Old 07-30-2010, 10:00 PM   #1
norfolksouthern
Senior Member
 
norfolksouthern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 147
Default JPEGS and RAW

Hello folks!

I want be wonder about JPEGS and RAW images so I curious which most peoples using JPEGS or RAW? And, why? Because RAW images have more rich of color or do something than original JPEGS?

Often I use JPEGS on my Canon 50D so someday I'd try to turn with RAW soon.


- David
__________________
I am deaf hard-die
norfolksouthern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 05:59 AM   #2
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 01:15 PM   #3
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

If you've got enough card space and hard drive space, I'd recommend shooting RAW and JPEG. You could theoretically dump all of your RAW shots onto the computer until you're ready to deal with them. Think of RAW as a digital negative. I'm kinda with Janusz when he said yesterday that you seem to have processing issues, not in camera issues. RAW just adds another wrinkle or two to the processing end which you may or may not be ready for.

But I shoot RAW and suggest anyone should.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-31-2010, 03:45 PM   #4
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

I am pretty much the guy Joe describes above... I shoot both (which fills up an 8G card on my 40D lickity split - hey that's the first time I've ever said lickity split in my lifetime).

Anyway - 9 times out 10, I will process the JPEG because frankly, it's easier. The work's already been done by the camera. That tenth time, I'll find that the camera didn't do such a good job and because when a JPEG is created information that is not needed is dumped, I will go to the RAW where that information still exists.

Most of my RAW files, I never look at. I just store. I keep them because I have no idea what the future will hold and I don't know yet if there is information in them that I will need one day (or someone else will want one day). For me, this is the difference between what I shot on Kodachrome and what I shot on Kodak Gold 200. Honestly, at the time I shot them, the only difference I was personally aware of was that one was a slide and one was a negative. Today, I see a massive chasm and realize that there was so much more quality in the Kodachrome. I am protecting myself in case I find that with the RAW.

That being said, card space is an issue, and sometimes on a trip say, I can't just keep banging away what amounts to 20 Meg a frame. In those cases, I have to make a decision, and I usually go the lazy man's direction of JPEG... although in my heart, I know that this is wrong and the smart thing to do would be RAW... but space isn't the only issue... the idea of coming home to process 500 or 1,000 or 2,000 RAW shots with no JPEGs to fall back on is something that would change this from a hobby to a chore for me.

Last edited by Freericks; 07-31-2010 at 04:30 PM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 02:34 AM   #5
mark woody
Senior Member
 
mark woody's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Mudgee N.S.W. Australia
Posts: 641
Default

Hi David i only shoot RAW because i only get to shoot 3-4 times a month and not too many trains, i don't mind processing and it is more involved than JPEG, do what Joe suggests shot both if you have the card space and save the RAW files till you can process them properly, always save to a new file name after processing even JPEG and shoot JPEG's on the highest quality setting on your camera [largest file size] and save also on the largest file size. The shots you are taking have improved a lot and i look forward to more.
mark woody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 07:59 PM   #6
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I'm pretty sure the search feature exists for questions like these.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 09:29 PM   #7
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
I'm pretty sure the search feature exists for questions like these.
Since it was your suggestion, why don't you use it and lend a helping hand by providing links for previous threads David should review?
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2010, 11:53 PM   #8
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,996
Default

Hi David,

I switched from JPEG to raw about a year and a half ago. There were three things I noticed:
  • Those raw files fill up my hard drives a BUNCH faster than LF JPEGs do.
  • I had to learn postprocessing all over again, because with JPEGs, the camera had been doing a lot of the work for me.
  • There were shots in which I failed to nail the exposure that were hopeless as JPEGs, but easily salvaged as raw files.
I guess my best advice is that if you shoot just for fun and don't spend a lot of money traveling to get pictures, JPEGs are the way to go. Any shot you miss, you can probably re-do another day. If you're really serious about your pictures, have any ambition at all to sell them, or spend a fair amount of money traveling to get them, shoot raw. You'll be glad you did.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2010, 05:46 AM   #9
Joey Bowman
Senior Member
 
Joey Bowman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hudson, NC
Posts: 358
Default

Ive been shooting in RAW now for almost 4 years.

I love to have the ability to adjust exposure, white balance, and other settings when/if needed. Though the number one reason I shoot RAW is so I can convert to 16bit TIFF files instead of shooting 8bit JPGS straight from the camera.

When I do weddings or portrait sessions I usually nail the exposure and try to get the white balance as accurate as possible to cut down on post processing and usually all I have to do is convert the RAW over to a TIFF (then later on a JPG copy as well). Though its nice to know that if I ever blow the high lights or have some shadows that are a tad too dark I can save it pretty easily.
Joey Bowman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 07:00 AM   #10
norfolksouthern
Senior Member
 
norfolksouthern's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Delaware
Posts: 147
Default

Thanks to everyone for definitely!

Okay, because I wonder spot most time I see my 50D and files with RAW and JPEGS; so interesting those between JPEGS and RAW are different as JPEGS images has more of images than low of numbers with RAW. So, I thought that probably RAW images has more of capture as amazing and clear than JPEGS that of my mind. So I know as I wrong...


- David
__________________
I am deaf hard-die
norfolksouthern is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 03:14 PM   #11
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

I didn't start shooting RAW until November of 2009 after being convinced by many RP'ers that is the way to go. It took me a while to get used to the format, but eventually adapted.

The files do take up a bit of space both on the memory card and the hard drive, but in my opinion, it's certainly worth it. RAW captures more detail and allows you to correct White Balance easier. The Camera Raw program (I guess it's a program, perhaps just a plug-in?) associated with Adobe Photoshop is very easy to use! Easy settings and will open a RAW file (20-30MB) very quickly.

I encourage all JPEG users to switch over to RAW if you have the time and memory space to edit the images.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 03:43 PM   #12
barnstormer
Senior Member
 
barnstormer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 374
Send a message via Skype™ to barnstormer
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
I didn't start shooting RAW until November of 2009 after being convinced by many RP'ers that is the way to go. It took me a while to get used to the format, but eventually adapted.

The files do take up a bit of space both on the memory card and the hard drive, but in my opinion, it's certainly worth it. RAW captures more detail and allows you to correct White Balance easier. The Camera Raw program (I guess it's a program, perhaps just a plug-in?) associated with Adobe Photoshop is very easy to use! Easy settings and will open a RAW file (20-30MB) very quickly.

I encourage all JPEG users to switch over to RAW if you have the time and memory space to edit the images.

Chase

I agree with Chase. I have been shooting raw for about 2 months and I won't switch back. You have so much more picture to work with. I does take up more space on your memory card and computer but it is definitely worth it.
__________________
Stay out of the train's way and they will stay out of your way.

See my shots on Railpictures
See my shots on RRpicturearchives
barnstormer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 07:27 PM   #13
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,718
Default

If the shot counts (aka for money) I'll shoot both. If I'm just screwing around taking shots, I only shoot jpeg. Rarely do I blow one bad enough I can't fix the jpeg.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-09-2010, 08:50 PM   #14
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase55671 View Post
RAW captures more detail
Being a fan of clear discussion ...

What does this mean? Raw does not capture more pixels than jpg.

In theory it is possible that Raw, being 14-bit color (or 12-bit, whatever) will capture two sets of pixels side by side whose color varies ever so slightly, and the jpg would group them into one color. But I don't think this is what people mean when they casually say "more detail". This you would not notice on screen, for example, and it would be difficult to see in print.

Perhaps it means that raw gives you some latitude in exposure so you are less likely to lose detail in areas because they don't blow out. But, it would be clearer to say that with raw one is less likely to have blown out areas.

Anyway, not intending to pick on Chase particularly, but people can be sloppy when discussing this stuff, just human nature, casual board posting, and here it is not clear.

To me the benefit of raw is the white balance and the over/underexposure latitude. For someone more serious/persnickety about color than I, it also means more color detail/richness (if one is printing directly out of software, not if one is printing from a jpg or displaying on screen).
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 01:14 AM   #15
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,980
Default

If you nail the exposure and color every time, shoot JPEG.
If you don't, do it in the RAW.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 02:02 AM   #16
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
If you nail the exposure and color every time, shoot JPEG.
If you don't, do it in the RAW.
Also, if shooting black locomotives (steam or Norfolk Southern), RAW is safer as the light meter is often thrown.

Lastly (and I know I'll get flamed for this, but it's my experience)... if using Rebel, you'll find the RAW is more necessary, as the camera is more likely to have missed the correct exposure, while on a 40D or 50D, I think you'll find you aren't as likely to have to do rescue jobs on AV and TV shots.

Last edited by Freericks; 08-10-2010 at 02:04 AM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2010, 10:34 PM   #17
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,194
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Being a fan of clear discussion ...

What does this mean? Raw does not capture more pixels than jpg.

In theory it is possible that Raw, being 14-bit color (or 12-bit, whatever) will capture two sets of pixels side by side whose color varies ever so slightly, and the jpg would group them into one color. But I don't think this is what people mean when they casually say "more detail". This you would not notice on screen, for example, and it would be difficult to see in print.

Perhaps it means that raw gives you some latitude in exposure so you are less likely to lose detail in areas because they don't blow out. But, it would be clearer to say that with raw one is less likely to have blown out areas.

Anyway, not intending to pick on Chase particularly, but people can be sloppy when discussing this stuff, just human nature, casual board posting, and here it is not clear.

To me the benefit of raw is the white balance and the over/underexposure latitude. For someone more serious/persnickety about color than I, it also means more color detail/richness (if one is printing directly out of software, not if one is printing from a jpg or displaying on screen).
Maybe not "more detail" as much as simply more dynamic range and the ability to recover detail that would otherwise be too blown out or too dark when shooting JPEG.

I concur with your final statements of the broad range of white balance and the easy to use exposure control.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 06:53 AM   #18
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnstormer View Post
It does take up more space on your memory card and computer but it is definitely worth it.
That's why you be like me and only take one or two photos of each train... I've came home from a big chase with 25 photos on a card...
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 04:08 PM   #19
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
That's why you be like me and only take one or two photos of each train... I've came home from a big chase with 25 photos on a card...
I've also come home from big chases with 25GB.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 04:24 PM   #20
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
That's why you be like me and only take one or two photos of each train... I've came home from a big chase with 25 photos on a card...
I need to get more like this. I keep telling myself I'm going to, and then next thing I know I've filled another 8G card.

When I do get home, I end up dumping pretty much all but 25 or 50 of those shots. Need to stop taking them in the first place.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-14-2010, 06:55 PM   #21
stevenmwelch
Senior Member
 
stevenmwelch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Minot, ND
Posts: 720
Send a message via AIM to stevenmwelch Send a message via Yahoo to stevenmwelch
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
Need to stop taking them in the first place.
I recently chased (got it in 3 spots) a SD75M Warbonnet... Okay, so three spots... I came home with 6 photos. Sure is easy to edit...
__________________
Steven M. Welch
Minot, ND
I gots my floaties and I'm ready to go railroadin' in Minot.
My Photos on RP
My RP Rejects and then Some
stevenmwelch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 03:06 AM   #22
stlgevo51
Senior Member
 
stlgevo51's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch
I recently chased (got it in 3 spots) a SD75M Warbonnet... Okay, so three spots... I came home with 6 photos. Sure is easy to edit...
Wow! That is incredible. When I chased the 844 in April, I can't tell you how many shots I took. At Union Station alone, I took 60-70 photos, including this shot:
Image © Jake B.
PhotoID: 333905
Photograph © Jake B.


I shoot jpeg only, just because I don't want to do more editing. I rarely ever get a bad color or exposure reject. Occasionally I will overexpose something, but it isn't that bad. My one problem I'm having is more with quality. Some of my recent photos have not been great quality wise. Not horrible, just not as good as I expected. I though it was focusing, but I think it is more with the camera. Would switching to RAW help? (Obviously Janusz thinks that isn't true, but I don't know what it could be.)

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=153210194
Take this shot for example. It was focused on the nose of the lead unit, and it was shot on Large jpeg. But I just see a lesser quality image than many other images in the DB taken with similar cameras. Do you agree, or am I going crazy? (By the way I don't agree with the composition/ balance reject.)
__________________
Jake
Railpictures Shots RP stuff.
Flickr Shots All the RP stuff plus some failed experiments, wedgies, and junk.
Youtube Videos

Last edited by stlgevo51; 08-16-2010 at 03:10 AM.
stlgevo51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2010, 04:00 PM   #23
John Fladung
JohnFladung.net
 
John Fladung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Saint Paul, MN
Posts: 785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stevenmwelch View Post
I recently chased (got it in 3 spots) a SD75M Warbonnet... Okay, so three spots... I came home with 6 photos. Sure is easy to edit...
I like that logic however what happens Steven if you were to say botch a shot? I like to take a few "extra" shots just in case something is a bit out of focus or there is another odd mishap beyond my control like say a bird flying through the shot or something else odd.

Just my thought.
John Fladung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 02:44 AM   #24
wirailfan
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 94
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
If you nail the exposure and color every time, shoot JPEG.
If you don't, do it in the RAW.
I get a kick out of this response. I hear it from many people that don't understand the other advantages for keeping and using the RAW file. Although it is easier to adjust exposure and color, it is far from the only reason to shoot in RAW.
__________________
Thomas Johnson
La Crosse, WI
wirailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-18-2010, 03:13 AM   #25
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,718
Default

I understand all the advantages (more accurate pixel values, not limited to 8 bit gamma compression, ability to use different demosaicing algorithms, etc), they just don't really effect this boy and his cheap camera / lenses.

Most people shoot RAW because it's forgiving. Mis-guided or not, it's a fact. It's plan B when you bone a shot.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.