Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

chrishoggy · #1 05-19-2007, 07:10 AM

I'm having a discussion on another Pro photography forum about this topic, and it's raised some interesting points. So thought I would open this up here to see what others views are on it.
Some people use Jpeg for speed and features built in to the camera, and seem to think the quality loss of Jpeg isn't very much. I can agree with the speed shooting etc, but not on the quality argument. So this is my little example from my finepix S5600. Top image is taken using RAW, middle is using least compression Jpeg (fine) and bottom is standard compression Jpeg (Normal).
http://www.chrishoggy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ex.tif

To me there is a massive difference between the top image and the other two, but what do you guys think?

I now always shoot in RAW and then save for printing in .tiff
What methods/formats do you use, and how do you save them to PC?

Janet Petty · #2 05-19-2007, 09:51 AM

I always shoot in raw. However, with the new CS3 feature that lets one edit a jpg in RAW, I might experiment a little.

I agree with you on the loss of information issue.

Janet

Good test shot BTW. It clearly shows the issues you are talking about.

albatrosss · #3 05-19-2007, 10:13 AM

I know nothing to speak of concerning this issue but to my eye (poor as it may be) the bottom picture looks best to me.

What am I missing? (No wise remarks, please)

chrishoggy · #4 05-19-2007, 10:41 AM

Right here are the problems I spotted>
1/ If you look at the brown and gray strip that runs along the bottom of each image (concrete fencing). In the bottom 2 the jpeg compression has caused the whites to look blown out. Where as in the top one they are not. This can also be seen on the tip of the bud sticking up on the left and all other white areas.

2/If you look at the white areas to the left. In the bottom two you can see small blocks of blue and green where it changes from light to shaded areas. In the top one these do not show up, because in the bottom two the compression has changed the colours.

3/ If you look at the light grey areas, these colours have also been changed in the bottom two. The greys almost look light blue in the bottom two.

Think this is because jpeg used 256 shades of gray, where as RAW and tiff will give you 4096 shades of gray.

And if you also look at the greens in the leaves, the bottom two look a slightly brighter green than the top one. Again these colours have changed when the camera processed the jpeg image.

I'm no expert on this, but these are what I've spotted and read about.

Jerryb · #5 05-19-2007, 12:23 PM

hi chris,
It is a interesting subject... and last year when i was really first introduced to it I tried to find as much as i could..... anyway

1. I am sort of leary of the accurracy of the first picture... because didn't you have to first convert that raw image into a rgb format before you could attach it,? that alone changes things.... so I am not sure if I am really looking at what the orginal raw image looks like....
One of the main things about the raw image is that you have 12-14 bits of brightnes!! data.... which is great..allows a lot of flexibility when editing... however converting over to rgb bitmat formats like jpg you end up with only 4-8 bits of brightness data... this brightness data, of course effect the brightness and contrast of the picture but also very subtley can effect color.

here a nice article I have used in the past that should add more fuel to the fire over at your other board... smile....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAW_image_format

now jpg... I don't know what setting you used on jpg "least" not sure if that means zero compression or 30% compression, and the same with normal, is that 70 or 80 or 90% comporession.. to my understanding there no set standard what normal is , I always use percentages to give clear idea....!!

the problem with jpg is that the greater the compression the less quality... and because there a point where data bits are actually thrown away and more compression more data thrown away, and when data is thrown away you start to see a little fuzzziness, loss of details, also artifacts are created, color shades will change subltely.... myself that why i always keep my orginals in bmp or png or tif... these are loss-less formats , they retain the full quality of the picture...

now in the 2 bottom pictures you can see the issues with using jpg....... #3 compared to #2, number 3, there a little fuzziness, where there white, the white area a little larger, in another area where there white there a suble shade of color, the overall pattern of the grey and white areas are different... in 3 compared to 2!!!

bottom line i see a lot of differences between your 2 and 3 picture...

and to add more fuel to the fire... of course there jpeg2000 format which is supposidly better than your standard jpg format..... but it has never really caught on because I think there was some copyright issues with it but there a new jpeg, one of the names it goes by is jpeg -LS which is supposed give as much compression as jpg 2000 but retain better quality.. smile.. this one might cach on...

Quote:

Originally Posted by chrishoggy

I'm having a discussion on another Pro photography forum about this topic, and it's raised some interesting points. So thought I would open this up here to see what others views are on it.
Some people use Jpeg for speed and features built in to the camera, and seem to think the quality loss of Jpeg isn't very much. I can agree with the speed shooting etc, but not on the quality argument. So this is my little example from my finepix S5600. Top image is taken using RAW, middle is using least compression Jpeg (fine) and bottom is standard compression Jpeg (Normal).
http://www.chrishoggy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/ex.tif

To me there is a massive difference between the top image and the other two, but what do you guys think?

I now always shoot in RAW and then save for printing in .tiff
What methods/formats do you use, and how do you save them to PC?

duwayne · #6 05-19-2007, 08:34 PM

I don't know anything about the finepix S5600 (I have a Nikon D80) but it's possible that what you are observing is not the fault of compression but rather adjustments the camera is making to the jpeg version. On my D80 there are no in-camera adjustments made in the RAW format. In the jpeg format, there is white balance, contrast, color adjustments, sharpening, noise, etc plus jpeg compression. On my monitor I can't tell if #2 and #3 suffer from jpeg compression or sharpening. I think you have to get down to the pixel level to see what's going on.

Doug Nelson · #7 05-19-2007, 09:08 PM

The quality lost from a JPG still vs. that same image exactly as adjusted via raw won't be appreciable. That's never been the argument. The "quality" lost is all the other data discarded to make that JPG. Raw has the full dataset captured by the camera's sensors, which is far larger and wider than can be viewed via print or screen. Freezing that view via JPG conversion will not lose quality from THAT VIEW, but it robs you of all other other potential views the raw data could have provided.

chauncey · #8 06-02-2007, 04:05 PM

I have never offered advice on this site simply because you guys are so good but I'm going to jump in here. I have the advantage of being a hobbiest (no deadline in my work).
Shooting and working in ACR is just so damn much fun.

JayNads · #9 06-04-2007, 02:07 PM

Personally, I shoot RAW+JPEG. If the JPEG comes out extraordinary, then I'll use it, but 99 times out of 100, I use the RAW. I shoot with a Canon 30D, and use Canon's DPP for RAW processing. I occasionally use Adobe's ACR, but only is DPP isn't giving me the results I want.
We can argue all day about the benefits and drawbacks of RAW vs JPEG, but RAW won for me because of the flexibility in processing - it's like I always have access to the camera settings even after the picture is shot. I can tweak exposure, white balance, saturation, and so on. However, I can also make multiple exposures of the same image and combine them. For example, it a room has more than one type of light source, I can set the WB for each light source and combine the files in Photoshop. Or, I can set the exposure differently and combine those images, if, for example, the bright sky gets blown out when I try to bring out the detail in the foreground, I can just create two exposures from the single RAW file and combine them.

I guess what I'm saying is that knowing what RAW provides makes it essential, providing, of course, that you have the time, patience, and expertise to make it work for you. Otherwise, you just need to be a little more fastidious about your in-camera settings before each shot and shoot JPEG.

SwampDonkey · #10 06-05-2007, 02:44 AM

I think Doug sums it up nicely. It's the POTENTIAL that's thrown away when you shoot JPG rather than RAW. Your shot might look quite nice, but you lose most of the scope of what you can do with it afterwards.

I use Adobe Lightroom so it's easy to compare how RAWs and JPGs respond to the same treatment. I think the best way of describing it is this - there is no comparison. RAW every time.

Pete

KrautFed · #11 06-07-2007, 10:58 AM

RAW+JPEG here. I use JPEG as thumbnails... if composition is off, blurred, too far off exposure, etc, I will discard. Then from the smaller stack of images, open RAW to PP. Raw is nice and is not really describable. The saturation adjustments, the contrast adjustments, etc are just different than using JPEG.

For you JPEG shooters, word of warning... RAW will not save your ass if the photo was off a bit. I will say that I've noticed noise & high ISO is a pain in the ass RAW. I can't seem to find a good way to reduce noise from a RAW in Photoshop.