The Raw vs Jpeg Debate

Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. I wish to share with you some of my own observations and how it might aid in your decision as to which to choose. It will not be a technical discourse as I am not in a position to do so. It will be based on my observations and how the decision will affect the final outcome i.e. the print media.

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...

Why not RAW+jpeg? I'm used to the jpeg format and find that it looks better straight out of the camera. the RAW file is just there for my reference. I have a 2G card and it is true that it fills up alarmingly fast with RAW+jpeg, but it's a lot better to have to empty out your card regularly than to find, (as I did one day) that you've just lost eight months' worth of pictures because your CF card did not like your card reader (I was not shooting much...just snapshots here and there. Still, painful to lose.)

obvious reply is take both, raw for archiving and jpeg fro quick sends if you are lucky/good enough to nail the jpeg right. My problem is will all the various raw formats be supported in x years time. Maybe tiff is the answer, or save your old software and computers to open these raw files. It's a big question
P

i've been shooting raw+jpg for many years now (since i got one of the early 10d's). i save *both* files and then always work with the raw and process. i share paul's concern about format support, but, as in other forms of digital archiving, the rule/plan is copy your files every 10 years to new media/formats for just this reason. it's a pain and alot of work and expense, but only you can decide what these images are worth to you. my other work is in high-end audio so ben's reason is also mine -- i like to have the absolute best original from which to work. you can't uncompress the jpg!
perhaps because my work involves print media of all types (from cmyk to b&w, from hi-res to newsletters) i find i prefer working off the raw. the area of white balance, and how various cameras handle it, especially in auto, the issues with mixed light, and my love of sunrise-sunset-unusual natural light make working with the raw file the perfect solution.
each to his own though. there are certainly work circumstances where shooting jpg is the only way to go, usually due to time constraints from start-to-finish. and sometimes storage issues on board the camera are key as well. there is no right/wrong answer.

Don't forget that all cameras shoot in RAW. If you save the image as JPEG the RAW data is de-mosaiced by the in-camera firmware.
As far as I'm concerned, the biggest difference between RAW and JPEG is that the JPEG has already been processed according to the manufacturer's ideas of what the image should look like.
If you save as RAW you have a choice of conversion software and much more processing power at your disposal.
If new, improved software comes along at a later date you can re-process your archived RAW files.
There's no way you can do this with JPEG - they're already cooked.

Regards,

Stuart

From a traditional darkroom perspective, I like to think of the RAW file as my negative, and any JPEGs created from it as prints.

Raw versus JPEG? Here's one of the best papers on the topic (new as of last week). A must read:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adob...ly/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

Benjamin,

I like your analogy & agree. I shot jpeg for the first 3 years & changed to RAW about 2 years ago.
Really, jpeg was only just sufficient. Sometimes it was a disaster. I shoot every file RAW now & carry 32 gig worth of cards.
Andrew, I am going to check out that link right away. Thanks for posting.

Cheers,

Paul

I'm not sure if there's a debate anymore....

We have captured RAW exclusively since 2001, besides a few months of using a Fuji S1. RAW was not an option with that camera.

The flexibility, and comfort zone, provided by RAW makes it a no brainer for our situation. A slightly over-exposed highlight recorded in a JPG cannot be maintained, although as a RAW file detail can be recovered.

Paul Bestwick said:

Benjamin,

I like your analogy & agree. I shot jpeg for the first 3 years & changed to RAW about 2 years ago.
Really, jpeg was only just sufficient. Sometimes it was a disaster. I shoot every file RAW now & carry 32 gig worth of cards.
Andrew, I am going to check out that link right away. Thanks for posting.

Cheers,

Paul

Click to expand...

Is that not a bit risky? I mean, 2 cards only?.... <grins> A befried event photographer tested the latest Oly E-510 and was so convinced on the JPEG engine that he considers to shoot JPEg exlusively from here on, which I thought to be amazing.

I would love to store DNG+JPEG on two seperate cards in sync.

Angelica Oung said:

Why not RAW+jpeg? I'm used to the jpeg format and find that it looks better straight out of the camera. the RAW file is just there for my reference. I have a 2G card and it is true that it fills up alarmingly fast with RAW+jpeg, but it's a lot better to have to empty out your card regularly than to find, (as I did one day) that you've just lost eight months' worth of pictures because your CF card did not like your card reader (I was not shooting much...just snapshots here and there. Still, painful to lose.)

Click to expand...

I used to do this, then I realized I could shoot a lot faster if the camera didn't have to write two files to the card. The JPEG is pretty small, but it's still a noticeable fraction of the RAW size, and for a lot of things the CF write speed is the biggest bottleneck for shooting.

I hit the buffer limit on my 20d quite regularly, so anything that makes it slower to clear that buffer has to go.

A good RAW converter will show a preview image that's just as pretty as the initial JPEG, but I've still got all the data I need to restore highlights and such. Since the last firmware update I have not seen my 20d eating random images (about 1 in 400 or 500 used to come out corrupted), and flash cards die so rarely that I don't think it's worth slowing down all my shooting (and storing extra data on the hard drive) to try to protect against that possibility.

Anil Mungal said:

From a traditional darkroom perspective, I like to think of the RAW file as my negative, and any JPEGs created from it as prints.

Click to expand...

That could be taken a step further, and call RAW the undeveloped film, since development differences give different negatives.

Prior to my switch to the d(slr)ark side two years ago, RAW was simply not an option.
After I got my first dslr (Canon 20D) in Fall 2005, I still shot jpeg for a few weeks, mostly out of mental inertia. Then I've made my move to RAW and happily stayed there since and currently have no intention to go back. From time to time, mostly by accident than by a conscious decision, I take a "neutral" style JPEG or two, each time only wishing I didn't.

However, I still believe there are certain markets (mostly lying in the event photography area) where JPEGs can provide a viable solution strictly based on ROI. Such circumstances have very specific application domain: hundreds and thousands of participants, potentially looking for a 4x6 print of *them* and they don't care - much or at all - about blown highlight, mild color cast or lost details in shadows. Think of sport event, graduations, etc. It's also typical that the studio responsible for such coverage hires a lot of entry-level people and simply provides them with the preset cameras and strict instructions. In all such cases all is required is to be able to shoot a lot of "good enough" pictures, don't miss any single shot (hence can't risk replacing the card, hence the more images fits on one the better) and being able to upload quickly (hence no time for any post and smaller size files required off the bat).

In ANY other case I personally can't justify JPEG usage (speaking for myself).

Advantages of the raw output

Hi,

There are certainly numerous advantages to taking the raw output from the camera rather than the JPEG output. The most prominent ones are:

- it allows us to make best use of the dynamic range of the camera, especially when ideal exposure hasn't been attained in the shot.

- it allows us to do white balance correction at a time and place where we can optimize it (which in part can even mean "to our own taste for the individual shot").

But is is important not to think in terms of the compromises imposed by compression of the source image data via JPEG in cases where our practice is, after "developing" the raw image, to save it as a JPEG file for storage, for passing to our printing system, and so forth.

Now, if our workflow is to postprocess the image and then save the result as, for example, a TIFF file for subsequent use, then yes, taking the raw output does evade the compromises inherent in JPEG compression. You raw-wallopers all do that, don't you?

We also often also hear that with the image delivered to us in raw form it is much easier to batch mechanize post-processing. I have often asked, what kind of post processing are you doing that is easier to mechanize when starting with raw files? Often the replies are really strained. Sometimes the respondents say, "well, cropping, for example". No, one can batch mechanize cropping just as well when starting with JPG files (assuming that the kind of cropping that is needed lends itself to batch mechanization at all, which is rare).

Generally, when pressed, the respondents finally end up saying that the kind of post processing that is easiest to mechanize when starting with raw files is white balance correction. But the truth there is that this is only really feasible to begin with when starting with raw files rather than with JPEG files, and the issue of batch mechanization doesn't really fit into that that.

Now, here's another question. Why do people write "RAW" in all caps, as if it were an acronym? Really Awesome Workflow, perhaps.

Hi, Andrew,

Thanks for the link to the Lang paper (Adobe). It is very valuable.

Best regards,

Doug