Raw vs JPEG

[DrJohn]

Raw vs jpeg is a highly controversial topic. However there are different formats of jpeg with different compression ratios. One test I performed with a Sony camera resulted in:

Standard jpeg 3.5 mb
Fine jpeg 6.6 mb
Extra fine jpeg 13.7 mb
Raw 25 mb

The above will vary depending upon the data contained within a photograph. One could roughly conclude based on file size that the extra fine jpeg is compressed approximately 2:1. The fine jpeg is compressed approximately 4:1. The standard jpeg is compressed approximately 7:1.

Personally, I shoot raw + jpeg.

John

Edited July 31, 2018 by DrJohn

[tinplater]

RAW allows you more control of the image in post processing but for many (like me) shooting in extra fine JPEG is all I need.  I am not a professional or commercial photographer and just shoot for my own pleasure, occasionally making a 13 x 19 print and then trying to convince my wife to find some wall space to display my effort!

[Chrissie]

1 hour ago, DrJohn said:

Raw vs jpeg is a highly controversial topic.

Is it really? I was never aware of that. After buying a camera with a four-digit price tag, I don't see how saving on a (big enough) memory card would be a wise decision. Being a cautious guy  I believe it's always a good idea to consume any spare "resources"* at the latest possible occasion. Versus: consuming any "slack" up-front and then being out of reserves if need arises.

* With "resources" I mean spatial (i.e. pixel) resolution, as well as color depth, as well as any losses you'll inevitably incur while changing to a lossy jpeg encoding. 

[DrJohn]

18 minutes ago, Chrissie said:

Is it really? I was never aware of that. After buying a camera with a four-digit price tag, I don't see how saving on a (big enough) memory card would be a wise decision. Being a cautious guy  I believe it's always a good idea to consume any spare "resources"* at the latest possible occasion. Versus: consuming any "slack" up-front and then being out of reserves if need arises.

* With "resources" I mean spatial (i.e. pixel) resolution, as well as color depth, as well as any losses you'll inevitably incur while changing to a lossy jpeg encoding. 

There is also the fact that jpeg is a universal file whereas raw is manufacture specific and may not open in all version of photoshop, etc. That is why I shoot both. But, I can't visually notice the difference between raw and extra fine with the new Sony cameras. 

John

[Chrissie]

Agreed. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact, that you will not exploit a Sony full frame camera to its fullest potential if you settle for jpeg right from the start. When I bought mine, there was a bundled offer for a heavily discounted Capture One license, limited to Sony cameras but otherwise full-featured, to do the raw processing and - eventually (!) - export as jpeg or various other formats. But that should imho be the final step, not the first.

Did you know, that every edit session on a jpeg including a re-encoding (i.e.: saving as another jpeg) adds one generation of losses to your image? This will not happen if you keep editing the raw image (or a copy of it), and then export to jpeg. Just as a thought.

[DrJohn]

6 minutes ago, Chrissie said:

Agreed. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact, that you will not exploit a Sony full frame camera to its fullest potential if you settle for jpeg right from the start. When I bought mine, there was a bundled offer for a heavily discounted Capture One license, limited to Sony cameras but otherwise full-featured, to do the raw processing and - eventually (!) - export as jpeg or various other formats. But that should imho be the final step, not the first.

Did you know, that every edit session on a jpeg including a re-encoding (i.e.: saving as another jpeg) adds one generation of losses to your image? This will not happen if you keep editing the raw image (or a copy of it), and then export to jpeg. Just as a thought.

Yes, I know, which is why I shoot both Raw and jpeg. I usually use Adobe Bridge from CS5 to select which photos I'm going to keep. It doesn't work with the newest raw files. 

John

[slackercruster]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 12:17 PM, DrJohn said:

Raw vs jpeg is a highly controversial topic. However there are different formats of jpeg with different compression ratios. One test I performed with a Sony camera resulted in:

Standard jpeg 3.5 mb
Fine jpeg 6.6 mb
Extra fine jpeg 13.7 mb
Raw 25 mb

The above will vary depending upon the data contained within a photograph. One could roughly conclude based on file size that the extra fine jpeg is compressed approximately 2:1. The fine jpeg is compressed approximately 4:1. The standard jpeg is compressed approximately 7:1.

Personally, I shoot raw + jpeg.

John

Yes, me too. RAW+.

Raw is good for PP. Esp if you got tough files that needs lots of work. Raw may have a little more data that can be worked. For a fast shot of nothing special jpeg is fine. But you can still do good work with jpegs if that is your deal.

[slackercruster]

On ‎7‎/‎31‎/‎2018 at 2:22 PM, DrJohn said:

There is also the fact that jpeg is a universal file whereas raw is manufacture specific and may not open in all version of photoshop, etc. That is why I shoot both. But, I can't visually notice the difference between raw and extra fine with the new Sony cameras. 

John

Yes, wish Sony had DNG option. Their Raw wont work in my LR version. I have to convert to TIFF.

[thefsb]

On 7/31/2018 at 9:17 AM, DrJohn said:

Raw vs jpeg is a highly controversial topic.

Not really. There are bald facts of the matter that can't be argued.

Can't put RAW on Flickr or Instagram. Can't text a RAW. Can't print a RAW or put it on your web site. All you can do with RAW is save captured sensor data on a camera and move it to specialized conversion software designed for that specific camera, in which case it allows latitude for adjustments that a JPEG may not.

But I guess you're talking about the question: Do you set the camera to write RAW to the memory card? It's not a moral choice. There's no legal or ethical dimension I'm aware of. It's a straightforward practical question of what works best for you.

Any practical question can become contentious if someone frames their choice as "I do it like this, which is the right way, and if you don't do it like me, your doing it wrong," and if you let this kind of BS get to you (without which it's not even contentious). But this is still not really a controversy.

"California should divide itself into two states" is controversial. "I choose to clean the floor with the broom rather than the vacuum" is not.

[slackercruster]

Now, for my archive, it is pretty much all JPEG. If I have a special photo that needs lots of PP work or is rare, then I will go TIFF for my archive. I produce many tens of thousands of scans a year for my archive. I could not do it with TIFF unless I had a different set up. Not enuf storage.

These are all raw jpeg scans. WordPress reduces em, so they don't look as good as they should.

https://photographysgoldenage.wordpress.com/

That is just one of 50 websites I have.

This type of thing gets TIFF...

https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2018/01/13/selection-from-ballerina/

I do lots of volunteer archiving on the Internet Archive. I tried hi-res JPEG on the Archive, but they don't work very well if you do bulk work like I do. I settled on 1 to 2 mb  JPEG's for it.

(The last link for the ballerina has lots of nsfw stuff on the website. So don't wander around if you are offended by that material...just stick with the ballerina.)

Moral of the story...uses for both RAW and JPEG.

 

Edited August 4, 2018 by slackercruster

[tinplater]

On 7/31/2018 at 11:02 AM, Chrissie said:

Agreed. I just wanted to make you aware of the fact, that you will not exploit a Sony full frame camera to its fullest potential if you settle for jpeg right from the start. When I bought mine, there was a bundled offer for a heavily discounted Capture One license, limited to Sony cameras but otherwise full-featured, to do the raw processing and - eventually (!) - export as jpeg or various other formats. But that should imho be the final step, not the first.

Did you know, that every edit session on a jpeg including a re-encoding (i.e.: saving as another jpeg) adds one generation of losses to your image? This will not happen if you keep editing the raw image (or a copy of it), and then export to jpeg. Just as a thought.

Just curious, when editing JPEG's in Lightroom, if you select "reset" after your session which returns you to the unedited image, have you lost anything?  

[Chrissie]

@tinplater:  I'm sorry I can't help you out on this. I'm using purely Capture One Pro and don't have any experience with Lightroom.

[tinplater]

Thanks Chrissie, Lightroom is labeled as "non-destructive" meaning editing changes were just saved as instructions but the original file is left unchanged.  So I don't think opening and reopening, editing and re editing does anything to lose information in the sense you can always revert back to the original JPEG file.

[denniswcr]

No one here has mentioned that JPEG files are 8 bit and posterization (banding of smooth tonal gradations) can occur if the file needs a large correction for exposure or contrast.  RAW files can be loaded into Photoshop as 16 bit and this allows large corrections to be made with a much lower possibility of posterization.

[DrJohn]

1 minute ago, denniswcr said:

No one here has mentioned that JPEG files are 8 bit and posterization (banding of smooth tonal gradations) can occur if the file needs a large correction for exposure or contrast.  RAW files can be loaded into Photoshop as 16 bit and this allows large corrections to be made with a much lower possibility of posterization.

Not earlier versions of photoshop, such as CS5, will work with Sony raw files.

John

[Chrissie]

1 hour ago, denniswcr said:

No one here has mentioned that JPEG files are 8 bit ...

up to 8 bit per rgb color channel, that is. What you said about the banding is of course true.

[thefsb]

6 hours ago, denniswcr said:

No one here has mentioned that JPEG files are 8 bit and posterization (banding of smooth tonal gradations) can occur if the file needs a large correction for exposure or contrast.

I said that RAW "allows latitude for adjustments that a JPEG may not." The posterization effect you sometimes get on adjusting images loaded from JPEG files is an example.

But my point is that there's no right answer to RAW or JPEG. As always: it depends. Sometimes the JPEG will meet all your needs. Sometimes not. Sometimes the camera does a better job developing the picture than I can manage.

[thefsb]

On 8/5/2018 at 10:02 AM, tinplater said:

Just curious, when editing JPEG's in Lightroom, if you select "reset" after your session which returns you to the unedited image, have you lost anything?  

Iirc (the last LR I used was v4) the input image file is unchanged regardless of reset and regardless of file format (JPEG, RAW, whatever). That file doesn't change when you adjust/edit in LR. So no, you have not lost anything.

Except, when you select "reset", you discard the adjustments/edits you did. But even this is not really lost quite yet since there is "Undo", which can rescue them at least in the short term.