Professionals (and the confident) shoot JPEG; amateurs shoot RAW ...

[teuchter]

Can't see the difference myself.

Tell you what, take a different bit of the image, then post up 3 samples, unlabelled. Make 2 of them actually the same. Then get people to say which they think is JPEG, and which isn't.

The answers should be fun.

Proper scientific study!

I suspect that there is a bit of a similar thing here as there is with some "high-end" hifi - the audible differences suddenly disappear once you do a blind test.

 

[weltweit]

Tell you what, take a different bit of the image, then post up 3 samples, unlabelled. Make 2 of them actually the same. Then get people to say which they think is JPEG, and which isn't.

The answers should be fun.

Indeed, no one knows whether my prints come from raw or jpeg, and I don't see the need to tell them either.

 

[weltweit]

Who looks at things at 400% anyhow.
For me if it looks ok at 100% I know I am going to get a good print from it.

 

[Herbsman.]

I only shoot jpeg because my output is flickr and this computer cant handle RAW pics. ffs it has less than the minimum requirements to run photoshop cs3 but still somehow manages to run it (just about).

I rarely shoot anything printworthy but when I do think I'm gonna want a nice a2ish print for my living room then I'll shoot in raw + jpeg mode just so I can get an optimal print in future (i.e. when I can afford a decent computer and colour management stuff)

 

[Herbsman.]

btw surely a proper test of raw vs. jpeg should be done with prints not screen output

 

[weltweit]

I suppose if I had a super modern computer with massive drives for storage then I might shoot raw sometimes. I do like to get as close to the maximum quality as possible out of my camera, but at the moment my puters cannot cope with the massive filesizes.

 

[paolo]

btw surely a proper test of raw vs. jpeg should be done with prints not screen output

Either are valid. Depends what your target medium is. But within the constraints of chewing the fat on urban, we'll have to make do with screen and some degree of pixel peeping.

 

[paolo]

Proper scientific study!

I suspect that there is a bit of a similar thing here as there is with some "high-end" hifi - the audible differences suddenly disappear once you do a blind test.

I had a mate who worked for a company making specialist top dollar valve amps.

When it came to cables (the great con trick of 'high end' hi fi), well... the engineers did a blind test of ordinary mains cable, vs super expensive 'specialist' speaker cable.

Noone could tell the difference.

(The amps themselves though... well, valves really do sound different... but that's another topic).

 

[teuchter]

I had a mate who worked for a company making specialist top dollar valve amps.

When it came to cables (the great con trick of 'high end' hi fi), well... the engineers did a blind test of ordinary mains cable, vs super expensive 'specialist' speaker cable.

Noone could tell the difference.

(The amps themselves though... well, valves really do sound different... but that's another topic).

I saw a good test somewhere involving digital interconnects. The whole idea of digital, of course, is that generally either the signal is 100% correct or it falls below a threshold where it is useless. This doesn't stop some people believing that it's worth spending several hundred quid on some coax cables with gold plated this and directional that. Anyway some bloke had set up a comparison between such cables and a more 'DIY' version. No-one could reliably hear a difference. I can't remember the exact make-up of his alternative set-up but there was definitely a coat-hanger involved...

 

[starfish2000]

I shoot Jpegs mainly, but am doing a paid job soon, so will do RAW & JPEG for that. My Cameras 10.1 MP

My only question is in terms of future proofing, will RAW be redundant one day, or will it require endless software updates costing endless amounts of money?

 

[Herbsman.]

raw is raw, someone will interpret the data, its juts raw image data from sensor

 

[paolo]

I saw a good test somewhere involving digital interconnects. The whole idea of digital, of course, is that generally either the signal is 100% correct or it falls below a threshold where it is useless. This doesn't stop some people believing that it's worth spending several hundred quid on some coax cables with gold plated this and directional that. Anyway some bloke had set up a comparison between such cables and a more 'DIY' version. No-one could reliably hear a difference. I can't remember the exact make-up of his alternative set-up but there was definitely a coat-hanger involved...

 

[teuchter]

I shoot Jpegs mainly, but am doing a paid job soon, so will do RAW & JPEG for that. My Cameras 10.1 MP

My only question is in terms of future proofing, will RAW be redundant one day, or will it require endless software updates costing endless amounts of money?

It's one of the points made in the article linked to in the OP - RAW data is not a single format but varies between manufacturers and camera models. So most likely, not very future-proof at all.

 

[army_of_one]

It's one of the points made in the article linked to in the OP - RAW data is not a single format but varies between manufacturers and camera models. So most likely, not very future-proof at all.

Not true. Mostly.

.DNG made by Adobe is generic. Just about every recent editor or converter supports it and more and more cameras are being made that support it. That being said, the camera makers are still produceing their own proprietary RAWs, so you are right about that.

Oh, and Adobe is offering .DNG for free.


http://www.adobe.com/products/dng/



For now.

 

[boskysquelch]

tiff is now own by Adobe also.

tiff is lot more versatile than people here suggest they know....and considerably different than jpeg eg it is losy or non-lossy depending upon it's application of use.

It is also standard practice to images to be reviewed at 300% + for particular reasons...whether or not the user chooses to or not is. naturally, up to them...but there is a purpose for it.eg the application of USM with minimal artefact creation.

 

[Blagsta]

It's one of the points made in the article linked to in the OP - RAW data is not a single format but varies between manufacturers and camera models. So most likely, not very future-proof at all.

which is why I convert to DNG

 

[cybertect]

tiff is now own by Adobe also.

Well, they acquired control of the specification along with the rest of Aldus (who invented the TIFF format) in 1994. There is no licence fee payable to use the format, especially since the patents for LZW compression expired.

tiff is lot more versatile than people here suggest they know....and considerably different than jpeg eg it is losy or non-lossy depending upon it's application of use.

Well, if you do save a TIFF with JPEG compression it will be lossy, but I've never really seen much point in doing that.

 

[Beanburger]

Horses for courses. It's hard (if not impossible) to argue that RAW isn't the superior format. The question surely is what's most appropriate to your personal workflow? I shoot everything in RAW, but I have the time to spend working on the images that I want to use. If I was bursting constantly and wanting to use a lot of those shots, I'd seriously have to think about shooting JPEG.

Also, doesn't it depend on how much post-processing you wanna do? Some people simply want to capture the image "as the eye sees it", whereas others want to manipulate the image further. For the former style, JPEG could well be adequate, whereas for the latter style, RAW offers more flexibility.

 

[weltweit]

You see I know people who have no choice but to use jpeg because that is all their camera will produce. The FujiFilm Finepix S1 for example only produces fine jpeg. (and its a low MP camera)

Yet I also know someone in a club who produces startling prints from that and processes all their images, sometimes a lot. No one has said to them these are all from jpeg because they are of a standard (the prints) that no one can tell.

 

[Blagsta]

I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing. Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved. It's about whether you want to do that yourself or are happy for someone else to do it for you. IMHO, natch.

 

[Beanburger]

You see I know people who have no choice but to use jpeg because that is all their camera will produce. The FujiFilm Finepix S1 for example only produces fine jpeg. (and its a low MP camera)

I've seen brilliant photographs produced with a polaroid camera. That's not the issue though. Nobody's denying that you can create superb images using JPEGs. But RAW is a better tool, providing greater flexibility. That doesn't mean that you personally (or your friends) need it - any more than Mozart needed a 64 track digital recording suite. But that doesn't alter that fact that RAW (and a 64 track digital recording suite) is a more powerful tool in the hands of the artist (and yes, I view photographers as artists).

 

[Beanburger]

I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing. Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved.

Yes. If it's all about "capturing what the eye sees", then where would that leave black and white photography?

 

[Herbsman.]

I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing. Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved. It's about whether you want to do that yourself or are happy for someone else to do it for you. IMHO, natch.

To right

 

[teuchter]

I don't get this "get it right in camera" thing. Photography has never been about capturing what the eye sees, it has always been about interpretation of the world, it has always had some degree of processing and creative decisions involved. It's about whether you want to do that yourself or are happy for someone else to do it for you. IMHO, natch.

Attempting to correct an overexposed shot in an image editor is not a "creative decision". If you want to over-expose a shot for creative reasons then a good photographer would do this at the point of taking the picture.

 

[weltweit]

I forget even how to turn on raw in my camera but I did try max resolution tiff a couple of days ago as a result of this thread and the image size was 35mb ... that compares to 2.5mb or 4.5mb for jpeg images of 6mp or 12mp. I simply cannot live with 35mb per file, its just not justifiable.

 

[weltweit]

My camera is a tool, I use it to process images of the scene how I want it to, there are settings for colour and tone and I use them as well as exposure and composition to get the image that I want.

 

[Blagsta]

Attempting to correct an overexposed shot in an image editor is not a "creative decision". If you want to over-expose a shot for creative reasons then a good photographer would do this at the point of taking the picture.

So RAW is just about correcting over-exposed images?

 

[Beanburger]

My camera is a tool, I use it to process images of the scene how I want it to, there are settings for colour and tone and I use them as well as exposure and composition to get the image that I want.

Which is why it's suitable for you. It doesn't mean that it's suitable for everyone. It also doesn't mean that JPEG is the better tool. I can cut bread with a butter knife at a push, but a serrated blade is still a better tool.

 

[paolo]

I find both types of purists irritating. Whether it be the 'get it right in camera' sort, or the RAW zealot.

The sensible answer is: Do what works for you.

But that's no fun for a forum argument.

 

[Beanburger]

I find both types of purists irritating. Whether it be the 'get it right in camera' sort, or the RAW zealot.

The sensible answer is: Do what works for you.

Spot on.

But that's no fun for a forum argument.

Must go and find a Windows vs. Linux discussion....