Jpegs Better Than Raw?

[Wreckdiver]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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? New E-3, new housing, loads of 4GB cards (one for each dive = 400+ shots per dive - battery permitting) and every shot will be a raw shot.

Steve

[Ellie]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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.
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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

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.

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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.

[shirley]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

.... 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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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.

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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

[blu-by-u]

Re: Jpegs Better Than Raw?

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 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... 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.