PDA

View Full Version : Jpegs Better Than Raw?


Zuiko
3rd March 2009, 11:20 PM
I've tried, I've really tried, since discussing this subject on the forum a while ago, to get to grips with RAW. I know all the arguements about how RAW files can be corrected easier and to a greater extent in pp than JPEGS but the hassle is just proving too much.

My computer has crashed (losing thousands of images not backed up - but that's another story) so I've switched to another computer. Tried to download a CF card full of E3 RAWs tonight and they won't open in either Windows Gallery or Elements 6, whereas they previously would in both these programs on the old computer.

To be honest, I rarely do much pp in the RAW converter - most of mine is done in the Elements editor where you can do just the same to a JPEG.

One of the advantages of the E-System is the quality of its out of the camera JPEGS and for the sake of convenience (and my sanity) I think from now on that's what I'll use.

I believe that Wrotniak mainly uses JPEGS and I'm sure that what's good enough for him is good enough for me!

E-P1 fan
3rd March 2009, 11:28 PM
and me...........................*chr

MarkVarley
4th March 2009, 12:01 AM
Very very rarely do we use anything other than raws, only when the images are going out or being printed within minutes of shooting do we use jpegs.
As well as the extra leeway you get with a raw image we find that looking at each one as you process a batch through ACR and then adjust and perfect one by one in CS4 gives each and every photograph the potential to be the best it can be.

But if your shooting doesn't work like that and your demands and workflow prefer, then shoot jpeg! whatever works for you :)

ndl0071
4th March 2009, 08:22 AM
Hi John
A can of worms methinks, this subject will crop up periodically and rumble on and on. I have both feet firmly planted in the RAW camp, in fact I can't remember the last time I shot anything in jpeg, come to think of it I don't even know if the jpeg option works on my 510 or where the button is.
I think that I've now got to the stage where i would be afraid to shot jpeg just in case somthing happened during the shoot and I needed to tinker in CS using a RAW file, call it a safety blanket.
Still, each to their own, as you say on the whole Olys do tend to take a splendid jpeg, perhaps I need to experiment more.
Happy jpeging:)

250swb
4th March 2009, 08:36 AM
I echo the comments of Neil and Mark, I can't see any good reason to shot in JPEG, but plenty of good reasons not to.

Don't let your PC beat you Zuiko, get it sorted and carry on with RAW. To be honest it isn't a learning curve at all if you make sure everything is up to date (ACR, Standard Profiles) and you can just press the 'Auto' button 9 times out of 10. You don't need to 'learn' RAW in other words, just explore it by finding the bits that adjust what you want to adjust as you go along.

Steve

DerekW
4th March 2009, 09:33 AM
I switched to taking RAW rather than Jpegs last September when I installed Aperture. The reading in and correcting of Raw images is identical to handling Jpegs except that you have the option of a few extra controls that one can use if required.

The Aperture process is that when I want to create a Jpeg file of any size I export the Jpeg by using the original RAW file as the source using the correction values I had determined and stored earlier.

The RAW files are readable in the basic file viewer even before I move them into Aperture.

So as far as I am concerned there is only a minimal overhead in using RAW (ie the time the computer takes to process the image) and no requirement to store an intermediate lossless file.

Xpres
4th March 2009, 01:25 PM
The worst thing about a new computer is reloading all your software and then updating it all. Once done... all normal again.,:). Have you updated the RAW codecs in windows and ACR in elements?
I always shoot RAW and for quick and dirty conversions use Picasa which handles all OLy raw files. It doesn't do my dp1, though, which is intensely annoying.

Jeremy Evans
4th March 2009, 01:46 PM
If conditions are good/predictable, jpegs give excellent results.
If conditions are dodgy/unpredictable, RAW allows much more tinkering.

From choice, i always choose to take photos in optimum conditions and get everything right from the start, with only minor tweaks required. for that kind of use, i get the best results with jpegs. but anyone who loves twiddling and tweaking should clearly use RAW.

as to crashes, why not get a mac? i use a 24 inch iMac with Aperture which is pretty good at handling pix

HughofBardfield
4th March 2009, 02:08 PM
If I didn't use Lightroom, I would probably think more highly of JPEGs in terms of convenience. As it is, I've shot RAW since Jan 07 when I first acquired the Lightroom 1.0 public beta. I may have been lucky, but apart from a few speed issues with some versions, Lightroom has always made importing RAWs in bulk a completely pain-free experience.

I (almost always) back up the files from the HDD to DVD before deleting them from the card. I've lost a hard drive full of data at work before, so I feel your pain John!

The arguments for shooting RAW are rehearsed so frequently, it's boring. But I do value the extra room for manouevre they give. I think much depends on how you work. If you habitually shoot in a measured, methodical way, planning your shots as you go, JPEGs will be fine, as the image will be spot-on in camera. I tend to work in a more slapdash, quick fire fashion (like, I so hate having to use use a tripod), so the extra flexibility of RAW suits me better for when my enthusiasm runs away with me.

I came across a very handy little utility (wrote about it on the forum) a while back that lifts out the JPEG headers from a batch of RAW files so you can do the RAW+JPEG thing on the PC in seconds for the few occasions when I need a fast proof image. On my office PC ATM so can't include the link...

I have my wife's E410 set up to shoot JPEGs so she can email them to her friends & family immediately, and I actually find it more annoying having to worry about the WB and so on...

I don't think one format is inherently better than the other as it depends on so many factors. Ultimately, it's what's better for YOU.

photo_owl
4th March 2009, 05:47 PM
if the output files aren't going near a computer for anything more than storage I shoot jpeg.

if they are even going to be cropped before submission/use then I will use raw as it's only ever 1 click more iat the start of my workflow, and actually is always net less as you would want to keep the original jpeg (wouldn't you) so in fact it's alway's less clicks for me from a raw file...

PaulE
4th March 2009, 06:07 PM
I used to shoot both Raw and Jpeg together alot with the idea that if the Jpeg turned out poor I could go back to the raw and try to play with it to get a better photo, apart from being able to get a better white balance I rarely managed to improve significantly on the OOC / Studio / Master jpegs especially when using ACR - even the newest ACR camera profiles seem to produce very poor colours, contrast and detail compared with OOC / Olympus master / studio jpegs and that's something I've all but given up on trying to get right. Where accurate colours or fine detail are a concern I either use OOC jpgs or use Master / Studio and of course loose out on all the other handy features in ACR. I'm always on the lookout for an accurate / true to Olympus Colours E410 / E510 ACR profile, but I doubt I will find one / come up with one that will be good enough to make me ditch OOC Jpegs / Master / Studio for good.

One thing that did annoy me for quite a while about RAWS, which might be the same for others too, was not being able view thumbnails of the ORFs in Windows - I absolutely hate using the file mangement software like Adobe Bridge, LR catalogues etc as in my view they add way too much complication to what only needs to be a very simple filing system in Windows (for me anyway). I also equally disliked having to use image browsers like Fastone (as good as that was) just to see what photo a particular filename referred to before dragging it into photoshop. I then came across this site and the ORFshell:
http://74.125.77.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://olypedia.de/Olympus_RAW_Vorschau_im_Windows-Explorer&usg=ALkJrhgJAeg1Vl6hNXc9OhoubG09MCN7fw

TBH I haven't since looked back since installing it - I can now see thumbnails of ORF files in Windows and no longer need to use fastone just to see which file is which etc. I now shoot in raw 90% of the time and then decide, when I transfer the photos to the computer, whether I need the Olympus colours and more fine detail so should use master / studio or are the colours / fine detail not so important and so can use ACR instead.

Lord Minty
4th March 2009, 08:24 PM
Despite having been using full blown Photoshop (and stll using Photoshop 6!) to manipulate images for probably 10 years now, I've always shot JPEG since we first got our E-500 over two years ago.

Why? Because so far I've carried on shooting as I did with film - getting it right in camera, something that I feel too many digital photographers don't even try to do. To be honest I do this because life is too short to spend it in front of a PC trying to get the 'perfect' image, especially when 99% of the time our E-500 and E-330 both produce exceptionally good quality JPEGs.

That said I'm waiting for the postman to bring me a couple of 4GB CF cards so I can play with shooting RAW+JPEG.

Perhaps we Oly users should be thankful that we can shoot RAW+JPEG, as well as being able to generate in-camera JPEGs from RAW, and B&W, Sepia etc images in camera - unlike some other more popular makes of DSLRs...

250swb
4th March 2009, 09:38 PM
Why? Because so far I've carried on shooting as I did with film - getting it right in camera, something that I feel too many digital photographers don't even try to do. To be honest I do this because life is too short to spend it in front of a PC trying to get the 'perfect' image, especially when 99% of the time our E-500 and E-330 both produce exceptionally good quality JPEGs.

I think you mis-understand what RAW is. Its not about being slapdash in execution, because you still need to make an accurate exposure, its about simply getting all the information that the sensor can record without the camera editing any out, as with JPEG's. Life really is to short to let the camera throw away potentially useful information from shots which have taken your time to acquire. And as 'photo owl' has pointed out, processing a RAW file is barely more than one extra click in the workflow.

Steve

Zuiko
4th March 2009, 10:57 PM
I used to shoot both Raw and Jpeg together alot with the idea that if the Jpeg turned out poor I could go back to the raw and try to play with it to get a better photo, apart from being able to get a better white balance I rarely managed to improve significantly on the OOC / Studio / Master jpegs especially when using ACR - even the newest ACR camera profiles seem to produce very poor colours, contrast and detail compared with OOC / Olympus master / studio jpegs and that's something I've all but given up on trying to get right. Where accurate colours or fine detail are a concern I either use OOC jpgs or use Master / Studio and of course loose out on all the other handy features in ACR. I'm always on the lookout for an accurate / true to Olympus Colours E410 / E510 ACR profile, but I doubt I will find one / come up with one that will be good enough to make me ditch OOC Jpegs / Master / Studio for good.

One thing that did annoy me for quite a while about RAWS, which might be the same for others too, was not being able view thumbnails of the ORFs in Windows - I absolutely hate using the file mangement software like Adobe Bridge, LR catalogues etc as in my view they add way too much complication to what only needs to be a very simple filing system in Windows (for me anyway). I also equally disliked having to use image browsers like Fastone (as good as that was) just to see what photo a particular filename referred to before dragging it into photoshop. I then came across this site and the ORFshell:
http://74.125.77.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://olypedia.de/Olympus_RAW_Vorschau_im_Windows-Explorer&usg=ALkJrhgJAeg1Vl6hNXc9OhoubG09MCN7fw

TBH I haven't since looked back since installing it - I can now see thumbnails of ORF files in Windows and no longer need to use fastone just to see which file is which etc. I now shoot in raw 90% of the time and then decide, when I transfer the photos to the computer, whether I need the Olympus colours and more fine detail so should use master / studio or are the colours / fine detail not so important and so can use ACR instead.

Paul,

Thank you so much for that link, at least I can now view my ORF files in Windows (Vista)!

Only problem now is that I cannot open files in Elements 6 - a message comes up informing me it is the wrong type of file. This is bizarre, I used ORF files in Elements on my other computer with no problem - and Elements is loaded on my new computer from the same disc!

No wonder I get frustrated to the point of giving up photography completely sometimes. :( Anyone got any ideas?

PaulE
4th March 2009, 11:10 PM
Just a guess but had you updated camera raw plugin on the computer you had no problems with or perhaps Elements even updated itself at some point without you realising? I'm wondering whether the default Adobe Camera raw that comes with Elements 6 doesn't support your camera? or am I completely off the mark?

Anyway it certainly can't do no harm to try updating Adobe Camera Raw to the latest version (if you have not already done so) here's the link you need: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4365 - it says it works with Elements 6 and above.

Wreckdiver
4th March 2009, 11:26 PM
I would never, ever shoot JPEGs. Especially if I have travelled a long way (abroad) to get the shots - my cameras now have raw selected permenantly. To give you an example, in 2005 I was diving the Thistlegorm shipwreck in the Red Sea. I made the mistake of selecting JPEG for all the shots I took on this wreck (mainly to save card space). The housing wouldn't allow me to white balance manually so I had to leave it on auto. When I got home I found that all the shots had the wrong white balance applied and it was impossible to restore the pictures to what they should have been. The cost of the trip in total was nearly a grand and the time permitted to get the shots just a few minutes. Never again, too costly to go back and try again - well, almost. I am doing the trip again this summer and guess what? :rolleyes: New E-3, new housing, loads of 4GB cards (one for each dive = 400+ shots per dive :eek: - battery permitting) and every shot will be a raw shot.

Steve

Ellie
5th March 2009, 12:09 AM
I've tried, I've really tried, since discussing this subject on the forum a while ago, to get to grips with RAW. I know all the arguements about how RAW files can be corrected easier and to a greater extent in pp than JPEGS ...
To be honest I agree, but part of my "agreeing" is the sheer size of the RAW files on the e-400. I've also managed to get to grips with using GIMP and can't actually see much difference in the end product once a JPEG has been edited, comparing it to a similar RAW file, although for a special occasion I'd use RAW.

I've seen mention of "batch processing" of RAW files, which doesn't seem to make much sense to me because each picture will be different and will therefore need different processing. Some people have said, in earlier discussions, that they process in RAW and then re-process the JPEG as well. I don't fully understand why.

Maybe I'm doing something wrong, or maybe I'm misunderstanding something or other, or maybe all my pictures are rubbish in the first place!

blu-by-u
5th March 2009, 02:19 AM
I use to shoot in JPEG when I started using the dSLR. I was getting my WB wrong and at times, I loose some details when I correct it in software. I then change over to shooting in RAW and found that it was easier to do any WB correction. BTW, the software I use then was the RAWshooter. (I think it's called Lightroom now)

Then I venture into Panorama Photography. I am using the ArcSoft's PanoramaMaker 4. This programe reads my RAW files directly. That is one advantage as it could handle the various WB and correct it accordingly.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2406/2173357725_84b2b72f5d_t.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2406/2173357725_84b2b72f5d_b.jpg) Take this picture..it's consist of not only the yellow of the indoor lights, it also shows the outside sunlight.

Only a sad part, this software do not read the new compressed RAW files. So should I change from my current E-330 to any of the new E-systems, I will have to either give up shooting in RAW or find an alternative software to stitch my RAW files.

Oh yes, I was also told that the highest quality JPEG of the olympus camera is the same in size as the compresses RAW.

Another thing, I use the Faststone viewer. It can read the ORF without any problems and I can save to JPEG format pretty fast with it. But if there is any WB that needs corrections, then it's Studio or Master. I do not bother with any other software now.

snaarman
5th March 2009, 08:26 AM
So, from detailed analysis of the thread so far:

Raw is better than Jpeg, which in turn is better than Raw.

I think that's right?? :)

Pete

PS, Raw, mostly.

shenstone
5th March 2009, 08:58 AM
One thing that did annoy me for quite a while about RAWS, which might be the same for others too, was not being able view thumbnails of the ORFs in Windows - I absolutely hate using the file mangement software like Adobe Bridge, LR catalogues etc as in my view they add way too much complication to what only needs to be a very simple filing system in Windows (for me anyway). I also equally disliked having to use image browsers like Fastone (as good as that was) just to see what photo a particular filename referred to before dragging it into photoshop. I then came across this site and the ORFshell:
http://74.125.77.132/translate_c?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://olypedia.de/Olympus_RAW_Vorschau_im_Windows-Explorer&usg=ALkJrhgJAeg1Vl6hNXc9OhoubG09MCN7fw


What a useful utility !

I love faststone and it has other festures that I can't do with this utility that means that I won't be giving it up, but how nice to not have to upgrade to vista to be able to see ORF files in explorer

Thanks

Regards
Andy

photo_owl
5th March 2009, 09:01 AM
So, from detailed analysis of the thread so far:

Raw is better than Jpeg, which in turn is better than Raw.

I think that's right?? :)

Pete

PS, Raw, mostly.

I think that's a fair summary Pete.

Not forgetting that if you have a choice of lens A or Lens B then you should always coose lens A except for the circumstances when B would be better.....

Zuiko
5th March 2009, 07:21 PM
Just a guess but had you updated camera raw plugin on the computer you had no problems with or perhaps Elements even updated itself at some point without you realising? I'm wondering whether the default Adobe Camera raw that comes with Elements 6 doesn't support your camera? or am I completely off the mark?

Anyway it certainly can't do no harm to try updating Adobe Camera Raw to the latest version (if you have not already done so) here's the link you need: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=4365 - it says it works with Elements 6 and above.

Paul, thank you once again for taking the trouble to link this info, it is most appreciated.

I've now downloaded the latest RAW plugin, but guess what? I still can't open an ORF in Elements!

I do agree with the sentiments expressed by many that RAW is generally better, but I seem to be fighting a constant battle against computers and software which, quite frankly, is dominating my limited free time to the detriment of my actual photography. I never had these problems in film days, then it was just a matter of popping the film in the post and letting someone else do all the boring processing stuff!

So, it might be a case of JPEGS or nothing. To be honest, I'm seriously considering giving up photography completely. :(

Henk
5th March 2009, 07:49 PM
To be honest, I rarely do much pp in the RAW converter - most of mine is done in the Elements editor where you can do just the same to a JPEG.

To benefit of working from raw you should convert to 16bit TIFF and do all the adjustments to that TIFF before saving that as JPG for the web.
PS Elements and the Gimp are very limited in their abilities to adjust 16 bit / channel TIFFs. Hence you may not see much difference in out of camera JPG and JPG produced with PSE or the Gimp.

As for Andrzej Wrotniak and claiming there is no difference in from raw produced JPGs and in camera produced JPGs he has adjusted his opinion here. (http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e30-hirec.html)

shirley
5th March 2009, 08:27 PM
Paul, thank you once again for taking the trouble to link this info, it is most appreciated.

I've now downloaded the latest RAW plugin, but guess what? I still can't open an ORF in Elements!

I do agree with the sentiments expressed by many that RAW is generally better, but I seem to be fighting a constant battle against computers and software which, quite frankly, is dominating my limited free time to the detriment of my actual photography. I never had these problems in film days, then it was just a matter of popping the film in the post and letting someone else do all the boring processing stuff!

So, it might be a case of JPEGS or nothing. To be honest, I'm seriously considering giving up photography completely. :(

PM sent
Shirley

Xpres
5th March 2009, 08:28 PM
.... To be honest, I'm seriously considering giving up photography completely. :(

Surely not John! It's just a pesky computer...

I'd be more than happy to help you wrestle with it. :)

Zuiko
5th March 2009, 08:40 PM
To benefit of working from raw you should convert to 16bit TIFF and do all the adjustments to that TIFF before saving that as JPG for the web.
PS Elements and the Gimp are very limited in their abilities to adjust 16 bit / channel TIFFs. Hence you may not see much difference in out of camera JPG and JPG produced with PSE or the Gimp.
As for Andrzej Wrotniak and claiming there is no difference in from raw produced JPGs and in camera produced JPGs he has adjusted his opinion here. (http://www.wrotniak.net/photo/43/e30-hirec.html)

I'm sure you are right, Henk, but that's gone right over my head! No doubt, if I really tried, I could get to grips with the differences between 8 (?) and 16 bit, how to convert them and the software needed to process them. However, more sophisticated software means more expense (as would swapping the PC for a Mac as suggested in an earlier post) which I simply cannot afford. :(

It's starting to look like I need to acknowledge that my photographic skills lay in a previous age and go back to film (where the cost of procesing will be an issue) or simply call it a day.

shirley
5th March 2009, 08:51 PM
I'm sure you are right, Henk, but that's gone right over my head! No doubt, if I really tried, I could get to grips with the differences between 8 (?) and 16 bit, how to convert them and the software needed to process them. However, more sophisticated software means more expense (as would swapping the PC for a Mac as suggested in an earlier post) which I simply cannot afford. :(

It's starting to look like I need to acknowledge that my photographic skills lay in a previous age and go back to film (where the cost of procesing will be an issue) or simply call it a day.


I haven't posted much recently but this has bought me out of hibernation.
Just shoot jpeg and enjoy your photography. I do shoot RAW but thats probably because I used it right at the start of my serious snapping, all the way back in 2007(!), however all that matters is that you enjoy your photography, if trying to use RAW takes away that enjoyment then use jpeg. Most of the techi stuff on this and other sites goes way over my head, including some of the advice you have given, but its all about the enjoyment and the final image, who cares how you got there?
I have PM'd you with more of my thoughts.
Take care and I am sure I speak for many when I say we look forward to reading more of your words of wisdom and encouragement and seeing lots more images.

PaulE
5th March 2009, 11:42 PM
Paul, thank you once again for taking the trouble to link this info, it is most appreciated.

I've now downloaded the latest RAW plugin, but guess what? I still can't open an ORF in Elements!

I do agree with the sentiments expressed by many that RAW is generally better, but I seem to be fighting a constant battle against computers and software which, quite frankly, is dominating my limited free time to the detriment of my actual photography. I never had these problems in film days, then it was just a matter of popping the film in the post and letting someone else do all the boring processing stuff!

So, it might be a case of JPEGS or nothing. To be honest, I'm seriously considering giving up photography completely. :(

I wouldn't give up just yet as Xpres says it's just a computer error as fustrating as it is it will be fixable just might take a little work to find out just where the problem lies.

I've done quite a bit of googling and searching of the Adobe support problems and so far the only references I can find to the "wrong type of file" errors is when the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in is out of date / doesn't support your camera. However after a bit of reading it seems that E3? was supported on ACR version 4.31 onwards (which was the earliest version of Adobe Camera Raw that could have been bundled with Elements 6) so the update shouldn't really have been needed - but it certainly wouldn't have done any harm.

Out of interest (and just to check that the update was successful) what version of Camera Raw does Elements tell you it has installed? Do this by clicking Help --> About Plug-in then find and click on "Camera Raw..." from the list. If the update was successful it should say "Version 5.3.0.21" somewhere on the little popup that will appear. If the update wasn't completely successful for some reason it might well show the previous version.

It might also be worth trying to open a Jpeg in adobe camera raw just to narrow down the possibility of a completely non functional ACR plugin as opposed to one that just won't read E3? raws. Do this by opening PS Elements then click File --> Open As select any Jpeg an in the Open as file typ drop down box select "Camera Raw(*.TIF,*.CRW,*.NEF,*.RAF,*.ORF........")

If the Jpeg opens take note of the title of the Camera Raw window especially the version number it lists. If you get this far then ACR is at least partially working and may help to narrow down the cause of the problem. If it doesn't open or gives the same "wrong type of file" error then ACR is not even partially working - which obviously is the problem as opposed to a problem with Elements its self.

Archphoto
6th March 2009, 12:54 AM
I did about 7 asignments in the last 2 weeks, all were shot on jpeg and I never had the feeling that I was missing out on something.
The shots were interior shots mainly, with some extra outside to complement the series.

Raw for me ? Too much work and Raw conversion within CS2 is not posible anyway.
That will have to wait untill I get CS4.

Peter:D

blu-by-u
6th March 2009, 05:03 AM
Bro Zuiko, it was never easy when I started in RAW. Back then RAWshooter was free. When it got bought over by Adobe, it was just too expensive. So I settled on using the free faststone viewer for viewing, Saturation, Contrast, brightness adjustments as well as tilting. Other that that, if White Balance is needed, I use the Olympus Master, Also free. Ok, you can call me cheap but then It's free why not. It doing what I need and most important, FAST as well.

Like mentioned, Get it right the first time, you will find Faststone is just a versatile as you have shot in JPEG but you have the added advantage if the something goes wrong..there is a possibility of correcting.

The RAW saved me in this..

eg 1 I was shooting in B&W and I forgot to reset it back to color..I did a series of shots only to notice my mistake :eek: then because it was shot in RAW, I could easily changed it back to color.

eg 2. I was playing with the exposure bracket..to get HDR. I did not notice the camera did not change back to default...:eek: RAW again saved my day. only those over exposed were trashed but those under were easily corrected.

eg 3. A group of us, 4 shooters were covering a Wedding reception in the morning. We were also to present with the couple a DVD of the morning's ceremony in the evening. Between us, we have over 4k of shots. If these were in RAW, it would have taken a few hours to convert all of them into JPEG and editing and selection process would have taken another few more hours..We would not have made it if it were RAW.

So depends on your need but most important, SHOOT IT RIGHT.

Henk
6th March 2009, 06:21 AM
I'm sure you are right, Henk, but that's gone right over my head! No doubt, if I really tried, I could get to grips with the differences between 8 (?) and 16 bit, how to convert them and the software needed to process them. However, more sophisticated software means more expense (as would swapping the PC for a Mac as suggested in an earlier post) which I simply cannot afford. :(

You don't have to buy PS4, Paint Shop Pro XI is my main PP program which does more in 16bit than PSE.

It's starting to look like I need to acknowledge that my photographic skills lay in a previous age and go back to film (where the cost of procesing will be an issue) or simply call it a day.

That would be a waste of talent, looking at your website. You do not have to work from raw, if you're happy with in-camera JPG then shoot JPG. We won't hate you for that!:)

It's just not true that you can not gain more from raw than from in-camera JPG.

Keep shooting and posting.*yes

Jim Ford
6th March 2009, 09:01 AM
Raw conversion within CS2 is not posible anyway.

Convert to DNG using Adobe's free converter, then you can open the DNG file in CS2. It's what I do.


That will have to wait untill I get CS4.


No it won't!
;^)

Jim

Mrs T
8th March 2009, 07:59 PM
For someone relatively new to digital photography and with no experience at all of processing, this question of the benefit of raw versus jpeg is interesting as it will enable me to make an informed judgement as to whether to go the raw route or not.

As I understand things, a raw file contains more information held in its 16 bits per channel compared to 8 bits per channel for jpegs. To print, a raw must be developed then converted to a jpeg or some other format.

Question : Doesnít converting the raw file to a jpeg lose all the extra data present in the raw file. If so what is the point?

The only other 16 bit non jpeg format I have read about are Tiff files. Is this what Raw users save their conversions to in order to preserve all the original data.

Amanda

MarkVarley
8th March 2009, 08:03 PM
For someone relatively new to digital photography and with no experience at all of processing, this question of the benefit of raw versus jpeg is interesting as it will enable me to make an informed judgement as to whether to go the raw route or not.

As I understand things, a raw file contains more information held in its 16 bits per channel compared to 8 bits per channel for jpegs. To print, a raw must be developed then converted to a jpeg or some other format.

Question : Doesnít converting the raw file to a jpeg lose all the extra data present in the raw file. If so what is the point?

The only other 16 bit non jpeg format I have read about are Tiff files. Is this what Raw users save their conversions to in order to preserve all the original data.

Amanda

When you convert raw to jpeg you do lose that extra data, but during the conversion you push, pull, alter as you wish with the data and save the result, not possible when starting with raw.

we do save at tiffs ready-to-use in the archive, we also keep all used raws. jpegs are (usually) used as final outputs to client or to print etc.

photo_owl
8th March 2009, 08:14 PM
When you convert raw to jpeg you do lose that extra data, but during the conversion you push, pull, alter as you wish with the data and save the result, not possible when starting with raw.

we do save at tiffs ready-to-use in the archive, we also keep all used raws. jpegs are (usually) used as final outputs to client or to print etc.


I think you mean not possible when starting with jpegs....as in not done as easily or effectively.

Mrs T

the raw file is 12 bit so has more data - this is one aspect

equally the process of creating a jpeg is 'one way' and destructive ie if you want to reduce contrast or brightness or sharpness you don't get back the file pre adding these things you get (taking sharpness) a sharpened file that is then blurred/unsharpened - not the same thing at all which is part of Mark's point.

if you apply a load of settings to a raw file to create a tiff or jpeg then the raw can always be recreated to original spec.

this thread actually stimulated me to shoot raw + jpeg this weekend and I was pleasantly surprised at the jpeg output from the E3. I didn't save any time from the jpegs, and had to use the raw files where I wanted to bring up shadows at higher iso, or see if any highlights were really really blown.... but overall the output could be sent straight to gallery in most cases (for what I was shooting)

MarkVarley
8th March 2009, 08:20 PM
I think you mean not possible when starting with jpegs....as in not done as easily or effectively.

Indeed, I wrote that while ordering a curry, multi-tasking isn't my strong point.

Wreckdiver
8th March 2009, 08:40 PM
The only other 16 bit non jpeg format I have read about are Tiff files. Is this what Raw users save their conversions to in order to preserve all the original data.
Amanda

The original data only resides in the raw file. From the raw converter I save as PSD (Photoshop 16 bit) and add adjustment layers as required. The only down side is the huge file sizes generated, but I can go back and tweak adjustments or turn them off at will. When finished I save master copies as TIFF and the working files as JPEGs. The raw and TIFF files are archived.

As mentioned above, Olympus cameras (well my E-1 and E-3) produce 12 bit images, the extra 4 bits are padded out to make up 16 bits.

Steve