RetouchPRO

Go Back   RetouchPRO > Technique > Photography
Register Blogs FAQ Site Nav Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Photography Both digital and film. Discussions about cameras, gear, exposure, technique, and sharing your photography

Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #1  
Old 05-19-2007, 08:10 AM
chrishoggy's Avatar
chrishoggy chrishoggy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 578
Blog Entries: 1
Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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?
Reply With Quote top
  #2  
Old 05-19-2007, 10:51 AM
Janet Petty's Avatar
Janet Petty Janet Petty is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Mid-South
Posts: 2,164
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #3  
Old 05-19-2007, 11:13 AM
albatrosss's Avatar
albatrosss albatrosss is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Long Island NY
Posts: 267
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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)
Reply With Quote top
  #4  
Old 05-19-2007, 11:41 AM
chrishoggy's Avatar
chrishoggy chrishoggy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 578
Blog Entries: 1
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #5  
Old 05-19-2007, 01:23 PM
Jerryb Jerryb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 397
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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 View Post
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?
Reply With Quote top
  #6  
Old 05-19-2007, 09:34 PM
duwayne duwayne is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Westerville Ohio
Posts: 292
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #7  
Old 05-19-2007, 10:08 PM
Doug Nelson's Avatar
Doug Nelson Doug Nelson is offline
Janitor
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,068
Blog Entries: 21
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #8  
Old 06-02-2007, 05:05 PM
chauncey chauncey is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 48
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #9  
Old 06-04-2007, 03:07 PM
JayNads's Avatar
JayNads JayNads is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wading River, New York
Posts: 59
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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.
Reply With Quote top
  #10  
Old 06-05-2007, 03:44 AM
SwampDonkey SwampDonkey is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Swindon, England
Posts: 29
Re: Shooting in RAW v's Jpeg

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
Reply With Quote top
Reply

  RetouchPRO > Technique > Photography


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
how to batch convert raw images to jpeg sunkist4338 Input/Output/Workflow 19 01-22-2012 10:44 AM
Raw format Tony Gander Input/Output/Workflow 4 10-19-2007 08:21 AM
PP; Raw versus Jpeg bestremera Input/Output/Workflow 5 10-07-2006 02:13 PM
Raw test target Doug Nelson Software 0 10-31-2005 03:24 PM
RAW v. JPEG and White Balance kcohn Image Help 6 08-17-2003 11:23 AM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright © 2016 Doug Nelson. All Rights Reserved