Posted by CThomson: 
I've never understood the benifit from using RAW format and I don't print larger then 8x10 so the 3mb files work for me.

I have a buddy that I have the RAW versus JPEG fight with about once a month. Here's the deal: he loves RAW because it gives him better control over how the image is captured. Basically, the range of the image is higher, and he feels that the detail is greater because he's heard that JPEG compression is lossy and that sounds bad. After all, a 12meg file has to be better than a 1meg file, right?

So every time this comes up I tell him to shoot a RAW and a JPEG, correctly exposed, and to just look at the darned things in Photoshop at 100% scale. Of course they look slightly different, because when most people import RAW files they fix the mistakes they made when they initially exposed the image. But RAW files, depending on the camera, aren't really RAW. Some cameras have anti-moire filters that get applied even before the RAW image is saved. OOps. Not very RAW, is it?

To me the real issue is that RAW images let you do a lot to fix bad exposures. If you've got overly contrasty images or images that are under/overexposed, it's useful to have the RAW file because you can decide where you want the image to fall in the dynamic range.

The only real answer depends on you. Be a scientist. Try some RAW images and try some JPEGs. Then compare. Then decide what works for you.

Me, I shoot JPEGs because I grew up shooting film and learned that "exposure is unforgiving" so the whole idea of getting your exposure wrong and fixing it in photoshop seems silly to me. Barring equipment malfunction (which happens with RAW, too) my lightmeter and I get the exposures pretty much where we want them almost every time.   Personally - and this is a personal preference thing I see RAW as another step along the process of making the camera a mere capture device, and photoshop the ultimate imaging system. Why bother learning to expose, compose, and get depth of field right? Why not just shoot huge blobs of pixels and fix 'em in photoshop? To me that doesn't work because I don't want to have to visit every image in photoshop. If I shoot 1000 exposures, I'll have 950 images that don't need tweaking other than "normal enlarger time stuff" like cropping, spotting, and dodging and burning. Getting it done right in the camera saves me time.

Your mileage will vary! Just think these issues through then do some experimentation and decide for yourself!

It's all good,
mjr.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
Really, I do shoot RAW, almost exclusively, for the 12 bit advantage and the lossless compression.

Your eye can't resolve color well enough for anything more than 24 bit color to be discernable, but it's hard to convince people of that. I suggest you have someone you trust set you up a double-blind test to see if you can discern 24-bit color from 64 or whatever. I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, it's an interesting and wortwhile experiment that will teach you a lot about your sensory system.

The lossless compression one is fun, too. Again, if you can trust a friend not to mess with your head, do a double-blind between some lossless format and 90% JPEG, viewed at 100% zoom enlargement. I actually did see one guy who performed better than random on this one, but I think had sold his soul to the devil, or something.

Again, this stuff is fun and easy science! I've run this experiment on a couple kids, before, as a way of helping them understand the scientific method - it's a good teaching tool because it's cheap to show 2 side-by-side images on a screen and it's a great way of exploring experimental methods.

mjr.

Posted by Marcus J. Ranum: 

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
Really, I do shoot RAW, almost exclusively, for the 12 bit advantage and the lossless compression.

I suggest you have someone you trust set you up a double-blind test to see if you can discern 24-bit color from 64 or whatever.

Hmmm...I have 2 roommates.  Maybe they're up for a weekend project.

Actually, looking back at what I wrote, I may have been a little unclear.  I shoot RAW almost exclusively.  I do it for the 12 bit advantage and the lossless compression, as well as other reasons, not the least of which is the ease of use of ACR.

Another RAW advantage is that the "normal enlager time stuff" is done before nonlinear conversion.  That way, I can take advantage of the nature of digital's linear capture and put it to use--commonly called "exposing to the right".

Yet another RAW advantage is that one has better control over sharpening and noise reduction, which are done in camera with jpgs.  (Yes, even when the camera is set to -2 sharpening, it still applies some.  How much, we can't really know.)

Marcus, just curious, do you archive jpgs or do you convert them to tiff?  Also, do you have a curve saved that has profiled you particular camera?  There's something that had to be done with each new batch of film, but only has to be done once per camera.

Posted by Eric Muss-Barnes: 
RAW. The resolution is no better than JPG, but the color-depth allows for a wider range of exposure adjustments. 65,000 shades of grey versus 256 shades.

Ahem - I thought the human eye can't recognize more that 256 greyscales... but millions of colors...

Posted by Marcus J. Ranum: 

Your eye can't resolve color well enough for anything more than 24 bit color to be discernable, but it's hard to convince people of that. I suggest you have someone you trust set you up a double-blind test to see if you can discern 24-bit color from 64 or whatever. I'm not trying to be a jerk, here, it's an interesting and wortwhile experiment that will teach you a lot about your sensory system.

Unfortunately things like monitor gamut and calibration add variables to the equation. If >8bpp falls outside the monitor's gamut, how do you really know if you can see that much more color if the monitor can't show it to you? Same thing for print, which has a smaller gamut than screens?

The answer of course is that if we've hit the limit of resolution then it doesn't really matter what the internal color resolution of the image is. I think the point I made in my post is valid in this respect: at higher bit depths there's more sand in the sandbox, even if the sandbox is still the same size.

The lossless compression one is fun, too. Again, if you can trust a friend not to mess with your head, do a double-blind between some lossless format and 90% JPEG, viewed at 100% zoom enlargement. I actually did see one guy who performed better than random on this one, but I think had sold his soul to the devil, or something.

I can beat this just about every time, if for no other reason than I know where and how to look for JPG artifacts. But more importantly, JPG is a lossy format, so you're going to lose more information each time you save it in JPG format. Sorta like photocopying a photocopy ad infinitum. If you're going to take it off your camera in JPG, at least make sure you're not continually saving a JPG.

Posted by damon: 
outdoors, in natural light = jpeg

artificial light = raw.  (for the most part)

That seems funny to me.  Daylight varies over the course of a day in color far more than a single light source such as a strobe or tungsten bulb.  In a mixed-light situation, a RAW white balance curve won't help resolve differing color casts in different parts of the frame.

I personally shoot RAW all of the time.  No choice.  My camera/digi back only captures in RAW.

Posted by Marcus J. Ranum: 

Me, I shoot JPEGs because I grew up shooting film and learned that "exposure is unforgiving" so the whole idea of getting your exposure wrong and fixing it in photoshop seems silly to me. Barring equipment malfunction (which happens with RAW, too) my lightmeter and I get the exposures pretty much where we want them almost every time.   Personally - and this is a personal preference thing I see RAW as another step along the process of making the camera a mere capture device, and photoshop the ultimate imaging system. Why bother learning to expose, compose, and get depth of field right? Why not just shoot huge blobs of pixels and fix 'em in photoshop? To me that doesn't work because I don't want to have to visit every image in photoshop. If I shoot 1000 exposures, I'll have 950 images that don't need tweaking other than "normal enlarger time stuff" like cropping, spotting, and dodging and burning. Getting it done right in the camera saves me time.

I agree with this statement mostly. I've got my Sekonic (my camera is always set on manual when I'm in the studio); it and I have a greater synergy than my camera's metering (especially because I like shooting black-on-black and white-on-white) and I use its 1-degree spot meter in the field when I can. I also grew up on film and while negatives (which typically have a 10EV range) are actually very forgiving, transparencies with a 3-5EV range (the more "professional" the film, the smaller the range) are not forgiving.

I don't want to spend a lot of time in Photoshop unless there's a specific artistic effect I want to achieve and I typically limit my PS work to what can be achieved in a traditional darkroom, so on that point I agree with Marcus 1000%.

To me, it really depends on what you want at the end of your workflow. If it's primarily for the web or smaller prints (8x10 or less), then JPG is probably fine and saves the extra step of RAW conversion.

I work for the print. I know that an 8bpp (JPG) won't survive the enlarging I want (I've tried) while a 16pbb (RAW) file has a much better chance.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
I shoot RAW so I can tell people that I can't give them a CD of all the photos from a shoot because the images are saved in a proprietary Canon format that requires special software to view.  Most people are so intimidated by the word "proprietary" they back off. 

That's a damn good reason these day's. Seem like all models want every image right away these day's.

Posted by Brian Diaz: 

Posted by Marcus J. Ranum: 

Posted by Brian Diaz: 
Really, I do shoot RAW, almost exclusively, for the 12 bit advantage and the lossless compression.

I suggest you have someone you trust set you up a double-blind test to see if you can discern 24-bit color from 64 or whatever.

Actually, looking back at what I wrote, I may have been a little unclear.  I shoot RAW almost exclusively.  I do it for the 12 bit advantage and the lossless compression, as well as other reasons, not the least of which is the ease of use of ACR.

Another RAW advantage is that the "normal enlager time stuff" is done before nonlinear conversion.  That way, I can take advantage of the nature of digital's linear capture and put it to use--commonly called "exposing to the right".

Yet another RAW advantage is that one has better control over sharpening and noise reduction, which are done in camera with jpgs.  (Yes, even when the camera is set to -2 sharpening, it still applies some.  How much, we can't really know.)

Marcus, just curious, do you archive jpgs or do you convert them to tiff?  Also, do you have a curve saved that has profiled you particular camera?  There's something that had to be done with each new batch of film, but only has to be done once per camera.

Not to mention that your computer monitor (unless you have the Eizo $10,000 monitor) can't even show a full 8bit color space, nor can any printer out there - editing a 12 or 16 bit image is a bit like trying to cop a feel wearing boxing gloves.  I convert to 8bit just before printing, because those hidden colors sometimes pop up in the image in the corners of the printer gamut.

Digital isn't terribly linear by nature, but it's forced that direction by the processing algorithms.  That sounds niggling but it's the reason you can't shoot in some kinds of light and get a decent image.  Sodium vapor lamps come to mind, I've had three assignments where I had to shoot in that light, or try to overpower it with strobe (normal highlights, ghastly shadows.)  Each of the WB settings is decidedly non-linear, adjusted to push or pull segments of the spectrum to get a nice linear look.  RAW does give a lot of latitude for WB adjustment, but it is not able to perfectly re-adjust WB - it's a CYA in times of disaster, but getting it right when shot makes a HUGE difference even when shooting RAW.

Sharpening control is a nice benefit too, but setting the camera at -2 isn't much difference than the RAW image's inherent sharpening - the Bayer interpolation routine in camera that creates the RAW data uses a sharpening routine that's roughly equivalent to -2 in jpg.

I'm less and less convinced of the benefits of RAW as I get more hinky about nailing WB and exposure.  You won't find jpg artifacts if exposure is right on.  However, I've had my bacon saved a couple times when the lighting was so horrible that the camera COULD NOT WB at that color temp, so it defaulted to daylight.  (Nikons don't go low enough in color temp for sodium vapor or yellow-gelled tungsten, so they give up and do daylight...you THINK you've set a custom WB but it's not there.)

And for those who think you can always spot a JPG by finding artifacts - drop by Jay Maisel's studio and look at his 40x60 prints from his d1x.  (If you take a workshop that he teaches in NY, he almost always brings you back to his studio.)  I've watched fantasy-life-level photogs take magnifying glasses to his prints to show him the artifacts.  They've never been able to.  If you nail exposure (less than half a stop off) you won't get visible artifacts these days, the algorithms are that good.  He always says that he'll start shooting RAW when someone can find one artifact for him.

Posted by Capt Stu Beans: 
now, if you have a ton of images to process, such as a wedding shooter would, you'd likely only shoot in jpg. 

Actually, I have a much easier time shooting RAW for events. When shooting JPEG, I had to manually tweak a lot of images for exposure variations, etc., then run separate batches for different groups of images.

With a RAW workflow, I do all of this with the RAW settings (In Adobe Camera RAW) and batch process all my images at one time.

Yes - RAW images take up more memory, but there's no substitute for being able to "save" an image in RAW processing - esp. when there's a crazy bride's mother breathing down your neck.

Posted by Ed Nazarko: 
I'm less and less convinced of the benefits of RAW as I get more hinky about nailing WB and exposure.  You won't find jpg artifacts if exposure is right on.

Two points about the above:

1. If the scene contrast fits into the dynamic range of the 8-bit capture space, RAW's benefits--if properly white balanced and exposed--aren't needed. If the scene doesn't fit--as with much outdoor photography can be--it's a different story. Depending on what you do, this can be a big deal or a non-issue.

2. JPEG artifacts should be invisible. They can, however, cause problems with certain types of post-processing, as can the built-in sharpening. (They both "mess up" certain edge-detection methods of masking, for example.)  Again, depending on what you do after you've shot the images, this can be a big deal or a non-issue, or anywhere in-between.

Learn the strengths and weaknesses, and pick the right tool for the specific job: digital//raw/jpeg, film//bw neg/color neg/bw chrome/color chrome being the major current options.

Posted by [ b ] e c k e r: 

ps. at a huge million $+ wedding a couple of weeks ago. we shot over 10,000 images. it was 27GB in Jpeg. i don't even want to think of how many GB's i would have needed in RAW or how long it would take to process those photos!!!!!!!   =-(

DAMN, now that's some wedding.  but seriously, for me, jepg is the way to go.  However, when shooting weddings,  i'll shoot RAW for the church shots.  just to cover my ass, because the lighting in some these churches are horrific.

Posted by Brian Kim: 
If I have the memory space I prefer to shoot RAW. I only carry 6 1 gig cards and don't have a portable drive, yet. For a full day's shooting, that's average for modelling or sports and I need to shoot in JPEG so I have enough space., but for event coverage or small shoots, RAW.

I picked up a portable drive a few weeks ago i tell ya i love it the best thing next to a laptop..

Chet

Posted by Brian Kim: 
If I have the memory space I prefer to shoot RAW. I only carry 6 1 gig cards and don't have a portable drive, yet. For a full day's shooting, that's average for modelling or sports and I need to shoot in JPEG so I have enough space., but for event coverage or small shoots, RAW.

I bought a 160GB portable and love the freedom of not keeping all working files on one machine (desktop/laptop). After a shoot, I burn a Master copy for the file, then move a copy to the portable drive for editing.

At the time of this writing, I have 41 folders on the portable drive and just over 49GB used space and 104GB of free space. I’m not going to count how many individual files there are…
But the whole drive with case was only $60 and it was plug and play on both machines.

Cards, I carry 2 (1) GB & 1 (2) GB cards with a few smaller (under 512) cards as oopsy cards.
I bought a 2.2GB microdrive off ebay and have not used it yet. A good friend told me not to use it as his took a dump with 250-300 images on it after an important shoot.

Posted by [ b ] e c k e r: 
i shoot Jpegs.

if i shot Canon, i might be shooting RAW. the Fuji and Nikon RAW software ain't so good.

personally, and don't flame me for this, i have always thought RAW was like a safety net for people who can't nail the exposure in camera.

if you nail the exposure, and get the color balance in the ballpark, there is really no reason to shoot RAW. Minor tweaks in color and exposure can be made in Photoshop.

I know a lot of very successful and talented photographers who swear by RAW. Jpegs seem to be working for me. To each their own!

[ b ]

ps. at a huge million $+ wedding a couple of weeks ago. we shot over 10,000 images. it was 27GB in Jpeg. i don't even want to think of how many GB's i would have needed in RAW or how long it would take to process those photos!!!!!!!   =-(

No offense, but what the hell was going on at this wedding to shoot 10,000+ shots!!! Did they want shots of them consimating ( yea I spelled that wrong I'm sure ) the wedding nite??  Even in jpg, that's a crap load of post production...

  For grins, how many shooters covered this with you??