1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

The 'RAW vs JPEG' Depot

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

  1. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    LOL, Hikari, the Greek, is correct. (Λυχνία εγγραφής)

    G
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    601
    Oct 18, 2011
    "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?
     
  3. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    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
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    601
    Oct 18, 2011
    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.
     
  5. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    "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.
     
  6. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Apr 17, 2010
    Near Philadephila
    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
     
  8. Jonathan F/2

    Jonathan F/2 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 10, 2011
    Los Angeles, USA
    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:
     
  9. tuanies

    tuanies Mu-43 Veteran

    227
    Jun 13, 2011
    Graham, WA
    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.
     
  10. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    Hmmm, I thought that jpegs were for the folks who used to shoot consumer Polaroids. :rolleyes: 
     
  11. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    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
     
  13. crsnydertx

    crsnydertx Mu-43 Top Veteran

    995
    Dec 31, 2010
    Houston, TX
    Chuck
    And then hope that DNG doesn't change!
     
  14. Uncle Frank

    Uncle Frank Photo Enthusiast

    771
    Jul 26, 2012
    San Jose, CA
    Frank
    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.
     
  15. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    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 :) 
     
  16. Badada

    Badada New to Mu-43

    5
    Apr 11, 2012
    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.
     
  17. Just Jim

    Just Jim Mu-43 Top Veteran

    940
    Oct 20, 2011
    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.
     
  18. tuanies

    tuanies Mu-43 Veteran

    227
    Jun 13, 2011
    Graham, WA
    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.
     
  19. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    For me? DxO's default preset with minimal tweaking looks better than OOC JPEG.
     
  20. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    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
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.