Raw vs. JPG

[Markbnj]

I took some raw action shots (using CHDK) at a soccer game this weekend, just to play around with and compare them. Using Faststone, which handles .crw and .dng, I compared them to the same shot at superfine compression levels (CHDK saves both versions of each shot, raw and compressed) I honestly could not see a difference. The raw files are approx. twice the size of the superfine jpegs, so is there any reason to shoot raw? Is it primarily useful in print production processes and the like?

 

[996GT2]

I rarely shoot RAW, and only do it when I KNOW I'll be doing a lot of post processing work. If you just want shots that are good straight out of the camera, then most cameras have pretty good JPEG compression algorithms that will not produce much of a noticeable loss of quality at all.

Even if you shoot RAW and compress to JPEG later on a computer, there will be some quality loss, since JPEG by nature is a lossy format that does things such as average colors across several pixels. The only way to ensure you have "100% original quality" photos is to save using a lossless format like TIFF, but the resulting files are absolutely huge and the quality difference is rarely noticeable even if you are looking at 100% crops.

In some instances, RAW is useful. For example, some of the Panasonic superzooms with the VENUS III image processor applied very aggressive noise reduction (fixed in VENUS IV) in camera. If you shot JPEGs with those cameras at high ISO, then the images would look smeared. By shooting with RAW and post processing, it was possible to get around the heavy in-camera NR and produce marginally more detailed (but more "grainy" looking) photos.

 

[OdiN]

Convert the RAW to a 16-bit TIFF.

Do your post processing on the TIFF and the JPG. Save them and then compare.

Or do exposure or other adjustments in a RAW editor - then do them in the JPG. Pay particularly close attention to the shadows and highlihgts.

Detail is lost in JPG that you cannot always see, until you start to adjust/edit your image. RAW is more like film in that you can "push" or "pull" it somewhat - better than a JPG.

 

[Markbnj]

Originally posted by: OdiN
Convert the RAW to a 16-bit TIFF.

Do your post processing on the TIFF and the JPG. Save them and then compare.

Or do exposure or other adjustments in a RAW editor - then do them in the JPG. Pay particularly close attention to the shadows and highlihgts.

Detail is lost in JPG that you cannot always see, until you start to adjust/edit your image. RAW is more like film in that you can "push" or "pull" it somewhat - better than a JPG.

That makes sense. And these were low-ISO shots, so there wasn't a lot of post-processing going on in the camera before the image was saved.

 

[Fardringle]

I almost always use RAW when I'm shooting outside in bright daylight. If I let the camera create JPG files in those situations I end up with badly blown sky/highlights or complete loss of detail in the shadows. Using RAW I can adjust the lighting manually so that I don't lose details in the sky or in the shadows.

For normal indoor situations I usually use JPG just so I don't have to bother processing or converting them unless it's a special shot that I know I want to do some extra work on.

 

[angry hampster]

I shoot RAW all the time -- no exceptions. It offers versatility that JPEG can not come close to. Have a look through this thread
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=569287&highlight=why+shoot+raw

I don't know how the sensor of a compact compares, but the shots in that thread alone should be justification to use RAW. Flash memory is cheaper than ever, so why not?

 

[Fardringle]

Originally posted by: angry hampster
I shoot RAW all the time -- no exceptions. It offers versatility that JPEG can not come close to. Have a look through this thread
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=569287&highlight=why+shoot+raw

I don't know how the sensor of a compact compares, but the shots in that thread alone should be justification to use RAW. Flash memory is cheaper than ever, so why not?

Since the search option on that forum doesn't seem to like me (it doesn't accept the "security" code even when entered properly), here is a direct link: click me

That thread shows some good examples of times when I would use RAW, but I still stick with JPG for indoor social occasions and snapshots most of the time since I don't like doing a lot of post processing.

 

[Markbnj]

Great thread with a lot of good information. Thanks for the link. I think the advantages are clear if you do a lot of post-processing. For my part I almost never do more than bump the contrast or tweak the gamma. For me raw would be worth it if, say, Photoshop's jpeg algorithm were much better than the cameras. From what I can see the image the camera writes is pretty damn good.

 

[rivan]

Originally posted by: 996GT2
I rarely shoot RAW, and only do it when I KNOW I'll be doing a lot of post processing work. If you just want shots that are good straight out of the camera, then most cameras have pretty good JPEG compression algorithms that will not produce much of a noticeable loss of quality at all.

This, for me, too. Then again, most of my shooting is snapshots these days.

When I'm actually going for something more than a quick click of my wife and kids, I'll shoot RAW. Sadly, that's pretty rare these days.

 

[idiotekniQues]

i realized that if you dont always shoot RAW you will forget to switch to RAW for a shot that would really benefit from being in that format - from being able to push/pull the exposure to correcting white balance, etc.. sure if im shooting outside in daylight white balance works well usually so JPEG is usually fine as u dont need to alter the WB - but its still nice to have the ability to mess with white balance anyways for creative reasons as an option, and again, if the camera is in JPEG for outdoor shooting, chances are much higher you wont be in RAW when you shoot later on in less optimal lighting conditions for white balance

even if you dont PP them much, you can just convert to JPEG afterwards on the PC after you are safely home. with memory cards so cheap today, room is not an issue. if i was somewhere where i had to choose between shooting sparingly due to space issues id switch to JPEG then but not if i have room.

i dont PP too much on most shots. i do curves/levels, sharpening filter, light color manipulation with replace&selective color and some noise ninja when needed.

 

[ghostman]

I only shoot RAW now. I occasionally take photos for a non-profit organization. They have events with hundreds of kids jumping around and I can't always adjust my exposure settings fast enough to capture the shot properly. Normally, most photos only need minimal post processing, so I just review and tweak them in Photoshop Camera RAW, then batch the conversion to JPEG.

 

[ivan2]

jpeg when I need the burst, raw for everything else.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: ivan2
jpeg when I need the burst, raw for everything else.

With my 40D, burst in RAW is plenty for me