Which Quality is Best?

Hi --

I was wondering what is the preference for the most cruising photographers. Do you prefer RAW images or those of a lesser quality. Just would appreciate some comments on this -- pro and con.

I have been testing out my new Nikon D7100, which I plan to bring with me on the next cruise two months from now.

ZU

One thing with RAW - you must post process the images. All cameras do some processing on JPGs, but not on RAW. So out of the camera, the JPG may be a bit more appealing to you.

However RAW files allow you to do non-destructive processing without reducing the image quality, while JPGs will.

When I take a shot I really want, I will often put the camera into JPG + RAW, so that if the photo is great, but not quite perfect, I can tweak it a bit in the RAW file.

Otherwise I will just keep the JPG.

And i typically delete the RAW files after I get back and find I don't need to make any changes. True, hard drive space is inexpensive these days, but it is relative... and I'd need a lot more hard drive space if I kept all of the RAW files.

Bottom line, use JPG if you don't plan on editing... use RAW files if you want to edit (and you have to edit them at least a bit - it is not optional if you want the best photos).

Hi --

 

I was wondering what is the preference for the most cruising photographers. Do you prefer RAW images or those of a lesser quality. Just would appreciate some comments on this -- pro and con.

 

I have been testing out my new Nikon D7100, which I plan to bring with me on the next cruise two months from now.

 

ZU

At the risk of flogging the proverbial dead horse, I will put my vote in for JPEG Fine. JPEG engines have evolved in the last ten years to the point that in high-end cameras the out of camera JPEGs are not only good, but can be post processed in programs like Lightroom very much like a RAW file. If you routinely expose horribly or set custom white balance and forget to change it when you go outside, by all means shoot RAW. If you are a typical shooter and use auto white balance and take care that you expose your shots within reasonable limits, JPEG fine is a great option that will not disappoint.

Here are a couple examples of processed JPEGs:

Out of camera:

Auto tone and noise reduction in Lightroom:

Brings out the detail pretty well, eh?

Out of camera:

Corrected JPEG:

This was a quickie fix and if you want to spend time to recover an out of tolerance image, a lot more can be done with color balance, saturation and clarity,

What I haven't mentioned yet is that for 95%of the images that I shoot, I don't have to do anything before posting or archiving them. When I (rarely) shoot RAW, I have to process every single image before posting and while I can store them with adjustments in place, I have to export them to a compatible format like JPEG before sending them off to a lab for printing or uploading them.

RAW has its place,but for most situations, it is overkill.

My 2¢..

Dave

Of course this brings up the question if we shoot jpeg-fine do we also still need to get a powerful program like Lightroom 5, or the freebies like Picasa will do 90% of the average jobs?

John

Of course this brings up the question if we shoot jpeg-fine do we also still need to get a powerful program like Lightroom 5, or the freebies like Picasa will do 90% of the average jobs?

 

John

Picasa is a very powerful program despite its "freebie" status. Fill light, Temperature and the other more advanced editing options are good enough for most photo tuning. I still use it alongside LightRoom for its almost surreal facial recognition tagging and search engine.

BTW, watch the Amazon deals and B&H. They recently had LR 5 for $99 with no upgrade. A very reasonable price for that kind of power. (I paid $79 for my upgrade!)

Dave

Of course this brings up the question if we shoot jpeg-fine do we also still need to get a powerful program like Lightroom 5, or the freebies like Picasa will do 90% of the average jobs?

 

John

Lightroom is more of an organization and cataloging program than a pure editing program (like Photoshop). It does use the same raw converting program photoshop does but it won't do layers or other major editing that ps can do. That said, LR is a great program and will do fine job for probably 95% of the people out here. (Pro's will prob be using it with photoshop).

Lightroom is more of an organization and cataloging program than a pure editing program (like Photoshop). It does use the same raw converting program photoshop does but it won't do layers or other major editing that ps can do. That said, LR is a great program and will do fine job for probably 95% of the people out here. (Pro's will prob be using it with photoshop).

I would mostly agree. Lightroom has much of the same adjustment capability as PS and Elements with some pretty strong touch-up tools like the healing brush added in version 5. Perhaps it would be better described as an "adjuster" rather than an "editor". For true editing like aggressive spot removal and manipulation, you would need an editor like PS or Elements.

Your 95% assessment is pretty accurate and I will add that it will do all the "editing" that is needed for 95%+ of everyday photo processing.

I guess software is like cameras...the best one for all situations is two or three! :)

Dave

I agree that Lightroom can do 95%... (and I use about 10 different programs for the other 5%)...

But I'd say it does more than just adjust or organize..

If you mostly shoot jpeg with few adjustments -- Then Lightroom is great for photo organization and minor adjustments.

But if you shoot RAW, or you make significant adjustments to jpegs, then Lightroom is very powerful.. While Post-processing RAWs can be time-consuming, I can often apply batch adjustments through Lightroom to 10-20 pictures at a time. And Lightroom makes RAW editing exceptionally easy.

It's for people that shoot RAW, where the power of Lightroom really shines.

And while I agree that jpegs can certainly be touched up pretty well.... It doesn't compare to the ability to salvage dynamic range out of a good RAW file.

While I appreciate RAW's ability to preserve more data that might be needed to recover a badly exposed image, I grew into photography in the era of film and am still of a mind that it is best to take care to expose images correctly in the first place.

I shot RAW for "important stuff" in the past but seldom really needed the advantage it offered. Now that my cameras adjust the exposure on thousands of discrete areas and extend the dynamic range of the image as it's captured, my need for RAW has diminished to a little-used option. Add the options of multi-shot noise reduction, sweep panorama and in-camera HDR stacking and JPEG fine isn't just "good enough" but is sometimes the sharpest tool in the shed.

If you are a working pro who appreciates the belt and suspenders safety it offers or just enjoy fiddling with each image to eke out every last imagined detail, RAW + JPEG is for you. If you shoot with a modern camera, take reasonable care that your images are well exposed and enjoy the options provided by in-camera processing, JPEG fine is just that...fine. And lastly, if you are shooting RAW because someone told you that REAL photographers only shoot RAW, I own some property in the Everglades that you might be interested in!;)

Happy shooting! (in the mode of your choice...)

Dave

I use jpeg + raw. I'm usually happy with the jpeg and I use the raw images for playing around with the raw converter in photoshop elements (as I'm still learning how to use that program).

I love to "shoot n share" photos and when shooting casual situations JPG fits the bill. Since every time a JPG file is opened for editing and saved pixels are tossed aside, if I'm in a situation where Preservation of Pixels is Primo, then that shot is saved in RAW.

Lightroom, Photoshop, and any other digital program that allows for any image manipulation are the digital dark rooms of the 21st century. Ansel Adams did most of his amazing work in the dark room, not in the field. He was a genius who could manipulate film negatives to produce an outstanding work of art. Yes, he understood light, and composition, and timing, but his darkroom work was the key to his greatness as a photographer.

I'm never going to achieve what Ansel did, for my lack of time and lack of skills in the digital darkroom will likely insure that my work is comfortably average.

For those who want to return to a photo months or years later and rework a shot, then RAW is the only way to go when Preservation of Pixels is Primo.

Happy shooting in any mode with any camera anywhere!

Question: How often do we open, edit and save a JPEG? Maybe once?

If I edit a JPEG, it is opened, edited and saved at the minimum compression setting which is essentially lossless. If I want to try several versions, I save as a copy. If I later go back to edit it a second time I make a copy to work on. This ensures that there is only ever a single edit and virtually no loss. As for 95%+ of my images where I only do basic adjustments (crop, straighten, color, noise, exposure, clarity, etc.), I do all of those in Lightroom nowadays and they are all done virtually with the changes saved in the database leaving the image untouched (RAW JPEG?). Picasa does adjustments virtually as well.

The impact of loss by JPEG recompression is greatly exaggerated in my experience and is fueled by mis-information and myth. I have even been told that I should shoot RAW because every time you open a JPEG to view it, it is recompressed and loses quality. :eek:

There are many good reasons for people to shoot RAW but image quality preservation isn't one of them.

Dave

Much like Dave mentioned, when I do edit a JPG, I absolutely always leave the original alone - if I edit, I do a 'save as' and make it a new file, so my original is never degraded.

Also, in my photo editor, I've set my JPG compression to level 1 of 12, which is less than 1% compressed - in other words, almost lossless. So even if I did continually resave edits over the original, it would take me 20 edits resaved before I'd be getting any significant loss of image quality from disposed information.

For the most part, I don't edit my photos, other than minor cropping, and even those cropped versions are always 'saved as' a new file. Because I've always shot film and slide back in the days of SLRs to expose correctly and avoid the need to process, my digital shooting follows the same style - which allows me to avoid post-processing for a vast majority of my shooting, which works well for me because I just don't enjoy post processing nearly as much as I enjoy shooting.

JPGs can be edited for most of the basic tweaks the average person does on a shot - the extra headroom in RAW is rarely exploited by many photographers. Those who really enjoy post processing, love to tweak deep into every shot, or those who need extreme recovery or adjustability, will actually take advantage of what a RAW file can do for them - indeed it holds much more information allowing more extreme manipulation and recovery. But a lot of people were told that in order to edit a photo, they needed to shoot RAW, and there are definitely a lot of people out there who aren't using much of that extra headroom, are inferior in RAW processing skills and therefore not getting the best out of it, and/or who could have gotten the same level of editing/manipulation from a JPG file because their photo wasn't that far off.

I shoot raw, but I'm used to processing my own film.

For a somewhat off the wall look at RAW v. JPG, go here (start from the bottom up)

http://froknowsphoto.com/raw-vs-jpeg-vs-ken-rockwell-interview/

Besides, these kittens want you to shoot raw and you don't want to disappoint them, do you?

Besides, these kittens want you to shoot raw and you don't want to disappoint them, do you?

That's actually a better reason than many I've heard! :)

FWIW...I used to develop my own film as well...and change my own oil...and many other things that I have less time for and no desire to do now that I have a viable alternative.

I do, however, occasionally use a hand plane, card scrapers and chisels while working with wood. Kind of like RAW for wood? Maybe if I didn't have two immersive hobbies, I would shoot more RAW...

Dave

That's actually a better reason than many I've heard! :)

 

 

FWIW...I used to develop my own film as well...and change my own oil...and many other things that I have less time for and no desire to do now that I have a viable alternative.

 

I do, however, occasionally use a hand plane, card scrapers and chisels while working with wood. Kind of like RAW for wood? Maybe if I didn't have two immersive hobbies, I would shoot more RAW...

 

Dave

I just need cheaper hobbies....photography and travel not too good for the bank account.:D

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Forums mobile app

I just need cheaper hobbies....photography and travel not too good for the bank account.:D

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Forums mobile app

I guess I didn't mention cruising as a hobby since I consider it a camera accessory...:D

Dave

I guess I didn't mention cruising as a hobby since I consider it a camera accessory...:D

 

Dave

I consider the cruise ship just another mode of transportation to get me from one photo location to the next. While slower than a metal tube flying at 35k feet it is much more comfortable.

But I do like calling it a camera accessory.

In the past I have shot RAW + Jpeg when I had my Windows based computers and used PS and other programs to process the files. Since I have moved to the Mac Platform I have dropped RAW and use LR and Aperture to process files. Now having a camera that has an 18.5MP sensor, I have likely reached the limit of what I can improve on into the future as I know it currently. To get to the next image improvement level it will take a sensor that has 4x18.5MP. Going from 18.5 to 25 will not yield very visible results. It also saves memory space on memory sticks in my camera. I have followed Dave and others here and their advice and counsel has been very good. I also started developing my own film and printing my own pictures many years ago in a darkroom at Ft. Benning, Ga. when I lived in Columbus, Ga and was an Army Brat. Now I hit the Print button on the Mac to get the finished product.

Why use both LR and Aperture? Are the not basicly the same thing? (I am a mac user myself just picked up a new macbook pro this past wknd and upgraded to LR5 from LR4 while i was tossing out $$$ :banghead:

I will add, I have never used aperture myself l. It just looks similar to LR and reading some photo boards it looks like some folks are bolting to LR because apple has been slow to updare aperture where as LR keeps evolving.

I guess ill add what I shoot as well, it seems to be the in thing. I shoot raw and convert to .dng when i import them to LR. Though if i am at a race with my dad or when i was at my sisters wedding (as a guest not as the photog) i did set my camera for both. Raw on card 1 and jpeg on card 2. That way i can just give who ever jpeg copies on thumb drives while i keep my files. I like to play around with the adjustments so i like having tbe dng's. Looking foward to playing with some of my old d90 files from a few years ago when i barely knew which end was which and seeing if i can make them a "bit" better with LR5. :cool:

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Forums mobile app

I only shoot in RAW. May consider RAW +JPEG to have the option of which ones I want to do post processing on. I'm taking a lot of cards so memory won't be an issue.

Question: How often do we open, edit and save a JPEG? Maybe once?

 

If I edit a JPEG, it is opened, edited and saved at the minimum compression setting which is essentially lossless. If I want to try several versions, I save as a copy. If I later go back to edit it a second time I make a copy to work on. This ensures that there is only ever a single edit and virtually no loss. As for 95%+ of my images where I only do basic adjustments (crop, straighten, color, noise, exposure, clarity, etc.), I do all of those in Lightroom nowadays and they are all done virtually with the changes saved in the database leaving the image untouched (RAW JPEG?). Picasa does adjustments virtually as well.

 

The impact of loss by JPEG recompression is greatly exaggerated in my experience and is fueled by mis-information and myth. I have even been told that I should shoot RAW because every time you open a JPEG to view it, it is recompressed and loses quality. :eek:

 

There are many good reasons for people to shoot RAW but image quality preservation isn't one of them.

 

Dave

Its all about workflow isn't it? I used to use your exact workflow with JPEGS, and it sure works. Lightroom has saved us all a lot of trouble from the organizational standpoint and preventing us from editing a "master" image, one that should never be touched.

In the old days folks (like me) did commit the error or editing, recompressing, re editing, and recompressing JPEGS. Because those JPEGS only contained 8 bits per RBG channel, they would degrade in quality. In 99% of all photos shot today by amateurs that would likely create no problem. In those situations where a high quality photo needed to be saved with zero destruction, it created real problems.

Happy shooting!

I thought I would do some research and gather some info on the subject. I tried to be fair to both sides and present information people could use to make up their own minds.

http://www.pptphoto.com/articles/rawvsjpeg.html

Comments welcome.

Nice comments, more so.;)

Dave

Thanks Dave. Nice clear discussion. I guess that I really don't see it as an argument with sides. Both types of image formats have their uses and places and you made that nicely clear.

Larry

Hi --

 

I was wondering what is the preference for the most cruising photographers. Do you prefer RAW images or those of a lesser quality. Just would appreciate some comments on this -- pro and con.

 

I have been testing out my new Nikon D7100, which I plan to bring with me on the next cruise two months from now.

 

ZU

The direct answer to your posted question is that RAW is always better than JPEG because the data is not manipulated. What you are really asking is that does jpeg give reasonable images. In general unless the conditions are strange, jpeg images are good enough for practical purposes.

DON