Raw or JPEG?

[John Gulliver]

It is obvious from previous discussions on this subject that the majority of experienced photographers here use Raw but I wonder if this is a conscious choice, after comparing edited Raw and JPEG images, or simply due to force of habit and what is generally considered to be popular wisdom. I certainly can't see any difference between my land JPEG images edited with Photoshop Elements 6 and edited Raw images of A3 size. If I can't see any difference in my shots taken on land, why should I do so in u/w shots? I've discussed this with several friends and opinions are very divided. One friend who is a professional u/w photographer and has won many international contests, both here in Europe and in the US, saves both JPEG Fine and Raw images but has never yet used a Raw image. Personally, I don't have a lot of time to spend on editing my shots so would prefer to stick to JPEG if I can do so without significant loss of quality. Other advantages of only saving JPEG are, of course, that I can store more images on each memory card and don't take up so much computer memory (fewer versions of each image). It seems to me that I can do everything I want to do by "Photoshoping" JPEG images but am I missing something? What would Raw offer me that I cannot achieve with JPEG?

 

[victor]

My 2 cents
By using the JPEG you are losing some information and you are relying on the microcode in the camera to convert the raw image to a JPEG. It will do some sharpening, white balance conversion, etc.
Now with modern DSLR's the conversion is very good, maybe better than some imaging programs on PC's so it is debatable.
However when you would suffer is if you ever wanted to increase the size, e.g. you saved as 800 x 600 and you wanted to increase it to 1600 by 1200.

In my case I save RAW and do any editing on the PC later. Yes it does take a long time as I have not worked out how to quickly get thumbnails from Olympus raw files.

With my D300 I will save both and that will save me a lot of time.

 

[John Gulliver]

My 2 cents
By using the JPEG you are losing some information and you are relying on the microcode in the camera to convert the raw image to a JPEG. It will do some sharpening, white balance conversion, etc.
Now with modern DSLR's the conversion is very good, maybe better than some imaging programs on PC's so it is debatable.
However when you would suffer is if you ever wanted to increase the size, e.g. you saved as 800 x 600 and you wanted to increase it to 1600 by 1200.

In my case I save RAW and do any editing on the PC later. Yes it does take a long time as I have not worked out how to quickly get thumbnails from Olympus raw files.

With my D300 I will save both and that will save me a lot of time.

Thank you for your comments, Victor. Yes, I'm aware that I will lose some information but it's the result that counts, surely? What is there to say that I need that information? If I can't see any difference in the edited images at sizes I am likely to use, it would seem to me that Ken Rockwell is right in stating that "Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future."
I welcome comments from others. Perhaps you can convince me that KR and I are wrong.

 

[PatW]

I have found that I can get far more detail from raw images from shadows and highlights. Also I can adjust the white balance in raw images. In good light, I don't think there is a much difference between the two. In good light with proper exposure and WB, JPEG or RAW should work fine. In more marginal circumstances, RAW is far superior.

In underwater shots, being able to freely manipulate the WB should be a meaningful advantage. Also being able to get decent shots out of marginal lighting conditions should be a meaningful advantage also. RAW just gives you more options.

 

[John Gulliver]

I have found that I can get far more detail from raw images from shadows and highlights. Also I can adjust the white balance in raw images.

Do you mean you can't adjust the white balance in JPEG images? Surely that's not so?

 

[Puffer Fish]

This is a hugely camera dependent issue. As there is no definition of what "fine" means.. different mfg's use different amounts of compression.

dpreview.com with some camera's does a comparison so you can see the effect.

With a Fuji S5, there is no difference. With the latest Panasonic.. rather large.

Canon (which I use) is not famous for their JPEG quality... but their raw software is just as easy to use as the Jpeg ...so I only shoot raw....

 

[AbyssalPlains]

If you don't process your images and post/print/use them right out of cam, the answer is obvious: Stick with jpg.

If, on the other hand, you do process your images and you have ever compared processing a jpg and processing a RAW image, the answer is equally obvious. It shouldn't take more than one try to prompt you to never consider jpg again.

 

[AbyssalPlains]

Ken Rockwell is right in stating that "Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future."

No idea who this Ken Rockwell guy is, but his statement is an interesting one. Depending on your interpretation, you could say it is complete BS and completely accurate at the same time. Why? As far as the end result is concerned, of course it is hard if not impossible to see a difference between a RAW and a jpg image. But that is beside the point. The point in shooting RAW is that this file format contains all the information and holds great potential for processing. If you start with a mediocre jpg, your end result is most likely crap. If you start with a mediocre RAW (and most digital SLR take mediocre pictures to begin with that you HAVE to process to bring out their potential), your end result is potentially spectacular if you know what you're doing. A jpg, on the other hand, hardly gives you any options to work with in processing and the outcome will always be limited.

So, yes, in the end, after all developing and processing is done, the jpg looks just as good as any other file, but it's the in-between steps that count.

 

[Atomic_Diver]

not much of an u/w photographer yet but i am amazing on land, shoot with a Nikon D300 , i notice when i shoot RAW i can't edit the pics, but i can on JPeg, my advise to you would be if you can shoot on RAW + JPEG Fine, that way it will take a pic of the subject in raw and jpeg.... good luck dude

 

[Peter Guy]

For UW photography isn't it also a question of macro vs. WA -- i.e., having strobes as your light source vs. natural light? IF you are doing macro and lighting with strobes, is there any significant/real advantage to RAW over JPEG?

It seems clear to me there RAW has a significant advantage with WA/natural light.