going on if someone uses a filter, for that matter.

That's my point entirely: within a digital medium, there is no 'getting it right in the camera'. Every last bit of information can be tweaked, for whatever reason or taste, and there is nothing special whatsoever about the least processed image, as ALL images are processed.
Got it, post processing (manipulation) is post processing whether it is done by the camera's internal software or whether it's done on a desktop/laptop and dialed in by a human ... it is all digital manipulation to enhance a data collection file captured by a digital data collector.

... And that getting it right in a digital camera always requires post processing, whether one acknowledges that fact or not, it is still happening.

G
 

crsnydertx

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Dec 31, 2010
Messages
995
Location
Houston, TX
Real Name
Chuck
There is an argument (valid IMHO) that since RAW is all proprietary formats, it is in no way "future proof", where JPG most certainly is.

If you are going to archive as RAW, you might want to seriously look into converting them all to DNG.
And then hope that DNG doesn't change!
 

Uncle Frank

Photo Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 26, 2012
Messages
771
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Frank
I see raw shooting as a crutch for some (not all) photographers who can't get their settings right or someone who fiddles more in post production than focusing on the moment and mood.
Guilty. :redface: After a brief fling with RAW, I've decided that Oly makes better jpgs than I can. But RAW is pretty useful for mixed lighting shots.
 

mattia

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
May 3, 2012
Messages
2,391
Location
The Netherlands
I can get incrementally better photos processing from RAW than any in-camera JPEG engine. And like others have said, the quality of images I process today from my 300D files is better than what older RAW processors were able to do. Getting better results from RAW requires a little bit more effort, but is certainly worth it for print, IMO.

I think the compatibility issue is somewhat overblown, given that there has yet to be a single example of a file that cannot be opened. Worst case? Revert to older software versions and convert to DNG then. Can't be bothered to add yet another step to my (largely non-Adobe) workflow :)
 

Badada

New to Mu-43
Joined
Apr 11, 2012
Messages
5
I have a GX1 with PL 25/1.4 and I started out shooting both RAW and JPEG but I have now abandoned RAW for JPEG only. The reason is that no matter how much I adjusted the pictures in lightroom I could not get it to be better than the OOC JPEGs.

I'd be happy to shoot RAW only but I don't want to spend time adjusting all pictures individually and still get worse result than the JPEG. I challenge anyone to show me a Lightroom 4 preset that will give me better result than the JPEG every time.

My settings on GX1 is Photo style Standard with Contrast +1, Sharpness +2, Saturation 0, Noise reduction -2, IResolution High and IDynamic High.
 

Just Jim

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2011
Messages
940
There is an argument (valid IMHO) that since RAW is all proprietary formats, it is in no way "future proof", where JPG most certainly is.

If you are going to archive as RAW, you might want to seriously look into converting them all to DNG.
To throw a wrench in that argument. Neither format at this time could be considered "archival." TBH, digital is not archival at all. The physical storage devices can't be archived, and the internet is far too limited for any kind of cloud storage for the entire population. If you want an image to survive to your grandkids that you shoot today, print it on good paper, create a physical negative, and archive them.

yeah.. raw. I like the control... and that's enough said there. There should be a poll on this thread.
 

tuanies

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jun 13, 2011
Messages
227
Location
Graham, WA
Real Name
Tuan Huynh
I rely on very little processing, typically I just hit the auto button to start as a basis then tweak the sliders to my liking and apply +40 on luminance noise reduction. I don't spend too much time post processing, if the image didn't come out well enough to begin with, I just scrap it.
 

DHart

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 7, 2010
Messages
3,538
Location
Scottsdale, Arizona
Real Name
Don
More often than not I need to open shadows and recover highlight areas to achieve the look I like from my images... And I almost always do a quick touch to BP and a little bump to lights. This is so quick and easy to do in LR4 and one click apply to multiple images. And with a raw file, it's no problem to make these adjustments without causing any problems. With jpg, the ability to open shadows and recover highlights is significantly reduced without introducing bad results. I've never seen an image that couldn't be improved noticeably if not significantly with a little PP applied... And RAW is significantly superior to jpg in terms of image development potential. RAW all the way for me and I enjoy the image development process as well
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom