RAW vs JPEG Debate

[benjikan]

Hello all...

The RAW vs JPEG Debate is one that has been raging for quite some time now. I wish to share with you some of my own observations and how it might aid in your decision as to which to choose. It will not be a technical discourse as I am not in a position to do so. It will be based on my observations and how the decision will affect the final outcome i.e. the print media.

RAW is akin to a recording that is done directly to Pro Tools without compression and JPEG is what that recording might sound like after converting the signal for MP3 listening. That signal has been compressed and as a result has lost some of the high end and low end definition as well as the dynamic range. This analogy can be directly transposed to visual media. In photography RAW is the pure unadulterated signal. Now why would anyone even consider JPEG unless they felt that their image was not worthy of that kind of rendition. It should not come down to a question of memory or cost of storage etc. It is an image that merits the best resolution possible that may in the future be used for a support that needs the kind of resolution that only RAW can provide.

You may think.."Well it is only a snap shot." Well todays snapshot may be tomorrows historical archive. You are leaving a trace of history for future generations to view. Give your image the respect it deserves. Shoot in RAW...

[jdepould]

I wouldn't really call it a debate. You have people that shoot in RAW and then everyone else (who just happen to be wrong).

[sean_mcr]

Shoot raw if you can, but a hell of a lot of journalists just do not have to the time to deal with raw. It depends on the situation, like many things it's never black and white

[jdepould]

Shoot raw if you can, but a hell of a lot of journalists just do not have to the time to deal with raw. It depends on the situation, like many things it's never black and white

It doesn't take any longer, just requires a different set of tools. Simply upload to your workflow of choice, if you don't want to adjust anything just leave the presets as they are, and save as a jpeg.

[halesr]

Some cameras allow you to shoot RAW +JPG. I did that for a while, but now I just shoot RAW and process with Photoshop. Are you including in your workflow a SAVE AS DNG for archival purposes?--Rene

[jdepould]

Some cameras allow you to shoot RAW +JPG. I did that for a while, but now I just shoot RAW and process with Photoshop. Are you including in your workflow a SAVE AS DNG for archival purposes?--Rene

I don't; I'm using Lightroom and just keep the original .NEF files in the library (on my external HD).

[andrys]

Shoot raw if you can, but a hell of a lot of journalists just do not have to the time to deal with raw. It depends on the situation, like many things it's never black and white

Words of wisdom. Raw when you can, sure. But there are definitely
circumstances where one doesn't have the time to do the post-processing
necessary since a *feature* of shooting raw is that the camera doesn't
do the medium pre-sharpening (usually overdone) in-camera "for" you
or the contrast stuff.

The mp3 vs wav analogy was a good one though. There are also
many who can't hear the highs that are missed and don't notice the
boomier not-full bass. Or don't care about those things. An mp3
in 256k (sometimes 192k) and above encoding will often do for many.
And I wouldn't tell them otherwise unless they prized best possible
hearing experience.

[benjikan]

Shoot raw if you can, but a hell of a lot of journalists just do not have to the time to deal with raw. It depends on the situation, like many things it's never black and white

I totally agree that it depends on the circumstances. In my area, the AD's demand a TIFF or PSD image that has the maximum rendition and that rendition is one taken from an image originally captured in RAW.

[sean_mcr]

Shoot raw if you can, but a hell of a lot of journalists just do not have to the time to deal with raw. It depends on the situation, like many things it's never black and white

It doesn't take any longer, just requires a different set of tools. Simply upload to your workflow of choice, if you don't want to adjust anything just leave the presets as they are, and save as a jpeg.

The fact is many photo journalists do not do their own PP, there are strict rules in place regarding what you can and can not do. As a result many just go for Jpeg because it transfers faster and with deadlines to meet that is a crucial point.

http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0607/nuts-bolts.html

[andrys]

The fact is many photo journalists do not do their own PP, there are strict rules in place regarding what you can and can not do. As a result many just go for Jpeg because it transfers faster and with deadlines to meet that is a crucial point.
http://digitaljournalist.org/issue0607/nuts-bolts.html

Very common sense, direct writing in that article, thanks.

To prove your point re photo journalists being highly discouraged from
doing their own PP, here's a fascinating memo from Reuters to their news
photographers telling what they're allowed to do with Photoshop and what
they're not allowed to do and if they do, just how much etc etc.

http://blogs.reuters.com/2007/01/18/the ... photoshop/

I posted it in another subforum earlier, but it should be of interest here too.

The only mention of 'raw' in the original instructions is that any burning
done in the final product sent should show element that were visible in
shadow areas of the raw image.

The people commenting have lots to say about raw and jpg of course.

[sean_mcr]

The raw truth is this, that a great deal of photojournalism is not about how crystal the image is quality wise. It's about how crystal the message is and it's about getting it out before the next man. The workflow is often this... Take it, wire it, you've done your job.

I can recall shaking my head in shame at the total lack of understanding that you often see today when i tried to explain to somebody that a shot of a female that had been raped during the collapse of the former yugoslavia would not have been an even better photograph had it been sharper. Now that did leave me Raw i have to say


There are different concerns and working conditions for different photographers

[madlights]

Well I see both sides to this. For what Ben does...or what National Geographic...or what a landscape photographer would demand in most cases..I'd think RAW would provide the best in flexibility and sheer quality. But I've seen very creative stuff done with pinhole cameras, Holgas, cell phones etc. I remember some of the most creative shots I've seen on PBase weren't done with DSLR's in fact. Some of my favorite photographers don't use RAW or even DSLRs although of course many digicams shoot RAW too. If the work is to be of a technically critical nature then I think RAW would be superior...but as Sean observes sometimes the technical excellence isn't the critical factor in determining the image's impact or outcome. If a journalist can get a shot off to the editor quickly and beat someone else who's sitting at a computer processing a RAW file...then in that case it certainly would be of an advantage to use jpgs. Thinking it's like anything in the world...there are no absolutes.

[benjikan]

Well I see both sides to this. For what Ben does...or what National Geographic...or what a landscape photographer would demand in most cases..I'd think RAW would provide the best in flexibility and sheer quality. But I've seen very creative stuff done with pinhole cameras, Holgas, cell phones etc. I remember some of the most creative shots I've seen on PBase weren't done with DSLR's in fact. Some of my favorite photographers don't use RAW or even DSLRs although of course many digicams shoot RAW too. If the work is to be of a technically critical nature then I think RAW would be superior...but as Sean observes sometimes the technical excellence isn't the critical factor in determining the image's impact or outcome. If a journalist can get a shot off to the editor quickly and beat someone else who's sitting at a computer processing a RAW file...then in that case it certainly would be of an advantage to use jpgs. Thinking it's like anything in the world...there are no absolutes.

I totally agree. I once did a Fashion Shoot with about eighty Fuji Disposable cameras with built in flash slaved to studio flash and shot at f 11.0 as that was the fixed aperture of the lens.

[camera0bug]

I'd rather concentrate on taking a good picture.

I have friends who shoot RAW and friends who shoot JPG.
I'm in the latter camp for now.

My computer would probably explode if I fed it RAW images.

[pinemikey]

The first year I had my DSLR I took exclusively jpegs. Then I started to mix Raw and Jpeg. Now it is exclusively RAW. Would I do this if I hadn't been able to get a copy of Raw Shooter Essentials? Probably not. Yes, my laptop's memory is straining to keep up and it definitely needs a memory upgrade. Once you have, as mentioned, your workflow it isn't that much different producing the jpegs for further photo processing and with Raw Shooter I can do most photo processing before transferring to jpeg, leaving the post processing for resizing and framing.