Never ending jpeg vs raw

[kelvin51]

We had a thread going on this subject but I can't find it and wanted to share this information. This photographer (very succesfull) shoots jpeg and his images are awesome. This link is to his images that are 3 images jpeg HDR which I though you couldn't do but I have since figured out how to do it. It saves enormous time and the results I think are better, the link is Photomatix User Gallery - John Adams check it out and let me have your opinions.

[Fuzz62]

i like a lot of the work he has on the site, but i dont think there is a question of which is the one to use!

the simple processing that can be done in 5 mins in raw may take 10 mins in layers/masks as jpegs.

[Jim Bryant]

Another photographer I was working with yesterday requested that we shoot jpegs because he wanted to upload images to our website in between games. After looking at my images today, I told him that's the last time I'm shooting jpeg I'll edit and upload mine later.

[dcclark]

I've changed my mind a bit over the last year or so. I used to scoff at raw, because of the extra file size, extra processing time required, and the way that it "babies" you into thinking that you can fix everything later.

I still do believe that that's true. However, there are definitely times and places to use raw. I have started to switch into raw mode in a number of situations -- first, almost anything with extremely weird white balance (especially heavily incandescent, which rarely comes out right in-camera). Second, anything with extreme lighting (for example, shots with high contrast or a delicate balance between a visible subject and a dark background). Third, as happens more and more nowadays, any time I'm shooting right on the edge of reasonable lighting (for example, at dusk).

So yes, there's an eternal debate, and I doubt it will go away any time soon. But any answer other than "it depends" is too wide-reaching and lacking in precision. There is an appropriate time and place for jpeg, and for raw. It depends heavily on YOU, your workflow, your patience, your shooting situation, and a dozen other details known only to you at the moment that you take the photo.

So, be informed, understand your equipment, understand the basics of exposure, and choose.

[gturner]

nice pictures but a bad example for the debate me thinks

Here he has used 3 or more jpegs (convert to tiff) and a MASSIVE amount of pp.

Shooting keepers (ie weddings, portraits, live events etc) when you get one go at it, RAW is the winner hands done, not even a fight.
Mr Clarke also makes very good points about when it is a must.

[Photologyst]

The thing is that with RAW you have the choice to convert to JPGs, TIFFs or whatever. You cannot convert to RAW and put back the info that isn’t there. I like as many choices as possible. Therefore, I would always shoot RAW and then convert for whatever other purpose.

[kelvin51]

I like the diverse viewpoints you guys display here. I still shoot exclusively RAW but it intrigues me. I process jpeg the same as RAW, a simple CTL+R takes my jpeg into camera raw and the only difference is the embeded camera profiles which I never use anyway. But the process is essentially the same. My only issue is the controversy over a standardized RAW file. Every camera manufacturer has a different format. Adobe has made an attempt to standardize by creating a DNG format. I wonder if our RAW files will go down the same road as previous file formats that are no longer supported. jpeg's seem to be standard and a measure of the industry.

[Photologyst]

Originally Posted by kelvin51

I like the diverse viewpoints you guys display here. I still shoot exclusively RAW but it intrigues me. I process jpeg the same as RAW, a simple CTL+R takes my jpeg into camera raw and the only difference is the embeded camera profiles which I never use anyway. But the process is essentially the same. My only issue is the controversy over a standardized RAW file. Every camera manufacturer has a different format. Adobe has made an attempt to standardize by creating a DNG format. I wonder if our RAW files will go down the same road as previous file formats that are no longer supported. jpeg's seem to be standard and a measure of the industry.

When developers produce a different format one can usually import from the old.

Importing and converting to DNG might solve the problem.

There is little reason to deal with the RAW format once processed. After all one exports in PSD, TIFF, JPG or whatever.

[Sterling]

I don't really think those photos are that great. Tons of halos and uneven lighting...

[inkista]

Originally Posted by kelvin51

...I process jpeg the same as RAW, a simple CTL+R takes my jpeg into camera raw

Well, except for the data that was discarded in the initial JPEG compression. Just changing file formats doesn't bring back the data that was bit-bucketed.

... Every camera manufacturer has a different format.

Actually, it's worse than that. Every camera has a different format. It's not the graphical format, it's the meta data for things like picture styles, lens correction data, lens ID, and proprietary EXIF fields. Any time a new feature is added to a camera, metadata to support that feature is added, and the RAW format changes again. While model-to-model, they're similar, they won't be identical. Hence the whole waiting-for-ACR-to-include-my-model deal.