Why is Raw better than jpeg

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by ransley, Aug 6, 2010.

  1. ransley

    ransley Guest

    I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
    looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    the photo? What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.
     
    ransley, Aug 6, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ransley

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:
    > I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    > believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    > For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
    > looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    > noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    > 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    > the photo?


    This is a FAQ and dealt with in the JPEG FAQ. See Q10 of

    http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

    Opening and closing a JPEG file doesn't alter it at all unless you Save
    the file again as a JPEG *and* overwrite the original file. If you treat
    your original JPEGs are readonly then there is no problem at all.

    The level of degradation with successive saves is not huge provided that
    you work at a fixed quality level. But it is ever present. This means
    that in a workflow you want to keep work in progress saved in a lossless
    format (typically one native to the application you are using that will
    preserve layers and masks).

    > What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    > hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    > with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    > Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    > jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    > Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.


    Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
    colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
    contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
    there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
    off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
    both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.

    Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
    (some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 6, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. ransley

    ransley Guest

    On Aug 6, 7:21 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    wrote:
    > On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:
    >
    > > I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    > > believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    > > For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended  because jpeg
    > > looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    > > noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    > > 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    > > the photo?

    >
    > This is a FAQ and dealt with in the JPEG FAQ. See Q10 of
    >
    > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/
    >
    > Opening and closing a JPEG file doesn't alter it at all unless you Save
    > the file again as a JPEG *and* overwrite the original file. If you treat
    > your original JPEGs are readonly then there is no problem at all.
    >
    > The level of degradation with successive saves is not huge provided that
    > you work at a fixed quality level. But it is ever present. This means
    > that in a workflow you want to keep work in progress saved in a lossless
    > format (typically one native to the application you are using that will
    > preserve layers and masks).
    >
    > > What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    > > hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    > > with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    > > Photomatrix loaded the jpeg]  I am fully happy with the results but
    > > jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    > > Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.

    >
    > Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
    > colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
    > contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
    > there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
    > off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
    > both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.
    >
    > Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
    > (some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)
    >
    > Regards,
    > Martin Brown


    I use Adobe and just save as it prompts me, is that the proper way? I
    wonder since Canons jpeg is optimised if I am not going backwards with
    Raw and missing what they have put major effort into perfecting. How
    is dynamic range improved? Color balance controls in editing are the
    same, how is Raw better?
     
    ransley, Aug 6, 2010
    #3
  4. ransley

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 06/08/2010 14:02, ransley wrote:
    > I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    > believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    > For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
    > looses quality every time you open and close it?


    No... RAW is recommended because JPEG can only code 8 bits per "channel"
    (*). In a camera with significantly more than 8 bits per channel (**)
    going to JPEG requires to discard some information, which cannot be
    recoverdd later. RAW allows these choices to be made later (and pick up
    among them the best choice for a specific photo).

    > Is the difference
    > noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    > 5x7 or 8x11?


    JPEG loss only happen when you save the file. If you only open the file
    for printing nothing happens to the orginal file.

    > Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    > the photo?


    "Close", no. "Save", yes, to some extent. This is why applications that
    re-save the picture behind your back should be taken out and shot (this
    is what happens with Windows Picture and Fax viewer when you rotate the
    photo). But for the "quality" setting of most photos, this is very minor
    and you won't notice anything un,les you edit and save the image ober a
    dozen times. But you can completely avoid this by saving the
    intermediate versions in a lossless format (TIFF, for instance) or the
    native format of you picture editor (this will save layers, selections
    and whatever) and only export to JPEG the final result.

    > What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    > hassle of complete editing.


    Showing off :)

    > I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    > with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    > Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    > jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    > Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.


    Agreed. I usually shoot JPEG too. I use RAW only when I know I'm going
    to do some extensive work on the picture (difficule shooting conditions,
    etc...).

    (*) without getting into goory details, JPEG actually encodes luminance
    and chrominance separately, and puts less emphasis on chrominance bcause
    we are less sensitive to it, so it doesn't really encodes the primmary
    colors...

    (**) moderns SLRs achieve more than 10 bits most of the time

    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Aug 6, 2010
    #4
  5. "Ofnuts" <> wrote in message
    news:4c5c0239$0$28746$...
    []
    > No... RAW is recommended because JPEG can only code 8 bits per "channel"
    > (*). In a camera with significantly more than 8 bits per channel (**)
    > going to JPEG requires to discard some information, which cannot be
    > recoverdd later. RAW allows these choices to be made later (and pick up
    > among them the best choice for a specific photo).

    []
    > (*) without getting into goory details, JPEG actually encodes luminance
    > and chrominance separately, and puts less emphasis on chrominance bcause
    > we are less sensitive to it, so it doesn't really encodes the primmary
    > colors...
    >
    > (**) moderns SLRs achieve more than 10 bits most of the time
    >
    > --
    > Bertrand


    Bertrand,

    Don't forget that the brightness range coding in RAW is linear, but the
    coding in JPEG is "gamma-corrected", meaning that JPEG can actually handle
    a /greater/ dynamic range than RAW, but at a lower precision for a given
    brightness level.

    Where JPEG codes colour differently brightness is in the spatial
    resolution. The eye cannot perceive colours as finely (spatially) as it
    can greyscale differences, so in JPEG the colour component may only be
    encoded at half the resolution (for example, you could look at it as 2 x
    2.5MP colour difference images with a 10MP greyscale image). It can
    encode primary colours as well as RAW - but at a lower resolution.

    Appreciate you are trying to simplify, though.

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Aug 6, 2010
    #5
  6. ransley

    otter Guest

    On Aug 6, 7:27 am, ransley <> wrote:
    > On Aug 6, 7:21 am, Martin Brown <|||>
    > wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:

    >
    > > > I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    > > > believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    > > > For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended  because jpeg
    > > > looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    > > > noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    > > > 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    > > > the photo?

    >
    > > This is a FAQ and dealt with in the JPEG FAQ. See Q10 of

    >
    > >http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/

    >
    > > Opening and closing a JPEG file doesn't alter it at all unless you Save
    > > the file again as a JPEG *and* overwrite the original file. If you treat
    > > your original JPEGs are readonly then there is no problem at all.

    >
    > > The level of degradation with successive saves is not huge provided that
    > > you work at a fixed quality level. But it is ever present. This means
    > > that in a workflow you want to keep work in progress saved in a lossless
    > > format (typically one native to the application you are using that will
    > > preserve layers and masks).

    >
    > > > What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    > > > hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    > > > with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    > > > Photomatrix loaded the jpeg]  I am fully happy with the results but
    > > > jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    > > > Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.

    >
    > > Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
    > > colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
    > > contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
    > > there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
    > > off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
    > > both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.

    >
    > > Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
    > > (some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)

    >
    > > Regards,
    > > Martin Brown

    >
    > I use Adobe and just save as it prompts me, is that the proper way?  I
    > wonder since Canons jpeg is optimised if I am not going backwards with
    > Raw and missing what they have put major effort into perfecting. How
    > is dynamic range improved? Color balance controls in editing are the
    > same, how is Raw better?- Hide quoted text -
    >
    > - Show quoted text -


    I wouldn't say that the Canon in-camera jpeg routines are better than
    what you can achieve in post-processing on a computer. Hasn't been my
    experience. The camera/lens correction profiles in ACR 6.1, for
    example, alone make it worth switching to shooting RAW, not to mention
    the increased ability to make color and exposure corrections without
    degrading the image.

    I have many jpegs from a few years ago that I was happy with at the
    time, but now wish I had shot RAW.
     
    otter, Aug 6, 2010
    #6
  7. ransley

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 06/08/2010 13:27, ransley wrote:
    > On Aug 6, 7:21 am, Martin Brown<|||>
    > wrote:
    >> On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:
    >>
    >>> What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    >>> hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    >>> with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    >>> Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    >>> jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    >>> Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.

    >>
    >> Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
    >> colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
    >> contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
    >> there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
    >> off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
    >> both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.
    >>
    >> Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
    >> (some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)
    >>

    > I use Adobe and just save as it prompts me, is that the proper way? I


    So long as you don't overwrite original files then yes.

    In Photoshop you probably want to use its native format .PSD for
    intermediate files or whatever they call it now.

    > wonder since Canons jpeg is optimised if I am not going backwards with
    > Raw and missing what they have put major effort into perfecting. How


    Raw gives you something closer to what the sensor measured which is
    between 10 and 12bits of linear intensity data. JPEG gives you 8 bits of
    gamma corrected data which depending on the in camera JPEG settings
    might result in lost shadow detail or blown highlights. If the shot is
    hard to take again then RAW has a major advantage that you can adjust to
    get the maximum dynamic range and best colour balance afterwards.

    There are a handful of cases where classic JPEG decoder defects mean
    that a JPEG is visibly inferior for a few near pathological target
    images. Fine black detail on a saturated red flower is one such example.
    In this specific case the RAW image is better.

    > is dynamic range improved? Color balance controls in editing are the
    > same, how is Raw better?


    The controls in the programs are identical. You are starting from an
    earlier point in the processing chain when you use raw. This can be
    useful, but for most casual work it is overkill. You would do better to
    concentrate on composition and lighting than worry about RAW vs JPEG.

    The generational losses are much less than most people would have you
    believe. But they are there. Take an image and using constant quality
    settings save a copy image1, close and reload it, then save as image2,
    close and reload it then save as image 3. Use the arithemetic functions
    to difference them and you will see how much difference there is. Don't
    take peoples word for it you can do the experiment yourself.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Aug 6, 2010
    #7
  8. ransley

    ray Guest

    On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 05:02:50 -0700, ransley wrote:

    > I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    > believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well. For
    > my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg looses
    > quality every time you open and close it?


    That's not quite true - quality is lost every time it is saved.

    > Is the difference noticable by
    > opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at 5x7 or 8x11?


    Only if you save it each time - then it will be, eventually.

    > Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close the photo? What
    > are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra hassle of complete
    > editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working with 5 shot Photomatrix
    > hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think Photomatrix loaded the
    > jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but jpeg is so much easier. I
    > think for special photos made and composed Raw may be optimal , but its
    > time very consuming.


    raw gives you greater editing latitude. There is more dynamic range and
    every pixel is represented, as opposed to jpeg. With my Kodak P850, I
    routinely shoot in raw. In many cases the enclosed jpeg view is adequate
    so I don't even process the raw image - simply extract the jpeg. When I
    do want to 'tweak' things, it is simple to change, for example, the white
    balance - or the exposure setting. If a jpeg is under or overexposed
    there is little you can do to correct it - raw has much greater
    possibilities.
     
    ray, Aug 6, 2010
    #8
  9. ransley

    Barry Guest

    On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 13:21:30 +0100, Martin Brown
    <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

    >On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:
    >> I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    >> believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    >> For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
    >> looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    >> noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    >> 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    >> the photo?

    >
    >This is a FAQ and dealt with in the JPEG FAQ. See Q10 of
    >
    >http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/
    >
    >Opening and closing a JPEG file doesn't alter it at all unless you Save
    >the file again as a JPEG *and* overwrite the original file. If you treat
    >your original JPEGs are readonly then there is no problem at all.
    >
    >The level of degradation with successive saves is not huge provided that
    >you work at a fixed quality level. But it is ever present.


    Agreed, for the most part, but not always. PhotoLine editor, for example,
    does completely lossless JPG editing. The only pixels that change in any
    subsequent saves are the ones you specifically change. No other changes are
    made to the rest of the image during successive saves. For example you are
    working on cloning out a fence-line in a meadow. You do 1/3rd of that
    fence, save it as a JPG file, go to lunch. Come back and reopen the image
    you previously saved, clone out another 1/3rd of the fence. Get an
    important call, so you save your edits to the same JPG file. Come back
    later, open it again, finish the project. Save it again. The ONLY pixels
    that will have changed during the course of all these editing sessions will
    be the fence pixels you changed. Only those pixels that you change are put
    through the JPG compression algorithm again during saves. No others
    throughout the whole image, nor those in previous edits, will change no
    matter how many times you open, edit, save to same file, and open it again.
    (See PhotoLine's helpfile on what you can do to override this when needed,
    when you intentionally want to lose data with subsequent JPG resaves.)

    >This means
    >that in a workflow you want to keep work in progress saved in a lossless
    >format (typically one native to the application you are using that will
    >preserve layers and masks).
    >
    >> What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    >> hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    >> with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    >> Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    >> jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    >> Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.

    >
    >Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
    >colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
    >contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
    >there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
    >off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
    >both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.


    It can often get both right, and often does. If you know how to set up your
    camera properly to begin with. If you will always be editing your best
    shots for prints or before sharing, then shoot with the lowest contrast
    setting on your camera that is available. This will ensure retaining the
    fullest dynamic range of the RAW sensor data in the resulting JPG file. So
    much so that it's difficult to get any extra dynamic range from the RAW
    data. Save your more contrasty "impact" edits for later. Unless you never
    edit any photos, then let the camera add the "impact" in your images. Then
    you're not the kind of photographer that cares all that much about dynamic
    range anyway, the content of any images is more important to you than any
    fancy editing. Neither way is right or wrong. Good content will always
    trump image quality or dynamic range.

    Once you've set your JPG to lowest in-camera contrast then get your
    exposure right. Those who always work with optical viewfinders are not
    aware of how accurately one can predict the final image if they were using
    a camera with an EVF (or even LCD). Under/over-exposures are so
    20th-century with today's digital cameras that have a decent EVF, if you
    know how to use them properly. With an EVF, the exposure and color-balance
    that you see in the viewfinder is truly what you get.

    One other important tip for those using JPG most of the time. Avoid using
    your camera's auto white-balance in most situations. If you know you are
    shooting in sunny conditions, use daylight white-balance. If in cloudy
    conditions or deep north-light shade, use cloudy white-balance. If under
    tungsten lighting, use tungsten white-balance. Etc. Save auto white-balance
    for those times when you really don't care how good the image is going to
    look and you are willing to put up with odd color-shifts in your images at
    times. A good example of this problem was recently posted by a resident
    snapshooter. An older fawn in the forest under a deep canopy of green
    leaves filtering sunlight. Auto white-balance completely destroyed this
    image, turning the fawn into a maroon mess and making all the surrounding
    foliage blue and cyan. The camera doesn't know how to properly compensate
    for a green light-source such as that coming from all the leaves above and
    reflected greens off of the foliage beneath, stripping that color from
    everything and throwing them all off. The same would be just as true if you
    were shooting a party of people under a bright orange outdoor canopy in
    sunlight. Auto white-balance will try to strip out all yellows and reds
    (orange) in your image throwing off all skin-tones.

    Use the daylight white-balance in these situation because that's your
    original light source. Later, in editing, tone down the overall green light
    or orange light to something more pleasing, but don't remove it all or
    you've destroyed the realism in your image. Whites, blacks, and grays in
    the real world are rarely pure white, black, or gray. Snapshooters that
    depend on auto-everything, like auto white-balance, don't care if that's
    true or not. (Nor do tech-head geeks that live in their basements posting
    their "advice" online, never having seen nor experienced the real colors
    out in the real world. They insist that whites must be white, grays gray,
    and blacks pure black. BTW: This is a good way to spot basement-living
    pretend-photographer trolls online.)

    A classic example problem for an auto white-balance mistake are those that
    shoot spectacular sunsets. The camera's auto white-balance will try to
    strip out all the intense golds, reds, and blues of a sunset; muting them
    into muddy drab colors; trying to create whites, grays, and blacks amongst
    them all. The sun is lighting that sunset so leave your camera on daylight
    (sunlight) white-balance and your JPG file will present an image that
    looked just like that original rich sunset.

    >
    >Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
    >(some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)
    >
    >Regards,
    >Martin Brown
     
    Barry, Aug 6, 2010
    #9
  10. ransley

    Ofnuts Guest

    On 06/08/2010 14:27, ransley wrote:

    > I use Adobe and just save as it prompts me, is that the proper way? I
    > wonder since Canons jpeg is optimised if I am not going backwards with
    > Raw and missing what they have put major effort into perfecting. How
    > is dynamic range improved? Color balance controls in editing are the
    > same, how is Raw better?


    When you open your original JPEG for editing, do at once a Save As and
    pick the Photoshop standard file type (PSD). Thus all mods will apply to
    this PSD and will be lossless. Once you are happy with the changes
    export to JPEG (under a different name)


    --
    Bertrand
     
    Ofnuts, Aug 6, 2010
    #10
  11. ransley

    tony cooper Guest

    On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 18:45:32 +0200, Ofnuts <>
    wrote:

    >On 06/08/2010 14:27, ransley wrote:
    >
    >> I use Adobe and just save as it prompts me, is that the proper way? I
    >> wonder since Canons jpeg is optimised if I am not going backwards with
    >> Raw and missing what they have put major effort into perfecting. How
    >> is dynamic range improved? Color balance controls in editing are the
    >> same, how is Raw better?

    >
    >When you open your original JPEG for editing, do at once a Save As and
    >pick the Photoshop standard file type (PSD). Thus all mods will apply to
    >this PSD and will be lossless. Once you are happy with the changes
    >export to JPEG (under a different name)


    If I open a jpeg for editing, I automatically create a new duplicate
    background layer (Control-J). Any SAVE action saves it as a .psd.
    The editing will be done on the dupe layer.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Aug 6, 2010
    #11
  12. Barry <> wrote:

    > With an EVF, the exposure and color-balance
    > that you see in the viewfinder is truly what you get.


    Especially since EVFs are not calibrated at all.
    You probably never calibrated your monitor, nor ever used a
    colour target.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 7, 2010
    #12
  13. Martin Brown <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
    > On 06/08/2010 13:02, ransley wrote:


    >> I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    >> believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    >> For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
    >> looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    >> noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    >> 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    >> the photo?


    > This is a FAQ and dealt with in the JPEG FAQ. See Q10 of


    > http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/


    > Opening and closing a JPEG file doesn't alter it at all unless you Save
    > the file again as a JPEG *and* overwrite the original file. If you treat
    > your original JPEGs are readonly then there is no problem at all.


    > The level of degradation with successive saves is not huge provided that
    > you work at a fixed quality level. But it is ever present. This means
    > that in a workflow you want to keep work in progress saved in a lossless
    > format (typically one native to the application you are using that will
    > preserve layers and masks).


    >> What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    >> hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    >> with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    >> Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    >> jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    >> Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.


    > Raw gives you more freedom afterwards to rescue dynamic range and adjust
    > colour balance. This can be important if you know that the image will
    > contain black velvet in shadow and a white bridal dress in sunlight. And
    > there is little chance of retaning it if the exposure is even slightly
    > off. It is hard for the in camera auto adjust and save as JPEG to get
    > both exactly right simultaneously and a risk if you let it.


    > Most of the time in camera JPEG encoding is fine - ie good enough.
    > (some makers high quality JPEG encoding is better than others)


    It's not just some makers, there can be quite a bit of variation in
    jpeg quality in different models from the same maker. Often, but not
    always, later models are better. In some cases the jpeg conversion
    optimisation has been done so well by the maker that if you don't use
    the maker's own RAW conversion software you'll have to be very skilful
    indeed in your RAW processing to reach that jepg quality where
    extensive white balance or exposure shifts are not required.

    In other words you have to suck it and see for your own camera, your
    own skills and procedures, and your chosen image editing workflow
    software.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 7, 2010
    #13
  14. Barry <> wrote:

    > One other important tip for those using JPG most of the time. Avoid using
    > your camera's auto white-balance in most situations.


    That depends on how good your specific camera's auto white balance
    is. Some are very good, and can hardly be improved on in most
    situations. Some are usually good but are poor in certain specific
    conditions. Some are only good in certain specific simple
    situations. And so on. You can't make general rules which apply to
    all makes and models of cameras.

    --
    Chris Malcolm
     
    Chris Malcolm, Aug 7, 2010
    #14
  15. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On 8/6/2010 7:02 AM, ransley wrote:
    > I use the T1i, dpreview gives a higher rating to Jpeg over Raw. I
    > believe its because Jpegs settings are optimised by Canon very well.
    > For my jpegs they come out very good. Is Raw recomended because jpeg
    > looses quality every time you open and close it? Is the difference
    > noticable by opening and closing it say for example 5 times printed at
    > 5x7 or 8x11? Does the loss on jpeg only occur if you completely close
    > the photo? What are other benefits of Raw to make it worth the extra
    > hassle of complete editing. I am happy shooting jpeg, I am working
    > with 5 shot Photomatrix hdr and have done both Raw and jpeg [I think
    > Photomatrix loaded the jpeg] I am fully happy with the results but
    > jpeg is so much easier. I think for special photos made and composed
    > Raw may be optimal , but its time very consuming.


    It all depends on application. Does your workflow allow for a lot of
    tweaking? Then RAW works better for you. Are you a run-and-gun sports
    photographer who comes home with 2,000 images each day that need to be
    done by the night? Then JPEG works better for you. I primarily shoot
    commercial and editorial weatherscapes, which has no real deadline -- so
    RAW is for me.

    - --
    - -Ryan McGinnis
    The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
    Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
    Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan McGinnis

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (MingW32)
    Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

    iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJMXWajAAoJEIzODkDZ7B1b/WMIAKeDjG+Qz5stBi4gd8BHNtcL
    VVmTvXROx/IEud6dQvWWKsdzqWl+iJW9OUM+pXZReVX6frAO9SZxNlT1YPosKO4z
    D/cCA3jDHpsAQkgS+hpRwtkjExXQO81AhSrcrMY9J3/POEB6OmqsiTs9rTEPqd19
    C2diV82x7Y0AP1AwVVv128Q6Oyu0AQ/8Rl/XzwzoCelud96BzfSsTDn1SvQr4p7/
    g9I3wEYt/oWWzAv+mrKcknETvBB503uCKKLCI4eDXhfNAW3Cl9SMW7UOx4lgBQH5
    55ZZD25O2DearzHoUPaXf3/MlWEk8lBDGxqQlekEicwIAct4zDSsgYWmQwzAOPE=
    =Q0Z3
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
     
    Ryan McGinnis, Aug 7, 2010
    #15
  16. Barry <> wrote:
    > On Sat, 7 Aug 2010 02:12:33 +0200, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>Barry <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> With an EVF, the exposure and color-balance
    >>> that you see in the viewfinder is truly what you get.

    >>
    >>Especially since EVFs are not calibrated at all.
    >>You probably never calibrated your monitor, nor ever used a
    >>colour target.


    > Especially since you've never held one camera in your whole lifetime,
    > troll.


    Ah, it is the idiot. PLONK.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Aug 8, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Bluesman

    Why is jpeg format better than bmp?

    Bluesman, Mar 4, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    11,552
    Don Stauffer
    Mar 5, 2004
  2. Amit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,362
    Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!)
    Mar 17, 2006
  3. Paul D. Sullivan

    Better JPEG program - minimized JPEG degredation

    Paul D. Sullivan, Jan 26, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    14
    Views:
    871
  4. Richard DeLuca

    Making a jpeg look better than it really is?

    Richard DeLuca, Jan 30, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    47
    Views:
    1,124
    John Turco
    Feb 13, 2007
  5. dh@.
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    500
    PTravel
    Aug 28, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page