Jpegs Better Than Raw?

[Zuiko]

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

and me...........................

[MarkVarley]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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/downloa...jsp?ftpID=4365 - it says it works with Elements 6 and above.