JPEG Vs RAW

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by shank_ali

The time it takes a person to convert a Raw file to a 16 bit TIFF,i have finished checking my levels/curves and exposure and out shooting again =)

That might be true but it doesn't mean you should automatically dismiss RAW shooting. Personally I find it takes a few seconds to make any adjustments to a RAW file and it's then saved as a PSD. If it requires, or I feel like doing any further editing I can, just as if I'd shot in JPEG.

There are pros and cons to RAW and JPEG. JPEGs are smaller, written faster, processed with proprietary tone curves and adjustments and they're much easier to share. If you need to give your shots to someone quickly, then JPEG is always your friend.
But RAW files contain more dynamic range, are lossless, have a greater bit depth and, hence, colour and tonal range/rendition. But they are larger and require processing.

At weddings I shoot RAW + JPEG so I can give JPEGs to people straight away as they're often collecting them as people leave and you try explaining that they can't just copy your pictures because... well, they're in RAW and it's not really a picture file per se and it'll have to be developed... etc. etc.
Then I go home, edit the RAW files and send them DVDs of the finished product.

I don't see why you have to shoot one format exclusively. Shoot JPEG when you need to and RAW when you need to. One format is not right or wrong. They're different tools suited to different jobs.

[Gil Ritchie]

Please stop confusing the beginners, the more hardened amateurs, and indeed some professionals with all this rehashed technical jargon - the arguement is surely exhausted by now.

As the "meerkat" might say :

" JPEG for ease of use on the web and normal print purposes - RAW for top quality, huge prints and of course, control freaks "

"SIMPILSH - click."

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by chris-p

I don't see why you have to shoot one format exclusively. Shoot JPEG when you need to and RAW when you need to. One format is not right or wrong. They're different tools suited to different jobs.

Nicely summed up Chris. It never ceases to amaze me the controversy that the JPEG v RAW discussions always seem to generate, plus of course, the lengthy threads it produces. The long and the short of it is that all camera sensors capture RAW data even when the camera is set to JPEG mode. In the event of the latter, the camera software processes this RAW data and produces the final JPEG image. In the case of setting the camera to RAW it is left to the user to do this processing. Whether the end result is better/quicker or not is immaterial and to a greater degree is very much dependent upon the skill of the user and in his/her choice of software.

As already said, two different tools in the bag, either to be used as and when circumstances dictate or deemed to be more appropriate. Neither is right or wrong - just different. 'You pays your money and takes your choice' I believe is a frequently used English expression?

[chris-p]

Forseti is exactly right.

I am also always amazed at the strength of conviction in these threads (for better or for worse!). It's the one of the few subjecst (along with Canon vs Nikon etc!) that seems to get people quite worked up. It's almost like it's taken as a criticism to shoot the "wrong" format.

Oh and Gil, it is not my intention to confuse but with statements like "The modern DSLR.can record as much detail in a jpeg as a raw file and no-one will convince me otherwise.It's the oldest wives tale in photography" (which is plain wrong) I think it's important to put a balanced argument across and explain, or justify, why you say what you say.

[shank_ali]

Originally Posted by chris-p

Forseti is exactly right.

I am also always amazed at the strength of conviction in these threads (for better or for worse!). It's the one of the few subjecst (along with Canon vs Nikon etc!) that seems to get people quite worked up. It's almost like it's taken as a criticism to shoot the "wrong" format.

Oh and Gil, it is not my intention to confuse but with statements like "The modern DSLR.can record as much detail in a jpeg as a raw file and no-one will convince me otherwise.It's the oldest wives tale in photography" (which is plain wrong) I think it's important to put a balanced argument across and explain, or justify, why you say what you say.

How can my opinion be wrong.My work is viewed at 100 % and accepted and bought.Am i missing out on sales because i don't shoot in RAW.Hardly !

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by shank_ali

How can my opinion be wrong.My work is viewed at 100 % and accepted and bought.Am i missing out on sales because i don't shoot in RAW.Hardly !

Now this actually illustrates my point about defensiveness. At no point did I say that your opinion is wrong. I am not criticising your work, your photographic techniques, your equipment or anything else. I'm sorry if I gave the impression of criticising your work or opinions - that was certainly not my intention.

What I said was that the statement you made was wrong.

You said "The modern DSLR.can record as much detail in a jpeg as a raw file and no-one will convince me otherwise.It's the oldest wives tale in photography".

Thats just simply not true. Dependant on the level of DCT compression the amount of data loss can go from almost nothing to over 80% but there is always some data loss. It's not a case of old wives tales, convincing people or coercion - it's just the way it is.

It is a simple fact of encoding a JPEG that you discard image data.

[shank_ali]

Listen,i believe the advancement in dslr's has changed the way we should view raw and jpeg.Times change and so does technical advancement.
Who would actually work in a darkroom these days.
Todays cameras capture every piece of detail whatever you decide to shoot in Raw OR Jpeg.Compression does not equal data loss but thank you for sharing your opinions on the matter chris !

[Forseti]

Originally Posted by shank_ali

Todays cameras capture every piece of detail whatever you decide to shoot in Raw OR Jpeg.Compression does not equal data loss.... !

With respect shank_ali I think you are simply being argumentative for the sake of it. The first part of your statement is true to a point if we dismiss dynamic range, and as I said in an earlier post, all cameras capture RAW data from the outset and at this stage it is totally irrelevant to whether or not you have set JPEG or RAW on the camera. The second part of your statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, total nonsense. Compression does equal data loss, notably in the luminance channel but rather than try to convince you of this can I perhaps recommend some very good reading on the whole subject of RAW data/capture, what exactly it is and more precisely as concerns your point, what data (and amount) is being discarded when the JPEG option is chosen. The book is titled 'Real World Camera Raw' by Jeff Schewe. I think it's time to put this subject to bed now because unless and until you are prepared to be somewhat more open minded regarding this topic then it really serves no purpose. I don't wish to be unkind, that certainly isn't my intention, but I certainly feel that in this discussion you are at present convincing no one but yourself.

[shank_ali]

Originally Posted by Forseti

With respect shank_ali I think you are simply being argumentative for the sake of it. The first part of your statement is true to a point if we dismiss dynamic range, and as I said in an earlier post, all cameras capture RAW data from the outset and at this stage it is totally irrelevant to whether or not you have set JPEG or RAW on the camera. The second part of your statement is, not to put too fine a point on it, total nonsense. Compression does equal data loss, notably in the luminance channel but rather than try to convince you of this can I perhaps recommend some very good reading on the whole subject of RAW data/capture, what exactly it is and more precisely as concerns your point, what data (and amount) is being discarded when the JPEG option is chosen. The book is titled 'Real World Camera Raw' by Jeff Schewe. I think it's time to put this subject to bed now because unless and until you are prepared to be somewhat more open minded regarding this topic then it really serves no purpose. I don't wish to be unkind, that certainly isn't my intention, but I certainly feel that in this discussion you are at present convincing no one but yourself.

Very well put..Now if you will excuse me i have some pressing engagement with my camera and an accident in the home series i am shooting this wekeend.Shot in Raw btw,much to the amusement of Mr Schewe no doubt !

[chris-p]

Originally Posted by Forseti

I think you are simply being argumentative for the sake of it

Glad it's not just me then

*sigh*