Post details: RAW vs. JPEG Controversy

02/17/06

Permalink 01:38:53 pm, 778 words, 3613 views  
Categories: General Photography, Photoshop and Effects

RAW vs. JPEG Controversy

Well many of you know about the unending battle between RAW and JPEG camps. There is a good article "Cost Analysis: RAW vs. JPEG" at ShootSmarter.com (you have to register there to see the article - free and easy). Jim Tweedie who wrote the article gives us good facts about how much it takes to take, process and keep the RAW files (time is money). Though I may not agree with all of his points, they are very valid ones.

[More:]

Why do I disagree?
Shooting? For a professional photographer with a pro gear (especially at this point in time), RAW is not that a big deal to take photographs - cameras have huge buffers and write speeds to the cards are quite high. Tethering - could be a hassle, I agree, though not that much.
Processing? Latest software programs (for large numbers of photographs) allow to apply similar settings/changes to a bunch of photographs (some call them the recipes) and you batch process them aftewards. But at this time, you have a better control over the settings and have greater limits, which you can work in (i.e. exposure, white balance). But if you do processing of a single file, with JPEG you may spend addtional time to compensate for those disadvantages and perform more steps to achieve the same quality as in RAW file (if it is possible at all). So a good post-processing of a single file (including RAW conversion) would take similar time, if not less with the RAW file.
Storage? Yes, RAW files could several time bigger than JPEGs. But storing images on CD/DVDs is not necessary. Actually I prefer to keep them on a external harddrive. The space is getting cheaper and cheaper. But you may need Terrabytes of space (1Tb = 1000Gb). And harddisks live longer than CD, take less space and it's easier to search/locate you files.
Quality? Instead of 8 bit color space you get 12 bit one. That's 50% more. Do we really care? Not always. And most of the time I don't. Most of the time I shoot in JPEG :) and I'll tell you why in a minute. But if you plan to have a big print out of the image - you may find it very useful. Better control over exposure (sometimes up to 2 additonal stops of dinamic range). White balance is much easier to control without loosing the quality. There is less noise and none of the artifacts from compression.
Compatibility? There is a possible issue with ability to use this RAW file in, say, five years from now. The camera manufacturers upgrade their cameras and technologies, which results in new formats for RAW files. While JPEG format will stay for long, it seems. But then there is DNG format, which is created by Adobe. It could be the solution, but that would add an additional step to the process. Though, I think, that the issue with new RAW formats is exaggerated. The camera manufactures will support the formats for a few years back (I would say for 5-7 years) and at certain point would offer a good solution for this issue, such as a new converter, which understands all formats.

Another photographer - David Eppstein - performs a practical experiment to compare the quality and advantages of RAW and JPEG approaches. And again the bias is toward JPEG approach.

And a few more sources on RAW vs. JPEG discussion:

What to shoot with?
In my humble opinion, the answer is simple - RAW, if you expect much from the photograph, such as to be printed for portfolio, for demanding client or you will need additional (or simply extensive) post-processing. So, the quality and demand are two main factors here. And it's JPEG if you need to a compromise between quality, speed and space. This doesn't mean that the final result (i.e. a print) would be of low quality. It simply means that you will be limited by certain factors in your work. For example, I shoot weddings in JPEG - I am satisfied with quality and clients are happy. And when I shoot landscapes, people or some other stuff and know that there could be some postprocessing, or that the image could end up in my portfolio - my choice is RAW. I'd rather spent a bit more space and time (for several photographs - up to 50-60) to get a quality file, which I can rely on.

And don't forget, that you are making the final choice. You know most of what is required and what you can or will do with the image afterwards. Good luck.

Comments, Pingbacks:

No Comments/Pingbacks for this post yet...

Leave a comment:

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.

Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small>
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email and url)
(Allow users to contact you through a message form (your email will NOT be displayed.))


Photography Things

When we find something interesting and useful, which we want to return to and share with others, it will be posted here. It could be about composition, digital effects, photoshop, photography business or links to interesting websites.

rss
Subscribe to RSS feed

March 2024
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
<< <     
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31            

Misc

Who's Online?

  • Guest Users: 88