I made a comment on a thread in the 'user critique' board related to the amount of time people can spend processing photos. This reminded me of an article on Kend Rockwell's website where he explains why he never shoots RAW.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

His view is (in brief) that instead of spending hours in front of a RAW editor he would rather take jpeg, let the camera do the work and take more photos. As a professional photographer he does not have time to process hundreds of photos.

Blansky's view (on that same 'user critique' thread) consdiders jpegs are not good enough, and using jpegs instead of RAW is a reflectoion on their level of commitment. I apologise to Blansky now for removing his comments from their original context, but I think he represents a significant number of digital photographers on this issue.

Having recently started in digital photography, I have no commitments either way, but Ken Rockwell's views do make sense to me.
Using jpeg instead of RAW is no indicator of commitment but instead shows a different approach. Why do we shoot RAW? The only reason is to increase your options on post-shoot processing. You can rescue borderline pictures that are 'not quite right'. Shooting jpegs does not mean a drop in standards - just a recognition that if you don't get it right in camera then you lose the shot.

And this got me thinking.
For those dedicated RAW shooters:
- how much of your processing requires the processing to be done in RAW? If the picture is pretty good, minor tweak can be done in jpeg to good effect
- Hand on heart - how much of your post-processing is to create 'an effect' and how much is to genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed?
- is the satisfaction you get from looking at your picture due purely to the result? Or is there pride because you know how much work you put into it?
- if you took identical pictures with JPEG and RAW, and printed it at 18"x24", could a third party really tellyou which was which?

I will finish by saying that I realise RAW has a place. Some people love turning an average day-time scene into one of a burning sunset or crating fantasy montages. These would be hard to do in jpeg to the same effect. But I am someone who takes photos to record what I actually see - wonderful effects are (not yet) part of my hobby. What would RAW really give to me?

I would rather not throw away any of the limited dynamic range my camera can capture by using a compressing format.

My raws become tiffs and only jpegs if they need to be printed somewhere that doesn't deal with tiffs.

Ken Rockwell should be drawn and quartered...

The ONLY reason to use JPEG is if seconds matter from the standpoint of news or other extremely time sensitive needs. Otherwise, a photographer who wants the optimal output from their efforts would be better served to develop an efficient and productive raw workflow...which apparently is something Ken doesn't know. I could teach him...but I think his mind is made up. Just don't let him think for you.

It is interesting that you make a discrepancy between photographs which are and 'effect' and use the phrase - 'genuinely get closer to the original scene you photographed.' I actually don't see that there is any need to differentiate between the two at all. An image is an image...and to create the best one possible you need the most information available to give you the ability to do both. ... I shoot RAW

Julie

As I stated on the other thread, using the Ansel Adams quote, " if the negative is the score and the print is the symphony" then Mr Rockwell doesn't get many symphonies.

Now to be quite truthful I haven't seen much of Rockwells work so I really don't know how "good" he really is. I have heard that he shoots hundreds of images at a time, and whether he could cut the number considerably by spend more time composing and nailing a shot, I don't know.

Also as for your line "genuinely get closer to the originally scene" you presume that getting closer to the original scene is the object of the exercise. Some people may look at a scene and look at the possibilities and not the reality.


Michael

And if he didn't focus, he could shoot even faster.

Its baloney.



Well IF he's so busy shooting, he could easily afford to pay someone to do this right? Or he's just OK with a baked rendering of whatever he shoots, doesn't care how much data he tosses by using JPEG and doesn't have any desire to control the situation given what Raw provides, especially with modern tools like Lightroom. How old is this piece? I suspect its more to draw controversy and attention.



In camera JPEGs can be lovely. Or not. Point is, you can't put that toothpaste back into the tube. Its about control.



Shoot more JPEG+Raw, then play with what you can do with Raw data and get back to us.

This is a far more valuable read about rendering than what you'll hear from Rockwell IMHO:

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/p...renderprint.pdf

Please take the time to read it, let us know what you think.

Post processing doesn't need to take hours, software like Lightroom can automate a lot of workflow, while your doing something else.
It's about quality, if you truly want the best your camera can produce go with RAW, if you can live with second best shoot jpeg. Wayne

I recently heard this analogy describing the difference:

jpeg: shooting a polaroid - all processing done for you, exposure, whitebalance, etc. limited amount of information stored - no possibility of using future advances in photo processing software.

raw: shooting a negative - you get to choose your processor, be it relatively automated, or manual. full control of exposure, whitebalance, etc. information stored is *exactly* what the camera sensor recorded - future software advances will probably result in improved image quality in the future.

-John

Rockwell may have been talking about 2003-2004 RAW, certainly not what RAW has become.
Really no one with experience would take Rockwell's stance.

Back in film days, some folks took their film to the corner drugstore for developing and printing, while the rest of us spent time in darkrooms doing it all ourselves. It's the same as the difference between jpeg and Raw as far as I can see.

So Ken R is happy as a drugstore shooter. So be it.

OK, I second that!

Erik

Hi!

The idea with RAW is that you keep all information. You can use standard settings or try to extract maximum information from your images. With JPEG yo make decisons before taking the picture with RAW afterwards.

You don't need to care about white balance, sharpening, noise reduction and so on. You decide all after the fact. With good software like Lightroom you don't even see a difference between JPEG, TIFF and RAW, except that RAW is a bit slower.

Best regards

Erik

Actually, shooting RAW is more akin to having access to the latent image before the film is developed into a negative. To carry the analogy along, you could, for example, try several different B&W developers or with color, several different cross development chemistries!

- Tom

I would concur with possible one addition ... shooting raw is as though you also get to make your own film and developer as well. Much of what film captured (funny I use past tense for that now )was baked into the film - especially color film, whereas with RAW you aren't limited by that.

(To go one step farther than Tom)

I'm still relatively new to Raw processing but I don't see anything wrong with shooting both JPEG and Raw. If the shot settings are right on and I am going to post a photo online, e-mail it or print a small 4x6 I can use the JPEG with no processing. However, I also have the option of working with the Raw file if I choose to in situations where I need more control or want the highest quality I can squeeze out of my camera. Contrary to what some people argue, I find that I can process a Raw file much faster than a JPEG if I need to make color and exposure changes.

Here's a problem. The JPEG is processed in camera using quite complex, proprietary conversions. Unless you use the manufacturers Raw converter, and this isn't a guarantee, its often very difficult or impossible to produce a Raw conversion that matches the JPEG. This may, may be an issue. For example, you shoot Raw+JPEG and provide JEPGs for clients to pick from and intend to process the Raws from there. Getting the two to match is not easy. However, if you process the Raw's and in a product like Lightroom, export JPEGs from these instructions, the two match exactly. Its for this reason I stopped shooting Raw+JPEG (and to free up space on my cards).

Shooting JPEG is like shooting with an automatic camera - with no choice of focus, aperture, shutter speed or ISO. Shooting RAW is like shooting manual - you get to choose how the tones you've captured generate the final look.

With tools like Lightroom and Aperture that deal with RAW files natively, I see no need to shoot RAW+JPEG as generating a JPEG is very easy and quick.

Graeme

I’ve been reading both articles very carefully, and in essence I do not see the great contradiction. Karl Lang’s article is very educated, and therefore much more balanced, so that he doesn’t per se exclude Ken Rockwell’s or Jay Maisel’s point of view, even though his own conclusion may be different.

My 2 ct. Peter

--

The only useful thing Mr. Rockwell said in the referenced article is this:

WHICH SHOULD YOU SHOOT?

If you have to ask then just shoot JPG.

If you don't know the difference, it won't matter.

But to compare Karl's article with Ken's article is a REAL stretch...and does a disservice to Karl's article.

Fair point, Schewe.


Everyone on the 'RAW' side seems to talk about control. And I fully accept that.
But my thinking was more fundamental than that - can the output of a JPEG picture be just as good as the output of a RAW picture.

Suppose you set your custom settings accurately and know from experience exactly what you are doing with your camera and how those settings will respond under certain lighting conditions. Then if the final JPEG picture is damned good, does processing the RAW equivalent make a better picture or does it allow you to make it different.

Could you, as an experienced picture-processor make a print ftom a jpeg original and convince everyone it was a RAW original with the final print?

If the answer is 'yes' my presumption would be that people shoot RAW just in case the picture needs more 'rescue' than JPEG allows.

There's a HUGE difference between "good enough" and great...yes, one can certainly produce a good print from a JPEG...and yes, one could prolly produce a better print from the same image shot in raw. If you know what you are doing with the raw...which apparently Mr. Rockwell doesn't. But if you DON'T know what you are doing with raw captures and you are not capable of producing better images from raw, then the odds are you won't be seeing any difference anyway.

So, the question is, do you want "good enough" or great? Personally, I go for great (I'll leave "good enough" to the likes of Mr. Rockwell).

I can take the bus to work, but I'd much rather drive my own car.

And all but the very best jpegs show compression artifacts....

RAW is what, to me, digital photography is about. I don't want the camera deciding the processing for me, there and then, when I press the shutter release. I want control, and I crave that control.

Graeme

Sort of like the saying "even a blind squirrel will find an acorn once in a while".

A jpeg can be OK sometimes, decent sometimes, and every once in a while may approach being perfect ... nothing you can do with the RAW file would exceed it.

But that will be the result of luck as much as anything ... while you can do some things to make it happen more often, you don't have enough control to make it happen every time or even most of the time. Net result is most of the time you get something less, and quite often get something far less.

Don't forget that with in-camera JPEGs, you're usually throwing away about stop of DR compared to RAW, and you're limiting yourself to the narrow color gamut of sRGB or possibly the somewhat wider Adobe RGB if you have a higher-end camera. But with RAW, you have access to 100% of the DR of the sensor, and can choose the color space you convert to, so you can use much more of the camera's color gamut. On top of that, with RAW you have complete control over white balance (color casts are harder to fix with JPEG) and can customize the color processing so you get more accurate color from RAW than you will from JPEG.

The ONLY advantage of shooting JPEG is that the camera buffer clears faster, which can be an issue when shooting in very fast-paced situations. But those are not very common, and are getting less so as cameras get faster.

And camera JPEGs ain't 8/bit/channel...JPEG compression tries to preserve the luminance data while compressing the heck out of the color data and you end up with more like 7.5 bits of real data even with the best JPEG compressors...

Actually not true anymore, with Picture Styles you can get very nice files straight out of Camera and with colours that even ACR struggles to get right. And you can customise them too. So I shoot both. I have Jpegs for when I need images quickly and RAW for when I have more time to tweak. And even then I still sometimes use the JPEg via PS/LR.
I should point out I only do that with a 5D. I use just RAW with cameras that do not have customisable picture styles or equivalent.


Never seen any compression artifacts when using camera JPEGs and why would you not use the best setting anyway? If you were the type to use a high compression, then you aren't going to even know what RAW is, let alone be able to use ACR to it's best advantage.

Control freak alert!!

JPEG usually sub-samples the chroma.....

Graeme

What does get right mean? If you can't produce a color rendering in a Raw converter, OK, you may have an issue here. So you're saying using Picture Styles and a JPEG in camera processing, you are able to produce a rendering thats impossible in a Raw converter?

ACR has known issues with some colours. For some reason I've shot alot of flames of late. ACR is not too good with flames, whereas the JPEGs look much nicer - not just a single shade of orange. Annoyingly I didn't shoot RAW +JPEG for a lot of those shots [there is the small JPEG preview though].
A friend put a RAW file through C1 and it looked much better than via ACR.

And you've calibrated your camera using say the fors script?

Here, here! Why drive a Mazda when you can just as easily drive a Mercedes?

Inevitably, the art and, to some degree, the business of photography incorporates taste, style, and substance. I guess in fairness, to each his own.

I've never heard of Mr. Rockwell and I'm not compelled to check out his love of jpegs. I've seen enough printed jpegs to know where my quality standards lie. When I see the words "pro" and "jpeg" used in the same sentence, I tend to chuckle. But, hey, I'm from the old school. With artists like Patrice Elmi on the rise, it seems there's room for everyone. I think an open mind is a good thing.

Something not mentioned so far is that many (even good) cameras have somewhat wonky WB, not to mention sharpening programs and noise reduction programs that overdo it. If you shoot .jpg, you're buying that white balance and that level of sharpening and noise reduction. The Leica M8 forum, for example, has frequent discussions of weird behavior of the M8's WB -- people will put a camera on a tripod using auto WB, shoot four successive shots, and get four different WB readings when the light didn't change at all. Picking white balance is sort of an art, on the part of both the camera and the photographer, but ultimately, you have to rely on your eye, not the camera, to get it precisely right. If it's baked in the cake -- well, it's somebody else's cake, and that guy never stood looking at the scene you shot.

Another thing not mentioned is that whatever you shoot, you're almost certainly going to run it through some kind of processing program, if only to choose which photos to print. I know, there are cameras that will download directly to printers, but few here routinely do that. If you're going to run even your .jpgs through some editing program, why not shoot RAW? You could do a couple easy batch edits, tweak some white balances, rescue a few shots that would be terrible in .jpg...and spend fifteen minutes doing that instead of three minutes with .jpgs. If your photos aren't worth the extra few minutes, then maybe .jpg is okay.

JC

I was recently asked to include a shot from another photographer ina wedding album. He has shot in camera jpegs and I shoot raw. When I viewed his image at 100% it was significantly softer than my raw conversions before any sharpening. Now it also had lower resolution, but the sharpness point remains. There were areas where detail that would have been available from a good raw capture was lost. This may be because he uses Nikon equipment and I use Canon (sorry, don't believe that) or possibly that he has a less sharp lens, but the degradation looked to me to be at least in part a result of the rendering of the data.

In fairness, I plaued with it and made a nice 8 by 6 print, but I wouldn't have wanted to do a 15 by 10.

Mike

I 'm flabbergasted. What "known issues"? Can you point to learned discussions conclusively demonstrating these "known issues"? I process over 200 images per month in CR 4.1 (and CR 3.7 before that) and I've yet to come accross colours that CR can't handle perfectly well. Of course ya gotta know how to use the application - should I take that for granted?

CR doesn't "struggle to get colours right". That is in the hands of the user. As you most likely know, raw files are typically somewhat flat and low in contrast when you open them in CR with all settings except WB at zero and both curves linear. That's the raw, raw material. From there on, it's in your hands to craft the tones you want, and between the Basic Tabe, the Curves Tab and the HSL Tab there is tons of control and adjustment capability to handle just about anything you can throw at it.

I'm more than a bit suprised there are people defending in-camera jpegs here! The argument only makes sense if you, uh, your camera:

- Calculates a perfect exposure of an subject, actually impossible unless the resultant image has very limited dynamic range
- Captures the perfect White balance for that image (whatever *that* might be)
- Built-in software is "perfected" to the point that optimal noise reduction / sharpening / jpeg compression is being applied, knowing of course that *any* further advances in this area would be moot.

What I *do* know is that current versions of LR, ACR and PS are better tools than before, giving me the opportunity to improve the presented quality of images shot several years ago - something simply impossible if I turned that decision (and frankly, responsibilty) to some engineer's best guess . . .

Mark, it's a known issue that people who don't have a clue how to use Camera Raw or Lightroom like to blame Camera Raw's and Lightroom's inability to "match' what users think their color should look like based upon a glance at the back of the LCD after shooting...obviously Camera Raw's color is terrible because it don't match the default rendering of the camera jpg...jeeesh, pay attention dooode!

Hi!

Ideally I think that a Macbeth Color Checker, properly exposed under controlled lighting and correct white balance, should look like a Macbeth Color Checker on a calibrated monitor. Should it not?

BTW, I'm not complaining.

Best regards

Erik

Hi!

It seems that some printers can reproduce colors that are outside sRGB which is normally used for JPEG. Even if you use Adobe RGB taht would apply. To keep all information that the camera can see you need to use RAW or 48 bits TIFF with a very large gamut RGB.

Best regards

Erik

By default? Why would you think that?

How is Camera Raw supposed to magically know how YOUR camera's sensor reacts to light relative to the other many thousands of same make/model cameras out there? Then, how is Camera Raw supposed to know how YOU like your image colors reproduced (unless you tell it by adjusting the "default").

And what about age and variations between CC cards? Do you keep your's in a light tight case? Have you read yours with a spectro to know how it compares to others? Is your card new or been sitting around for 5 years?

Raw is raw, as uninterpreted, as in unrendered, as in what YOU make of it...if Camera Raw can't render the colors in your images correctly (to YOUR tastes), then you ain't doing something right.

In that case why doesn't Lightroom have the ability to "ajust" the preset auto feature in any way, the "one click" auto is just that, one click and tough luck!.

One would assume some ajustment to the auto feature for quick proofing would be included so pro's can set it up to suit their calibration etc. Wayne

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....showtopic=17064
http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Esxg
came up in the first few Google results

To fix [calibrate] ACR
http://www.fors.net/chromoholics/
http://www.rags-int-inc.com/PhotoTechStuff/ColorCalibration/ - Fors Script Updated

Bruce Fraser outlined the idea that became the scripts above. And as far as I am aware the late Bruce Fraser was very, very learned in this area.



Andrew - BTW to calibrate ACR using the Fors script, buying a colour checker in the UK costs a ridiculous $140!

When you have quite finished being so patronising, did it ever occur to you that some people compare the image to the scene being shot.
And like some films render scenes more pleasing to the eye, sometimes the JPEG colour rendering is 'better'. Which is not the same as best quality.


As for the rest of the snobbish remarks regarding JPEGs. If the JPEG is more than good enough for one's needs. Why waste expensive time faffing with the RAW file.
I shoot both and use whichever file is most appropriate at the time. Later on if I add an image to my print portfolio, then I'll go to the RAW file, if say I used the JPEG initially. Best of both worlds.

Ever heard of slide film. You had to get it right in camera, no safety net of LR/ACR/PS afterwards? I don't rely on the camera to calculate perfect exposure/WB, I decide exposure. Maybe you'd spend less time in post in you relied less on the camera.
The argument makes perfect sense if JPEGs are good enough for the job. And if you shoot both.....what's the problem?

When it comes to quality, I'm a total snob, which is why I chuckle when I meet a photographer who shoots JPEG. I can't help my reaction and nor can I ever settle for less than RAW. Even my eBay photos are shot in RAW. No wonder eBayers complain that I'm using stock photography when I never do. I love writing back to say my used equipment actually looks that good.

Camera Raw gives me total control and, yes, when it comes to tweaking the best from every image, I'm a control freak. I began my digital experience shooting and printing JPEG. That lasted two years and I will never go back, regardless of the time I spend in CR. Because none of the time I spend in CR can compare to the hours I spent in darkrooms with chemicals that were killing my skin and lungs. I find what little time I do spend in CR to be highly rewarding and exhilarating. Once you learn Camera Raw, I think processing is amazingly fast.

However, if an artist can obtain a reputable gallery show with images captured on a cell phone, I say to each his own.

The degree of convenience built-in to automated features is a completely separate issue from what is being discussed here - whether the application has "known issues" handling certain colours.

And your camera cost how much? The script is free. The target, even at that price is an invaluable tool every shooter should have.

These references are not relevant to the question being discussed here. Calibrating ACR to suit the specifics of your camera's sensor is a different matter from whether Camera Raw, in competent hands, has the capability of rendering colours *properly*, or as you want them to be rendered.

And by the way, I have heard very knowledgeable views that the Fors script may not necessarily deliver better results than simply using the canned profile Thomas developed for the camera model and adjusting the images according to how you want them to appear.

With the amount of raw processing I'm doing routinely, I fully support the jist of Jeff's view that there's damn little this application can't handle if you know how to use it. And this comment doesn't only apply to Camera Raw - so it isn't a brand thing - it's a generic technical issue. There are other good raw processors on the market as well - as amply demo'd at Andrew Rodney's "Iron Chef" Panel at Photo Plus Expo in New York City late last month. I had the pleasure of being on that panel (you can download my presentation from PPE Presentation - best do a "Save Target As..") and witnessing real-time creation of very difficult images in four raw converters handled by representatives of their developers. The photographers (world-class renowned people - Dennis Reggie and Vincent LeForet - couldn't help remarking over again how impressed they were with the capability of these applications to render their images as they intended them to be rendered. Raw processing has come a very long way in a very short period of time, and there is much, much more to come.

I have nothing against the jpeg format - used as it was meant to be used. It was developed by the Joint Photographic Experts Group to be a standard format for presenting and exchanging images over the internet and other devices where highly condensed data still producing a useable and consistent result is necessary. It was never meant for high quality image processing. It can produce very useable images in a jiffy, which is a godsend to certain classes of photography where very great speed in the obtaining and delivery of results is absolutely essential - for example some news photography, sports photography, etc. This is not a format for fine art photography period. The fact that it can under certain conditions produce acceptable results for this purpose too does not establish a general case for its comparability with raw processing - in competent hands.

It's still a stupid price for a piece of card with some ink on it. Even if the ink is accurate. Though apparently it doesn't last that long, apparently you need to replace it every 1-2 years! Extracting the urine or what! And it's double the price here that it is in the States. Sadly we don't get paid double what you get in the States.
Even if Adobe seem to think otherwise.

Based on a number of inaccuracies above, I think its pointless to discuss or attempt to educate you on these matters (ink?). Point of fact, the targets are all hand made, and they last a very long time assuming you are smart enough to care for them.