RAW or JPEG

[Glenn NK]

I wouldn't say one is BETTER than the other - what I would say is that one is DIFFERENT from the other.

I like to compare it to buying a cake or buying just the ingredients and baking it myself; if I bake it myself I can do it just the way I like it if I'm good at baking cakes -- on the other hand, nothing's to say the bought cake won't taste great even if it does taste a little different to how it would have if I'd baked it. If I'm not good at baking then the bought cake will always be better until my baking skills improve.

Carrying the analogy a bit further, sometimes one just doesn't have time to bake a cake from scratch. - and I think the OP has already knows this (post # 5).

And further to his original question - which is better? - it comes down to several considerations (time available for PP, and the requirements in terms of image quality and/or the amount of PP required).

Perhaps the appropriate question is more complex - "which is better for what and what is required".

Glenn

[Colin Southern]

Carrying the analogy a bit further, sometimes one just doesn't have time to bake a cake from scratch. - and I think the OP has already knows this (post # 5).

Sorry Glenn, but that's a non-sequitur; just because one "doesn't have time to bake a cake from scratch" can be because the cook is inexperienced and hopelessly inefficient - which then wouldn't be a true reflection on the efficiency of the process (a car is only faster than walking if the driver knows how to drive).

As a test, I timed how long it took (on a PC that's below average by today's standards) to do the following ...

- Start Bridge

- Open a folder containing 100 DNG files

- Select them all

- Open them in ACR

- Make changes to exposure, brightness, contrast, saturation, clarity, blacks

- Ripple those changes through all 100 images

- Save those images as JPEGs

Total time? 10 minutes and 51 seconds to take RAW files and turn them into something better than a JPEGs (I say "better" in this case because that's assuming that the JPEGs weren't post-processed at all -- if they had been then they would have taken about the same about of time to adjust, and I've get to see a SOOC JPEG that I couldn't improve in post-processing.

So I maintain that it's not RAW shooting that takes "so much time to process" so much as it is photographers not knowing how to process them efficiently.

PS: I should add that around 8 minutes of that time was just waiting for the PC to write the files to the disk; in reality I had my bit done in about 3 minutes - at which point I could have been checking/repacking equipment / having a shower etc.

[William W]

. . . when one is shooting in continuous mode or taking many images in a single session, I am told JPEG is much better as the processing time is much less.. . .It was highlighted to me last night that the majority of people shoot JPEG for sports images especially when they process hundreds of images. . .

I suggest you check the validity and references for that claim: not that it matters all that much, as you should be able to shoot and also process your ‘mountain bikes’ and also ‘birds in flight’ shots quite easily with a raw only capture.

***

. . . I shot a mountain biker race in RAW and it took absolutely ages to process. . . I'm trying to shoot birds in flight, not very well at the moment, so RAW or JPEG as I am using continuous shutter mode.

I think that your problem will be found to be that your Post Production Workflow is: inefficient.
Also, what camera do you have and what setting do you normally use for White Balance?

*

. . . It shouldn't be "onerous" because you can batch process RAW images and get pretty much - the same result as an in-camera JPEG in just a few minutes. What software are you using?

Hiya CS,
CS6 and Lightroom (Post #12)
My guess is Andy doesn’t use (or know how to use) batch processing in Lightroom?

*

I use Canon DSLRs and I capture raw + JPEG (L).
I sometimes use the JPEG SOOC (straight out of camera) and for this, I purposefully set the in camera processing, to suit what I want. For my Canon DSLRs, the settings for the JPEG’s in-camera processing, affect the Image Display in the camera: this is an important consideration for me. I use the raw file of an image for any high quality work output and I use Lightroom and Photoshop but for web display I will sometimes also use the JPEG with minimal (out of camera) Post Processing. The reason I asked about White Balance is in respect of presetting the opening CT and processing images that were made in like ‘lighting scenarios’.

I haven’t found it necessary to consider capture format in respect of frame rates for burst shooting for the Sports that I shoot – but these are typically rhythmic sports (e.g. swimming) which really does not require burst shooting anyway: even for Hockey and Football I typically use only use a burst of three shots. Sports like: Boxing, MMA, Ice Hockey, etc are faster and more difficult to predict the flow – fast frame rates are typically required.

WW

[Andybazyoung]

Hi CS,
You are both right & wrong, in that, I do know how to use batch processing in Lightroom. But only recently!!
Once again, that was not the discussion. RAW or JPEG? The claim that 'JPEG was used by professional photographers when shooting loads of images & was not much difference to RAW images'.
When I first started, it took me an age, and to a degree, it still takes a while as I shoot using RAW. I think I will continue doing so, but I will also try JPEG to see the differences.

[John 2]

Andy, I am late to this threat as usual. I think that you have to consider two questions:

Is RAW better than JPG?
or
Is RAW better than JPG for me?

All cameras capture an image in RAW. When you set the camera to record a JPG image, what you are doing is instructing the camera processor to convert the RAW image in camera before it is saved to your card. Some point and shoot cameras don't give you the choice and only save in JPG.

In the process of conversion, the image is compressed and a lot of information is discarded and cannot be recovered. However, for an average image, particularly because some cameras enhance the image (Colour boost/ contrast/NR), the end result is more than acceptable and may even look better than a RAW initially. In addition, apart from the burst shooting advantages already discussed, because the file size is smaller, you can save many more images for a given size of card. However, although you can still post process the image once it's on your computer, the degree to which this is effective is constrained because of the image information discarded during the in camera conversion. So that for instance, if you are dealing with high contrast e.g. bright sunlight or sunsets/ sunrises or your interest, birds in flight where the sky may well be much brighter than the birds, your ability to recover burned out highlights or heavy shadows is limited.

Most serious photographers I know therefore, save the in camera image in RAW and post process on the computer in RAW. Your ability to PP the image is enhance and for instance the detail in apparently blown highlights can be recovered because the information is still there. Once you are happy with your image, you can then save it as a JPG on the computer if that is what you need.

Which brings us back to the original two questions. If you want to photograph birds in flight against a brighter sky for instance, good panning technique and RAW might be the better option. However, RAW files are very large and if your computer doesn't have the processing power to handle them, you will struggle during PP and you might be better off choosing your conditions and shooting as a JPG. So far as your laptop performance goes, memory is by far the most critical area and you probably need about 4GB minimum but preferably double that. A reasonably fast processor will help but is less critical.

This is why I raised the two Qs at the beginning of this post. RAW is better (more flexible) than JPG but you need to cut your cloth accordingly and that is why some of the questions asked elsewhere in this post have been posed. I hope this has helped.

[Andybazyoung]

Hi John,
What you have said is just right. I guess it is a matter of choice & if I wish things to get quicker I need an upgrade of computer - ouch!!
Thanks
Andy

[Colin Southern]

Hi CS,
You are both right & wrong, in that, I do know how to use batch processing in Lightroom. But only recently!!
Once again, that was not the discussion. RAW or JPEG? The claim that 'JPEG was used by professional photographers when shooting loads of images & was not much difference to RAW images'.
When I first started, it took me an age, and to a degree, it still takes a while as I shoot using RAW. I think I will continue doing so, but I will also try JPEG to see the differences.

I think you might have missed the point along the way; JPEGs discard a lot of information, leaving only the "bare necessities" (more or less) - pros in high-frame, high-burst scenarios are unlikely to need the safety margin of a RAW because they'll already have their exposures and white balance nailed and thus not need to make big changes that would need the discarded data (think pro shooting boxing or baseball, or paparazzi) (often absolute accuracy of things like skin tones would also not be critical). On the other hand, I doubt a pro shooting landscape or studio portraiture these days would shoot JPEG (the landscape shooter would often need to play around with the dynamic range, and the studio shooter would want to customise the conversion with a custom camera profile).

Horses for courses. Personally, I have ZERO use for JPEG* - I couldn't care less if the camera wasn't even capable of taking one - so I guess it comes as no surprise that I never use them for final output (*somewhat ironically I do actually use them in the studio; the camera writes RAW to card one, and small JPEG to card 2 - and card 2 is output to the 40" TV for tethered shooting because it transfers in around 2 seconds -v- 7 seconds).

If I were shooting sustained bursts or in a situation where minimal processing and only ball-park accuracy were required, then possibly JPEG would be a better choice for me.

[William W]

Once again, that was not the discussion. RAW or JPEG?

OK.

I shoot raw + JPEG (L).
I always have caputred in those files since we cut the studio over to digital in 2004/5.
That was premeditated and thought out over many months of planning the cut-over from Film to Digital. The main reasons are, as I wrote above.

As previoulsy stated the two capture formats are different, neither is "better" than the other.

Whilst it is now obvious that you meant the "discussion" to be only about ‘what is better raw or JPEG’ – and that us quite clear now - your commentaries subsequent to the Openning Post implied that you required answers and assistance to other issues that you faced in forwarding your photography: hence my reponse.

But that was obviously a misinterpretation of what you meant and what you required and also mistake on my part to assume same.

WW

[Andybazyoung]

Hi Bill,
All of what you have said has maid complete sense to me and I thank most sincerely.
Yes, it did start off as a discussion but several comments have gone further and as you have, some comments have included 'added value' to my original request.
If I have sounded ungrateful please accept my apologise, as I really have learnt a great deal.
Regards
Andy

[DanK]

Once again, that was not the discussion. RAW or JPEG?

But it is. The pros and cons of the two formats depend in part on how good one's postprocessing skills are, just as they depend on the context (e.g., Colin's comments about sports photography).

I'll give you the LR analogy to Colin's ACR example. (Same processing engine, somewhat different interface). Open the first image and edit it. Then select the next image in the filmstrip, hold down the control key, and select the last in the series that you want to edit the same way. Select "sync settings' from the settings menu, select "all", and you are done. All of the eidts will be applied to the selected photos. The process of synching takes seconds.

The issue is basically one of control. If you shoot jpeg, you are selecting an in camera processing algorithm in advance and hoping it fits. If it doesn't, you can edit to some degree, but far less because the jpeg file retains only a fraction of the original information. Given what I shoot and how easy and fast it is to do basic edits of a raw file, I almost never see an advantage to doing this. Once I had gotten over my apprehension about raw, I realized that it was somewhat analogous to what I went through in the film days. I grew up on B&W and did my own developing and darkroom work. However, I just didn't have the wherewithal to manage doing my own color. I hated the fact that I had to send the stuff off and hope that it came back right (not that I was all that good in the darkroom). Admittedly, the analogy is imperfect, since one can do some editing of a jpeg, but the general point is the same: I would rather be able to tinker with the appearance of the image myself. That is one reason I print most of my own stuff as well.

Re how much editing you can do: Years ago, when I was just switching to digital, I took a bunch of shots at a huge family reunion. A cousin of mine who teaches photography at the university level did the same. I was still shooting jpeg. I messed up white balance on some shots badly enough that I couldn't quite fix them, and I lost what otherwise would have been a great shot of my son. I told my cousin about this later, and she simply smiled and said, "I don't worry about it because I shoot raw." that as my first clue.

[ajohnw]

The so called discarded information doesn't really apply to the majority of shots in respect to PP. Where it can matter is in restoring rather dark subtle detail - keeping it subtle too. Not something to get carried away with due to the eyes limitations in recognising brightness changes when looking at images.

Sounds like the OP is going to give jpg's a go to me. What I would suggest is that he explores the camera settings to see what suits him in respect to output. That can be a bit onerous but it's worth looking at jpg conversion curves and noise reduction in case it's needed at least Sharpening too as many shots benefit from sharpening in and out. The conversion curves can be found for all cameras in Dpreview reviews. Essentially some curves cover more stops than others. That is often done by extending the dark end and some may not be appropriate if there are no truly dark areas in a shot. Some cameras of late have facilities to lift the dark end if needed automatically. They do this on raw data for obvious reasons. In fact they will be doing most things on converted raw in a deep colour space.

Jpg size can also be set in the camera. Not sure if I would use that as there can be some benefit gained by diy - reduction after pp for instance. Oddly enough Adobe raw is perfectly happy to work on jpg's, tiff's and raw so the answer to that aspect is simple. Adjustments such as clarity work mainly on mid tones - applied to raw - jpg - mostly irrelevant.. General contrast is probably better adjusted in the camera.. Colour balance. I find that auto in the camera will look after that and jpgs can be adjusted anyway. Mixed colour temperatures that might crop up when the sun is in certain positions and some areas are in shade etc can be a problem in both raw and jpg.

The biggest problem really is back lit subjects. If you happened to be shooting a bird in the sky it might pay to over expose by 1 to 1 1/2 EV because loosing the sky doesn't matter. If some one is doing something on a bike or what ever and the sky is in shot this will blow the hell out of it especially on jpgs. The only answer really on both raw really and jpg is to expose for the sky and adjust individually or don't take that type of shot..

I wasn't kidding on the comment about metering earlier. It can be more difficult to use to get consistently good jpg's. Often that just means taking a shot or two and using the preview to get some idea if compensation is needed. That's what I did prior to finding out how an m 4/3 camera can be set up so that it shows clipping before the shot is actually taken. Action shots may not leave much time for this so would have to go back to finding out first.

As far as photography goes I take shots of just about anything in any old conditions often just to see what PP can do to them. Jpg's 1st raw 2nd.

Personally if your camera will cope with bursts of raw and best jpg maybe at a part reduced size at a rate that is sufficient I would still do that. Having taken some bursts at around 10 fps I have to wonder when that range of frame rate is really needed. Not much happens in many fields in 100mSec or 250 for that matter. 10 might be of some good to catch a top tennis player bending the racket and even flattening the ball during a serve

John
-

[chauncey]

This discussion seems to presuppose that you are going to process numerous images at the same time which is something beyond my comprehension. Maybe it's the professional/amateur difference, volume vs. individual images. I sync my settings in LR then select only the best image to PP...not a series of them. Then, unless I want to keep the originals for cloning/stacking/merging purposes, they go to file 13 and discarded. For client review?...that has no meaning for me.

[george013]

There is an aspect with Nikon anyway that's not mentioned. I don't know if other brands work much different but I don't think so.
The NEF-file is a sensor-image plus a textual list of instructions containing camera-settings for the converter. If you use the Nikon RAW-converter CaptureNx, that list will be used and your visible image being created from the NEF-file and the one from the JPG out of camera will be exact the same. However from the NEF-file I can change the camerasettings by example the white balance very easy.
All the adjustments made in Capture will be saved in a list of instructions and can be changed later again and again without losing anything.
Working on a JPG allways include an extra compression, first the in-camera and then the one after PP.
I only work with NEF-files and CaptureNx for mentioned reasons. But there is one more. Every time I adjust a NEF-file in Capture and save that one, a high quality JPG is included in the NEF-file which can be viewed and saved by a browser like IView. Everything in just one file.

So if there is no need for something as publication speed I don't see much advantage in shooting JPG.
George

[Glenn NK]

A while back, I talked to a sports photographer that was shooting a BMX race event. I asked him if he shot JPEG or RAW. His reply (I'm paraphrasing because I didn't record what he said):

I shoot JPEG because there isn't enough time to process RAW. As soon as one race is finished, I DL them to my laptop, and print them immediately, and post them on my large bulletin board - they are for sale. If I were to process RAW files, I could miss the next race and/or not have them up in time for people to buy.

I fully understand his point of view and would likely do the same thing - the people that were buying prints weren't checking for blown highlights or blacks.

The quality of a RAW file isn't required in these instances, but the time saved is important.

EDIT: On the other hand, maybe the guy was just stringing me along.

[Colin Southern]

The so called discarded information doesn't really apply to the majority of shots in respect to PP. Where it can matter is in restoring rather dark subtle detail - keeping it subtle too. Not something to get carried away with due to the eyes limitations in recognising brightness changes when looking at images.

It depends on whether or not the photographer nailed the exposure or not and what the dynamic range of the scene was; under-expose a JPEG by a couple of stops due to - say - a backlit scene - at a moderate ISO - and one would be in trouble.

[William W]

Andy,

It was not that you seemed ungrateful. I was not upset. It is more about the fact that your response missed the point that in photography, everything is linked.

You asked, “what is better? Or is is down purely to preference!” It has been stated several times that neither raw nor JPEG is ‘better’ but it is just that they are different and most responses then went on to describe why how and what impact those differences have on their own photography and also photography in general.

To me that’s pretty clear that most responses are saying: “neither is better it is up to personal choice”

BUT to provide a comprehensive answer and to flesh out - “why this way is better for me” and moreover “why this might be better for YOU”, many responses go into more detail, to provide you with the tools to make a choice for yourself.

For example, Dan has more specifically pointed out that everything is linked, even the CHOICES that you make for your post production techniques - and that includes choosing batch processing in Lightroom or not choosing it.

It occurs to me that one of the strengths of this Forum is that most respondents here go to the extra effort of not only answering the specific question within the specific topic but will also provide helpful and useful information, often in a cascading rhythm one after another. And these responses maybe only slightly linked to the original question but there is a consistent effort to forward the OP’s photography and provide related information, or to question information: for the benefit of all readers and the forum generally.

It would be pretty boring and also a very short discussion if the first responses to your specific question were: “raw or JPEG is not better – they are just different. It is just a personal choice”; "Yeah that's right"; "Yeah choose yourself" . . . Etc.

WW

[ajohnw]

It depends on whether or not the photographer nailed the exposure or not and what the dynamic range of the scene was; under-expose a JPEG by a couple of stops due to - say - a backlit scene - at a moderate ISO - and one would be in trouble.

Don't know about that Colin really. As an example I did this rather quickly and can do better. - I wont post that one as I did it before getting a decent monitor. This needs some local work in places.



From this, exposed not to clip the clouds.



A camera that it isn't too difficult to improve on as well. In this case there is very little more available in raw.

On the other hand I took some "should be easy" bright but cloudy day shots with a Nikon D7000 today and that one looks to be more of a challenge. I had been warned that Nikon have a tendency to over expose. My impression is that the metering isn't really in order and it aught to take more notice of bright areas in the shot. I was using the standard jpg curve. Landscape or vivid will probably be better. Canons of the age of mine might chop more off. More recent ones too but some have a more s shaped jpg curve.

John
-

[William W]

Statement:

The so called discarded information doesn't really apply to the majority of shots in respect to PP. Where it can matter is in restoring rather dark subtle detail - keeping it subtle too. Not something to get carried away with due to the eyes limitations in recognising brightness changes when looking at images.

Response:

It depends on whether or not the photographer nailed the exposure or not and what the dynamic range of the scene was; under-expose a JPEG by a couple of stops due to - say - a backlit scene - at a moderate ISO - and one would be in trouble.

I agree with Colin. Especially about Nailing the Exposure, which is the key factor – the DR of the scene just adds more problems if the exposure is not nailed correctly.

I’ll also relate: “whether or not the photographer nailed the exposure or not” to capture in a controlled lighting environment (for example a small arena Sporting Event with a lighting set rigged for major Television coverage – e.g. Gymnastics, B.Ball or Swimming; or for stills on a TV or Movie set, within one Lighting Set Scene).

In this case it is relatively easy ‘set and forget the exposure parameters’. Some Photographers do indeed ‘set and forget’ and then shoot in M Mode and some also choose to capture JPEG only in these circumstances: note this is not necessarily related to burst rates for continuous shooting it is related to knowing the exposure will be correct and prepping the camera and also the Post Production Workflow to meet specific outputs in an efficient and timely manner.

WW

[Adrian]

OP appears to want a clear answer. It is RAW.

From RAW you can always get a JPEG. Not vice versa. This is the end of that discussion ;-)

[Andybazyoung]

Hi Bill,
I completely agree about the extra effort people put in & that, for me too, is part of the beauty of CinC.
Personal choice and what is best for me? Probably RAW but I will look at JPEG just so I have the understanding of what & why I am using a specific file type.
Thanks again
Andy