RAW vs. JPEG: The Cost Factor

[Tigerman]

Well, you know what they say. You cant turn crap into gold.



You can polish it though, mythbusters proved that..

 

[MrPfeffer]

As a new photo person, and enjoying it thoroughly, Ive shot exclusively in JPG. Although I did just install CHDK on my older canon p&s. I personally think jpg is great for a beginner because there is a lot more to taking a picture then just WB. I have one of the canon cases and am in the process of buying the adaptor, if inon would get off there asses lol, so that I can add lenses which I feel will add more to my photos then RAW at the moment. Having said that if its something youre going to do for a while and are going to make the purchase for a new camera why not get one that could do RAW and allow you to make the choice. I agree with going with a different housing, if looking at canon cameras that is, just for the ability to add lenses. just my .02

 

[Randallr]

Fantastic! Thank you all for the opinions, and the debate. But let me ask the question in a different way. Take a look at the photos I posted up front. Granted, they're not hi-res, and also granted, they're part of the small handful of shots that came out well from the hundreds I shot. But I'm very happy with them; they're great mementos of my Saba trip, and they blew up as large as 11x14 really well, and I'm happy to hang them on my wall.

Had I shot these in RAW, how much better would they be? What could I do with them that I can't do with the JPEGs? And can I do it without spending tens of hours hunched over a computer (which is what I do at work during the week, so I'm naturally a bit hesitant about spending too much of my weekends on it).

I'm not a glutton for punishment, but I really am eager to understand - how shall I put this - whether I am worthy of a RAW setup at this stage of my "career."

Thanks again to you all!

 

[Tigerman]

The main point with raw is that you have more data to work with, and the files has not been post-processed in the cameras processor into jpegs, which means what you have is what the image sensor saw and nothing else.
What this means is that you start the post-processing from the raw data, rather than from the already tweaked data in the jpeg.

It is NOT neccesarilly a matter of hours of work to post-process your pictures. Most of my pictures is a matter of small adjustments which can be made in a few seconds per picture.
The best ones I might want to get even closer to perfect, and there are those that really didnt turn out good, but due to their motives "needs" to be saved for no other reason that they capture something I want to have a picture of as a reminder.

How much better your photos would have been in RAW is pretty much impossible to tell without seeing the full resolution jpegs and even then it can be hard to tell.

Are you worthy of a RAW setup? Yes, anyone who have come to a place where they wonder "what is it and what can it do for me?" imo is..

 

[azscubadude]

Fantastic! Thank you all for the opinions, and the debate. But let me ask the question in a different way. Take a look at the photos I posted up front. Granted, they're not hi-res, and also granted, they're part of the small handful of shots that came out well from the hundreds I shot. But I'm very happy with them; they're great mementos of my Saba trip, and they blew up as large as 11x14 really well, and I'm happy to hang them on my wall.

Had I shot these in RAW, how much better would they be? What could I do with them that I can't do with the JPEGs? And can I do it without spending tens of hours hunched over a computer (which is what I do at work during the week, so I'm naturally a bit hesitant about spending too much of my weekends on it).

I'm not a glutton for punishment, but I really am eager to understand - how shall I put this - whether I am worthy of a RAW setup at this stage of my "career."

Thanks again to you all!

I hope I can say this so it comes out correctly, I'm sure others can state it better.

Depending on the camera you use all jpg's have some in camera processing done to them that you can never recapture. I'm sure the algorithms have improved over the years but it used to be that every time you touched a jpg photo (processed in any way) the photo was degraded and you could never get it back. This isn't saying that the jpg's are bad, I use them all the time, especially if I'm shooting tons of photos in a shoot. But I know that if I shoot jpg's I am basically stuck with what I first see. Not much can be done to them.

RAW is nothing more than a digital negative. When you ask "how much better would my photos be if I shot in RAW". They could actually be rather dull when you first looked at them. But being a digital negative they hold ALL the information your camera could and would record in RAW, which is a ton, hence very big file sizes. Since they do record tons of information some camera settings are even overridden so extra info can be recorded in the digital negative. When you process the RAW images the programs do not destroy or delete any of the information on the original RAW image (nondestructive). You can go back as many times as you want adding, deleting, sharpening, reducing noise, exposure.. on and on and on or totally resetting the image back to the original. Then when you are done you save the file as a jpg. Some images need a lot of work, some need none.

There are volumes that have been written on the above, way to much to go into here.

You wouldn't have to dedicate your life to processing your photos unless you wanted to. There are some great computer programs available that make post processing very easy. The two big ones are Apple Aperture and Adobe Lightroom and also Photoshop Elements. They are very easy to use and getting better with every release. You don't have to spend a fortune on Photoshop but if you have it you can tweak your images using Lightroom and also edit the same image with Lightroom adjustments in Photoshop with one click of your mouse.

The nice thing about Lightroom (which I use) and Apple Aperture is that they are also a complete catalog for your images. You import them (or a copy) into the program and once done everything you do is saved in the program. They handle RAW, jpg's, Tif, psd's, DNG (as well as other formats I'm probably forgetting) and even movies.

I don't know about others but Adobe Lightroom allows you to download a 30 day complete working copy of the program. Nothing limited. If you don't like it after 30 days just delete it. I use Apple computers but like Lightroom better as it is integrated with other Adobe programs, like Adobe Bridge, Adobe RAW, Photoshop and Photoshop Elements. None of which you need but if you have them you can use them along with Lightroom.

 

[dhaas]

One more comment........

The constant reference about tweeking JPEGS permanently altering your ORIGINAL JPEG is 1000% false with almost every consumer program I'm aware of.

Apple's iPhoto (which I use and have since my first lowly iMac), Apple Aperture, Adobe Elements and Lightroom all basically use "non-destructive" editing. Meaning with one mouse click at the top bar of any of these programs you can "revert to original" and start all over..............

Or save multiple versions of your RAW or JPEG adjusted image...........

The myth of permanently changing your JPEG and thus touting the benefit of RAW is another hold over from 2007 or earlier..........

azscubadude is correct in that many times you just want to keep a photo because of the EMOTIONAL attachment to that place, dive, experience with a great dive buddy, etc.

I DO UNDERSTAND THIS and can see where RAW MAY help you get the best out a "challenged" image.....

My comments likely make me seem like a crabby old guy But I'm really a guy you would enjoy diving and traveling, and even shooting UW with

Having fun while learning!

David Haas
www.haasimages.com

 

[bvanant]

David:
I would like to go shooting with you anytime, even if you are crabby. I am probably older and crabbier but still have fun shooting.
As for the raw/JPEG debate, I shoot both and use LR for development. In about half of what I shoot, the Canon JPEG is as good as anything I can do messing around in LR. In the other half, I think I can do a bit better than the Canon JPEG. To the OP, in terms of strobes, I strongly vote for the best one (unfortunately the most expensive probably) you can afford, it will give you lots more keepers.
Bill

 

[richiesgonedivin]

I personally use the Nikon D90 with an aquitica housing and duel sea and sea strobes plus other acc. . Depending on if you are planning on useing image programs ( adobe light room for example) and or blowing up your images to a larger size you might be fine with a really good point and shoot .. The RAW format will allow you to enlarge a 12 megapixel image and the final result will still be 12 megapixel , where as just a JPEG image enlarged from 12 megapixels will not enlarge to 12 mpix . The RAW format is much easier to fix in photo programs .. It also depends on what kind of money you want to spend . Getting pro equipment is like buying a small home .. Hope this helps

 

[Tigerman]

One more comment........

The constant reference about tweeking JPEGS permanently altering your ORIGINAL JPEG is 1000% false with almost every consumer program I'm aware of.

...

The myth of permanently changing your JPEG and thus touting the benefit of RAW is another hold over from 2007 or earlier..........

azscubadude is correct in that many times you just want to keep a photo because of the EMOTIONAL attachment to that place, dive, experience with a great dive buddy, etc.

I DO UNDERSTAND THIS and can see where RAW MAY help you get the best out a "challenged" image.....

My comments likely make me seem like a crabby old guy But I'm really a guy you would enjoy diving and traveling, and even shooting UW with

Having fun while learning!

David Haas
www.haasimages.com

There was never a time where you destroyed a file by editing it, as long as you did not OVERWRITE the original file, which is a serious user error and not a format/program error.

The fact is however that a camera JPEG have already lost a lot of information and made adjustments thats hard to revert.
If the JPEG is good to go, then great you can use it, cause you will take that loss IN THE JPEG after saving it from the editing raw file anyways. If the JPEG however DONT come out as you want, its nice to have the RAW file and bypass those tweaks entirely instead of trying to revert them or throwing away the photo.

 

[thejamez]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting when I'm reading but it seems like a lot of you feel like a once you have a JPEG everything is set in stone. I've been using photoshop for over a decade, and even though Lightroom is new to me, editing a JPEG file and tweaking it for better effect is very easy. If your photo goals include large print images (which I have little experience with) then I'm sure the huge RAW files are great to have.