RAW vs. JPEG: Why I prefer JPEG
I’ve been shooting digital since 1996 when I acquired a Canon EOS DCS 3 that sported a whopping 1.3 megapixels. It was a top of the line Canon EOS body with a very heavy Kodak digital back attached to it. I’m not sure, but I think it weighed about nine pounds with a lens. What a beast!
Prior to that, and for most of my career, I primarily shot 35mm Kodachrome for color, and 6×7 Tri-X for black and white.
Kodachrome was considered the most desirable transparency film for publication because of its extremely fine grain and intense color saturation. It had a subtractive color process that added the color during the process, rather than having the color in the film itself. It was extremely fine grain, very color saturated, and it had more contrast than other color films—art directors, editors, publishers, and clients loved it.
When working with Kodachrome, you had to be absolutely dead on with your lighting and exposure, as there was almost no room for error. After many years of working with Kodachrome, I became accustomed to dealing with exposure tolerances that were very narrow, and therefore I’d light my subjects accordingly. Making the switch to Digital JPEG was not really a challenge, as JPEG is actually much more forgiving than Kodachrome ever was.
Transparency films were pretty much reserved for the realm of professionals that were providing images to clients where the final outcome was for publication.
On the other hand, color negative films were mostly for amateurs and those few professionals that needed prints as the final product. Those negative films provided much wider latitude and were used regularly in event photography, like conventions, parties, and especially weddings.
Wide latitude negative films were very forgiving and could handle wide differences in contrast and exposure. Some films could be underexposed or overexposed by several stops and still render acceptable images.
There were some emulsions that had extremely low contrast and gamma ratios, and were ideal for high contrast situations, such as in wedding photography where a bride’s dress in direct sunlight still needed to render detail, and at the same time you had to retain detail in the darkest shadows of the groom’s black tux.
You almost couldn’t make a mistake with those films—very much like shooting RAW in digital today.
What does this have to do with digital, and why do I prefer working with JPEG? Well, JPEG is like Kodachrome in many ways and RAW is a little more like wedding film.
I approach my work using the Zone System and practicing pre-visualization. I decide before I pick up my camera what I want my results to look like. I light and expose for the contrast range that I want and expect my digital images to provide those results without having to do a lot of manipulation in post-production.
I endorse the concept of “pre-touch,” rather than “retouch.” That’s not to say that I don’t re-touch something if the need arises, but I try to get everything right at the moment of exposure so it’s not necessary to make big corrections.
My experience with RAW
A few years ago, when Penthouse magazine switched from film to digital, I was asked to shoot RAW files and send those to their editors. I wasn’t too pleased at the prospect, but did as my client asked.
When the results were published, I was horrified. The printed images were flat, low-contrast, unsaturated, dull and very unexciting—not what I intended at all.
So, for my next assignment, I decided to provide them with some finalized high-quality JPGs that were corrected, retouched and contrast controlled in addition to the RAW files they requested. These were images that I felt were up to my standards and reflected the quality that the magazine used to (and still should have) exhibit.
Here are some of the tests results that I sent to the editors to illustrate what they are getting with RAW and what they could be getting with JPEGs:
These examples were intended to show the editors and art director at Penthouse why they should process their RAW images first, before sending them to the printers for publication. They were not intended to show the difference between what comes out of the camera in one format or the other.
I was dealing with people at that time who were told that RAW images had the best quality and to print directly from those files. Eventually, I was able to convince them to get proper software to process the RAW files, and once they were retouched to output them as JPEG’s for reproduction.
The editors refused to believe their own eyes over the advice of some newly hired techno-geek who told them that RAW has the “best quality” and they needed to use that exclusively. So, none of the JPEGs were ever published.
It was very disappointing to see that they chose inferior, low-contrast, dull, and uninspired images over the hi-quality finalized images I provided. Their choice was made solely on the fact that my finals were not RAW.
So, what could I do? I did what my client asked, tried not to look at the published results and shook my head all the way to the bank!
Over the next three years, I shot about two dozen centerfolds, covers and features for Penthouse in RAW. During that same time, I shot JPEGs for my personal work. It was interesting to occasionally compare the two mediums, but I had no motivation to shoot RAW for myself.
My other magazines clients had and still have no issue with my JPEGs. I shoot in JPEG and generally provide them with a final cropped and retouched image of 7.3 x 11 inches @ 300 dpi.
Frankly, on the printed page, I don’t see any difference between what I shoot on JPEG and what I used to do with Kodachrome. I’ve also made some wonderful prints including 40 x 60 exhibition prints for galleries and museum shows.
A few more reasons why I prefer JPEG over RAW
A number of my photographer and techno-geek friends like to tout the difference in bit depth (16 vs. 8). However, I have yet to see any difference in a final printed image. Most printers work in 8-bit anyway, so where is the advantage of a 16-bit file?
I have heard the arguments that RAW captures much more information than JPEG. That may be true, but from what I have read, most of that information is invisible to the naked eye, so what’s the point? The additional visual information is often perceived as lack of contrast and that doesn’t appeal to me at all.
Then there’s the topic of storage, not that it’s as much of an issue these days with hard drive prices being as low as they are, but it is still something to consider. A RAW file is approximately twice the size of a JPEG at full quality. If I do a project where I produce 5GB of images, it takes up 10GB of drive space and adds to the time it takes to do my post-production editing, retouching, and finishing.
And, as someone recently pointed out to me, the majority of photographers will probably never be published, probably never have prints displayed in an art gallery, so they’ll have nothing to gain by shooting RAW.
For many photographers RAW is a great crutch; it’s wonderful to use if you are learning and don’t yet have control over your techniques.
Like any other creative tool, there is a time and place to use RAW.
If I was a wedding photographer working at venues with ever-changing contrast situations and unpredictable lighting, I’d probably shoot RAW. But, the majority of my work is in the studio, therefore my personal preference is to shoot JPEG.
It’s not for everybody, but I like the results, and so do my clients.
—
Comments are closed but the RAW vs. JPEG conversation continues in the MM Forum, where Ken Marcus posted a response to some of the questions posted below. – MM Edu
June 06, 2012 at 3:13 pm, jerrymat said:
I consider this like saying that drugstore processing of b&w is superior to what Ansel Adams could produce with his zone system. If you will remember Adams could expand 9 zone subjects into a 10 zone paper print. He could also compress an 11 zone subject into a 10 zone paper print. I do believe that properly exposing a jpeg image in digital can be done well but the artistic license to modify is inherent only in camera raw files. It is quite apparent that in this exhibit that the raw files have been mishandled.
Also Adams worked with silver chemical emulsions that showed a characteristic curve that was s-shaped. This allowed shadows that had a long scale of decrease, making it possible to control the shadow tones. Digital has a linear curve and by its peculiar way of halving pixel count for each darker “zone” it makes shadows much less manageable. Camera Raw allows much more modification during processing of the shadows because all of that information in a raw file has not been thrown away during the conversion to jpeg.
June 06, 2012 at 3:10 pm, Karl Blessing said:
To summarize this entire article : “I shoot Jpeg because it looks better right out of the camera”. Doesn’t really say anything more than that.
June 06, 2012 at 3:08 pm, Na Cl said:
There is of course nothing wrong shooting in jpg BUT aside from size (which the author actually played down somewhat) the ability to burst shoot without filling the buffer and losing shots and not being able to view them without a converter, there is nothing that shooting in jpg will result in a better final image. And you aren’t allowing for the fact that a camera generated jpg starts out as a RAW file that was processed by the camera. The only difference is that a saved RAW file needs to be processed by a person. Suggesting that people take two shots and compare the two to see the difference you must mean just save the RAW image with no processing…something that no one who knows anything about RAW files and cares would do, regardless of how many books or workshops they have completed. And while some may use RAW to correct exposure, many use it for white balance.
June 06, 2012 at 3:02 pm, Ivan Galaviz said:
I do respecto Ken’s Work and his opinion, but I’m pretty sure that the RAW-JPG conversion they did were flawed.
ALL Pictures start in RAW, then are converted to JPG in camera. There is no possible way that a JPG could be superior to a RAW file unless the conversion ‘out of body, camera body, that is) is flawed in some way.
June 06, 2012 at 3:01 pm, Jade DaRu said:
I completely agree with Deek. Raw is better because you don’t lose any resolution. you can always reduce your pixels, but once gone, can’t put them back. A for instance of why it is better to shoot raw. I was shown once a picture of a white dog in bright sunshine. I saw the raw file and the jpg file. The difference here was, in the JPG file any details of that white dog’s fur (blown out by the sunlight) was lost forever. With the Raw, you can bring it back. It’s there, and if the person retouching knows what they are doing they can bring details like this back and make the photos beautiful with color correction, etc.
June 06, 2012 at 2:55 pm, Steve said:
Hot Topic. Granted the default raw image render maybe as author noted however IMO this is not what most RAW shooters deliver to the client. JPG’s are convenient and suitable for certain jobs but can be very limiting as others have noted. If I ever shoot JPG I always set for JPG+RAW.
June 06, 2012 at 2:35 pm, Chuck St. John said:
“It’s not for everybody.” I agree. Love Marcus but he’s pretty far off base here. However, he likes the format, it works for him and that’s all that matters…to him. For me, I’d never shoot anything but RAW and I certainly DO have control over my technique and I did laugh when the comment was made that it’s a crutch. Right. So is autofocus.
June 06, 2012 at 2:33 pm, Paul said:
You dont process ing photoshop distructively any more, yet JPG is a distructive capture?
June 06, 2012 at 2:28 pm, Chuck said:
Your success in photography is envious, but this is poorly argued. In the end, it’s more a story of how lack of digital editing skill can’t hold back an otherwise great photographer. I’m currently arguing the side that shooting RAW can’t make me a decent photographer. 🙂
June 06, 2012 at 2:27 pm, PiotrAF said:
This is absurd 🙂 You can state as well that full-auto mode is better than any PSAM mode, and believe me examples of these kind could be supplied! 🙂 First of all, I don’t recall any modern camera body to make you choose either shoot RAW or JPEG. Guess what – you can do both. It is the best practice, to make the shoot final in-camera i.e. all the settings right,WB,learn to utilize the in-camera picture settings etc, so that the JPG will not have to be postprocessed apart from retouch of skin or artistic changes.
I was cursing my unablility of working with RAW for quite some time myself. I couldn’t understand why my RAW process JPG look worse than the in-camera JPGs. Guess what? One day I did something none of my friends, total pro photographers did, I started to use the camera vendor software and suddenly my out-of-camera processed RAW JPGS were much better than the in-camera! That’s the time I started to utilize RAW, and thanks to my good habit of taking RAW+JPEG, I was able to go back to some of my photos and make them much better.
If you take both RAW+JPEG, you have more options and having RAW file you may alter the photo ONLY IF IT IS WORTH THE TIME and the result will be much better than the JPG only if you have the proper software and ability to take advantage of it. If you have poor skills or don’t have proper software, stay with JPG only and don’t waste your time.
What’s the idea of a question RAW or JPG? If you’re good in something and it works for you – don’t change your workflow.
cheers
PiotrAF
June 06, 2012 at 2:24 pm, Derek Gunnlaugson said:
I think this doesn’t really come down to RAW vs. JPEG; it comes down to postprocessed in-camera vs. postprocessed by hand [in software].
In terms of bit-depth – I consider working with RAW for photos as analogous to working with high-resolution [24-bit source at a chosen sampling rate] audio… The place where it makes the difference is in the processing or editing stages.
Processing digital info is all about math. Having the highest practical [noting that word in particular] resolution for the source means higher precision during whatever processing you do. The greater the precision before processing, the better it /should/ end up afterwards.
Having as much resolution [bit-depth and pixel count] in the original to work with in post can be crucially important depending on what you’re shooting [or recording], but when it comes to the stage of handing over a finalised post-processed image [or sound file] the final output can be 95% quality JPEG at full size and well meet all requirements [or 16-bit audio for CD and sound good if done properly].
In film terms, shooting RAW would be like shooting with the highest-latitude, lowest-grain film you can and then taking care of concerns like contrast during printing; shooting JPEG would be analogous to shooting with that same film, printing it optically, then using that print as your original from then on [where the artefacts and losses of the first print determine the usable range of every subsequent edit/copy].
All that said – many if not most decent cameras do very good post-processing internally. If there’s no need to make substantial changes to exposure after the fact – like if you follow prudent/stringent lighting practices [as you seem to] – there’s an excellent argument that JPEG from the camera will give exactly the results you want without having to invest extra time in post-processing a RAW image later to get ostensibly the same output.
For what I often play with – night photography – having the RAW data is pretty much essential to me because there can be a lot of manual post-processing involved. Using a JPEG in post will pretty much always cause easily visible artefacts [like colour banding]. This is hardly an average usage case, but it does provide an example of where RAW clearly beats JPEG. If you’re shooting in more controlled or predictable conditions though, and like the camera’s internal processing and don’t plan to alter the image much if at all in post, JPEG is probably suitable for your needs.
In summary: if you like the processed JPEG output from your camera and aren’t altering it significantly, stick with it. If you know you’ll need to alter the image significantly in post, use RAW.
As to the editors demanding RAW because they feel it’s inherently “better”: they simply need some education/experience to know it’s not necessarily the case.
June 06, 2012 at 2:23 pm, Gabriele Profita said:
The whole article is wrong or at least wrongly argumented.
I agree JPEGs are ready to use pictures, but if you are requested to send RAW files, it is expected from the other side to have at least some knowledge of RAW picture processing.
RAW is so much better than JPEG for several reasons:
Way more detail
Way more tonal range
It’s uncompressed
Very easy to balance color
Very easy to adjust exposure
If you want to find a negative point to RAW files is that they aren’t ready for publishing and they take lot of space, they need to be fixed and ONLY then converted to JPEG or TIFF or whatever you want.
A not edited RAW file is nearly always more likely to have less appeal (even if more detailed and with wider tonal range) compared to an automatically processed JPEG file.
RAW files are meant to be edited, that’s why you shoot RAW!
My final point is: if you want the best picture quality use RAW, if you aren’t able to do proper editing in RAW, you’d better just use JPEG, but if you compare edited JPEGs with edited RAWs there’s no discussion: RAW files win hands down.
June 06, 2012 at 2:23 pm, ClickMore said:
Sorry but this is crazy. If the photographer took the time to discover the real benefits of RAW he would be now throwing this article in the bin (Trash).
June 06, 2012 at 2:16 pm, Craig Photo said:
Deek is 100% correct.
Once upon a time I would have agreed with RAW files slowing down processing, and using up too much space on the memory cards, but today’s cards have much larger storage capacity, and Adobe Lightroom make it easier than it used to be. Actually Lightroom makes processing easier. As for the difference in print, this all depends on how you prepare the file for print, and who is doing the printing. You don’t need to supply the RAW file or even the 16 bit file for print. Once you have made non-destructive adjustments to the Raw file you can save a high quality jpeg for printing. If you shoot a jpeg and a raw file and supply them for print without adjustments being made you will not see any difference. It is all in the processing.
June 06, 2012 at 2:12 pm, PiotrAF said:
This is absurd 🙂 You can state as well that full-auto mode is better than any PSAM mode, and believe me examples of these kind could be supplied! 🙂 First of all, I don’t recall any modern camera body to make you choose either shoot RAW or JPEG. Guess what – you can do both. It is the best practice, to make the shoot final in-camera i.e. all the settings right,WB,learn to utilize the in-camera picture settings etc, so that the JPG will not have to be postprocessed apart from retouch of skin or artistic changes.
I was cursing my unablility of working with RAW for quite some time myself. I couldn’t understand why my RAW process JPG look worse than the in-camera JPGs. Guess what? One day I did something none of my friends, total pro photographers did, I started to use the camera vendor software and suddenly my out-of-camera processed RAW JPGS were much better than the in-camera! That’s the time I started to utilize RAW, and thanks to my good habit of taking RAW+JPEG, I was able to go back to some of my photos and make them much better.
If you take both RAW+JPEG, you have more options and having RAW file you may alter the photo ONLY IF IT IS WORTH THE TIME and the result will be much better than the JPG only if you have the proper software and ability to take advantage of it. If you have poor skills or don’t have proper software, stay with JPG only and don’t waste your time.
What’s the idea of a question RAW or JPG? If you’re good in something and it works for you – don’t change your workflow.
cheers
Piotr
June 06, 2012 at 2:11 pm, James said:
Nice one Deek!The processing has been carried out by an amateur, I use RAW all the time now and I achieve fantastic results. I think the problem may be on the importation through RAW into Photoshop as you actually have to do something Lol. You have the options there to adjust it to the colour levels etc. that you want, Add colour filters or a vignette in as many forms as you like by just saving these as snapshots. In addition this does not affect the original image. RAW works far better than the on-board CMOS (or equivilant) as you get what you want as opposed to what somebody thought that you wanted in the programming stage of the cameras development.TOTALLY recommend CS6 to those who are not using it already.. The skin is far easier on the eyes, So you don’t have Photoshop burned into your retinas by the end of the day and your work doesn’t suffer as a result
June 06, 2012 at 2:10 pm, David Alves said:
You are an idiot and have no idea what your talking about and the fact that you would say any of this is embarrassing.
June 06, 2012 at 2:10 pm, Brian said:
I can’t believe this article was published. RAW files are unprocessed! I find it interesting that this dude seems to have knowledge of film, knows little about digital and is putting out an article on digital. This is going to be very misleading to a novice photographer – I only clicked on the link from my email because I couldn’t believe the articles title.
June 06, 2012 at 2:10 pm, Igirl1 said:
WARNING! This article (above) is dangerous to newbies to might actually believe what it is saying!
RAW is your actual image data as shot – without any in camera processing. It’s up the the photographer to develop that RAW file into the final image. This is the world of the digital darkroom – and digital processing (in camera or out) is a large factor in the final results.
Handing off RAW files and trusting someone else to do the processing work to represent you and your photography is just foolish and inexperienced.
June 06, 2012 at 2:09 pm, Curious Canuck said:
The article is not about JPG being as good as RAW, it is why KM prefers JPG.
“RAW vs. JPG: why I prefer JPG”
“If I was a wedding photographer working at venues with ever-changing contrast situations and unpredictable lighting, I’d probably shoot RAW. But, the majority of my work is in the studio, therefore my personal preference is to shoot JPEG. ”
“It’s not for everybody, but I like the results, and so do my clients. ”
June 06, 2012 at 2:08 pm, Nitebinder said:
I have used 35mm films for years. I would rather use Kodachorme 25, 64, 200, Ilford 50 asa and Kodak Tri-X than digital. But digital is the main stay now, so I’ll to get over it. Your right, RAW is sucks. It’s hard to convert, it takes up to much room and everyone thinks your crazy for using JPEGs than RAW. But since their checks clear, you have to bite the bullet.
June 06, 2012 at 2:08 pm, Tammas1 said:
All right Ken :)…You have your reasons why do you prefer JPEG over RAW, but the truth about it seems to me you completely don’t understand digital world and even your digital camera. RAW is a set of data you can tweak and then (if you do it right) export as an tiff or jpeg, anyway I have been working 10 years in DTP and all that stuff when i get these times negatives, transparencies and scanned them (latter just 5 yrs ago most of work get pure digital) ….and we used all the time pdf or tiff 😀 and mostly tiff & pdf is a good custom in any professional work to be printed, and all that story you put out seems to me totally unprofessional. In other hand I understand what are you trying to mention is get your setting right before anyone start shooting, but this is sometimes not possible and there comes RAW. And one thing I would like to point here is if you set ur camera for jpeg and all the settings just have good balanced jpeg (it is craft why not but the story doesn’t end there) you just give away original data and any other conversion made on your pict would result as degradation and there is so many other things you just give away because you have prejudice for post processing in PC or MAC. I grown as a kid in dark room with my dad and for me is Adobe LR & CS (any nr. :D) just changed environment where I as the creator of an image can play and develop it in the way anyone other doesn’t do. But I understand the thing you are maybe complaining about people they just point and shoot and then they are trying to recover in raw what they haven’t been thinking of when they pushed the button :), but come on, take it easy, if this was the thing, you have to leave place for youngsters, they never have seen old chemical process and now they are learning completely new ways to see and develop pictures, I’m not saying it’s always right but ART supposed to be ART in other words: doesn’t mean nothing how you get there, only what’s counting is the result. So talking about RAW vs JPEG is utterly out of the reality, and i can show you many top pros they use RAW & JPEG but always printed pict come from RAW conversions. Many before me here wrote it’s only the editor who’s getting conversion wrong and my addition is, if you are concerned about editors visual you should complained there not here :). I’m not defending RAW against JPEG both have advantages with no doubt but when it comes to perfection RAW always beats the JPEG, only downside is RAW can be easily misused giving results with pro like look but something is not right there. Anyway todays concept of workflow from studio to the customer is: photo taken in raw sended to director or top head of editing then after pre edit to tiff from this guy all the retouchers and editors they have work on just the copy of developed RAW (mostly in tiff,psd or pdf) then again some boss decided if it’s all right and then print. And what are you saying is you don’t like the last time checked version of your photos from some head editor, or whatever you wanna call it, from penthouse. Bet you , you are not anymore on the wage list 😀
June 06, 2012 at 1:56 pm, JR Johnsson said:
I also dislike shooting RAW [25+ years w/digital] but for different reasons; I was taught to shoot the image you want to print, not an image that needs to be manipulated to ‘look right’.
However, that being said, you have created an Invalid Comparison, since:
(1) you did not use the SAME poses in both RAW and .JPG format,
(2) you did not mention what .JPG settings you had the camera set to manipulate your image before you even got it to your computer.
(3) you did not mention any of the post shoot manipulations you did in the computer.
Bad reasons to shoot simply, and to shoot correctly to begin with.
June 06, 2012 at 1:54 pm, John Tannock said:
Just read Ken’s article and rather than bash him and call the article lame, I will comment a bit differently. First, as Ken states, he has always worked in a ‘controlled situation’ so his lighting ratios and color balance are most likely spot on every time he gets behind the camera. His comments about the dynamic range of negative film in my opinion are a bit of a stretch. If film is exposed more than a stop over/under there is loss of color balance due to crossover (typically magenta/green) Fix the green face and a wedding gown for instance, will be somewhat magenta. Contrast also suffers. Underexpose and it’s flat. Overexpose and we called it ‘crunchy’ or ‘brittle’. You get the drift. I’ve been teaching Adobe Lightroom since a year after Ver. 1 was introduced in ’07, I think? Prior to the intro of LR, I was also a jpeg junky as each and every raw processor that I tried frustrated me for various reasons. Lightroom changed the game for raw and what I tell my students at the beginning of every class is this…
“your camera is just a computer with a lens on it. You set the the parameters in the menus the way you want your images to look (color bal., dynamic range expansion, vignetting in some cameras, etc.) and if you choose jpeg capture the camera’s computer will ‘process’ the file and store on your media card ready to use. With programs like Lightroom, Capture One, Adobe Camera Raw, etc., YOUR computer processes the capture using the software mentioned above (or others) and when you’re satisfied with with your ‘processing’ you can then output it directly to your printer, or convert to jpeg, tiff, PSD as well as many other formats for your desired use. The beauty of shooting raw is that ALL of your data is available, including highlight and shadow areas that may not seem to be there but can be utilized and the best part is that the processing is non-destructive meaning that you are not altering the raw file. The programs will not let you. Think of it as adding layer masks for each and every adjustment that you make. Also, unlike Photoshop, your history states never go away and can be retracted any time you want to change the look of your file.
I suspect that Ken hasn’t learned any of these programs since he has the learned ability to nail it perfectly in the camera so then allows the camera’s computer to process his files for him. Not a bad way to work since as he states, it saves time and storage space. I often work with a product photographer with skills and mentality similar to Ken’s, and only in the past year have I gotten him to start using Lightroom tethered to his Nikon, though we rarely make more than very minor if any adjustments to his files. They’re spot on right from the camera. We do boost the clarity with a preset to give the images a bit more snap but usually that’s about it.
June 06, 2012 at 1:50 pm, Nathaniel Dodson said:
Wow, I’m shocked this article was allowed to be posted. If you are able to get a dead on accurate image in camera that needs no adjusting you never need more than the 256 levels of color and tone a JPEG image consists of.
The problem is that as you compress that image or make any kind of retouching changes (smoothing skin, boosting contrast, etc…) you loose levels of color and tone within the image. This is why you get banding and posterization on 8-bit images much, much, much more easily than 12 or 16-bit images.
16-bit for editing, export to an 8-bit JPEG for printing or viewing (some go with a TIFF).
Very curious article to say the least.
“…so where is the advantage of a 16-bit file?” This quote shocked me.
June 06, 2012 at 1:45 pm, Juan C Walls said:
Ken, The RAW format is the raw data perceived by the camera sensor. All that you obtain in the JPEG is already in the RAW (and much more). Except you have to extract it and with JPEG the camera extracts it for you. Maybe you are happy with using JPEG with light controlled studio situation but if I shoot something in open air, many times the subject is correctly exposed but the sky is totally white overexposed. In Raw you can most probably correct the exposition of that sky and recover the blues. With JPEG you have plain #FFFFFF dull white (or pure black if underexposed)
June 06, 2012 at 1:59 pm, Juan C Walls said:
Of course, I have not talked about the fact that cameras are not precisely conservative in the level of compression they give to JPEG images. I remember a photo shoot I made with a Nikon D700 a few years ago. The camera was set to saving RAW and JPEG for each image. One of the best images of the photoshoot had the RAW file corrupted so I used the JPEG file instead. But it simply didn’t have enough quality for the editor to publish it (and I gave him all the finished images in JPEG (with high quality compression, of course))
June 06, 2012 at 1:42 pm, Automotivephotos said:
My problem is I have a client that wants all hi-res TIFF files. I can’t very well hand them all jpegs, so I shoot RAW, post process and save as a TIFF file.
June 06, 2012 at 1:42 pm, Sax said:
While I have always admired Ken’s work nothing in this article convinced me of anything. No clever analogy needed, there is a jpeg in every raw file capture. It just depends on the skill of the person doing the post capture processing. The argument that file size is a benefit is not valid either. Flash cards are still relatively cheap (and reusable) external hard drives can store huge amounts of information and are getting bigger all the time. A 32 gig flashcard takes up way less room on my camera strap than 10 rolls of Kodachrome in my vest.
June 06, 2012 at 1:38 pm, Bruce Kahn said:
Since the author is clearly a more accomplished photographer than I, I was hesitant to post my responses to this article.
Thank you all for saying what I was thinking.
June 06, 2012 at 1:24 pm, Foghornleg90 said:
First and foremost, let me say if you’re consistently making money shooting JPGS, and that’s what your clients want… and they are happy… AWESOME and kudo’s to YOU. I have great respect for anyone that makes their sole income & living from photography. I’ve been fortunate enough to make some… and to reinvest most of my profits into upgrading my equipment and knowledge. And I’d love to shoot some of the venues you are shooting… and I acknowledge that I don’t know what camera body (for the jpg processing options) you are using (which would make a bit of a difference). And I acknowledge that there are times when a person ‘needs’ to shoot JPG’s (generally when deadlines & time is crunched to almost nothing, post processing might not be feasible). However, here’s some math for you to consider – pixel reality… in an article I posted on Facebook about a month ago.
Facebook wouldn’t allow me to single out the link the short article… hopefully some will find it interesting and worthy of the time to read:
There is a lot of talk about JPG vs RAW… for image capturing, so I
thought I’d spend a little time and do a bit of research… and
hopefully come up with somethings that makes sense to people interested
in the topic.
Many times over the years, I’ve been reminded of
Ansel Adams. Just a couple days ago someone reminded me again to ‘care
more’ about the published and shared photography I post… and
how selective he was on what he showed others. Ansel Adams developed
the ‘Zone System’ for his work, which revolutionized photography forever
and set him apart from all other photographers of his time. At its
core, the Zone System is about the photographer making educated
decisions based on experience, personal choice, and AWARENESS of the
subject, contrast, light quality, film structure, processing, and
development to print. Each step is a separate, but still a critical
choice that must work together in unison for best results and most
impressive finished product. Anyone that developed their own film (back
in the pre-digital old days) remembers the time, thought, and effort put
into each print (and how easy it was to screw up, or get
inconsistencies because of chemical changes, temperature changes, and
the slightest adjustment to the process). As well as how almost
impossible it was to print the EXACT SAME PRINT on different days.
Basically, post processing in digital world does the same thing, but you
have more choices and flexibility by choosing RAW, and nearly exact
replication of the finished work you SAVE.
The reality is,
image conversion, white balance tweaking, angle, photo manipulation,
color correction, sharpening, or any alteration you make effects the
pixels… in groups, zones, and individually. The greater latitude you
have with the original image, the smoother the shifts in tones will be,
the less noise, and better the finished product. Think about it, you
will have more control if the black to white transitions occur in 1365
shades, verse just 85.
Again, the math is important. A JPEG is
an 8bit file, which equals 256 colors (its entire tonal range) per color
channel of RGB (Red, Green, Blue). This equals a grand total of 16.7
million possible colors per pixel (all the average computer screen could
display, prior to LCD’s and Plasma). Now, that seems like a lot, and it
is (especially for just a computer screen or newspaper print).
However, most RAW files are 12 or 14 bit files. And just a 12 bit RAW
file can measure 4096 tonal values per color channel, which is a total
of 68.7 Billion colors PER PIXEL. Wow! And yes, that’s ‘B’illion!
16.7Million vs 68.7Billion. HUGE Difference!
Now, the average
human eye can only discern about 10 million different colors; so, the
average person is incapable of even seeing the 16.7 Million… which
seems to beg the question, “Why do I need that much information in my
photos?” The easiest answer, “Because I can!” But where is the fun in
the discussion if it’s left at that? And, in some photographs, those
color transitions stand out more than others.
As a
photographer, you have choices. Ultimately, you need to remember that
you ARE selling (or gifting) a product – your photograph, and if you are
shooting in color (not just black & white or grey scale), the
greater tonal range allows for a smoother, better color transitioned,
and sharper final image. If you are serious about being a photographer,
your goal goes past the snap shot, past even ‘just a pretty picture,’
with a consistently improving (and pickier goal) of creating a
masterpiece! A goal of UNIQUENESS… something few could ever get (as
well as you did)… or could recreate any better. That is what
experience and practice gains you. And, with it, you’ll learn to shoot
RAW’s the majority of the time.
However, as Steve Anderson, an
experienced commercial photographer, once pointed out: “I’m a realist; I
know there are a lot of industries shooting JPEG. Press photographers
at the Olympic Games enjoy some of the coolest technology available, but
getting photos out in “real time” puts a lot of pressure on them. So,
shooting JPEG is part of that solution, and with it comes a new set of
concerns. I enjoy seeing the photos and never think to care if it was a
JPEG or RAW. The final word, because someone is going to ask, yes, I did
shoot JPEG once. OK, well actually a few times, but at least once on a
job. It was the end of a 3-day shoot in Hawaii for Aqua Lung; I was
waist deep on a reef, a long ways from a download, shooting my last card
on hand. I flipped it to JPEG to squeeze out another 50 frames or so
before the sun set.”
Summary: If photography was really easy,
everyone would be doing it… and doing it well. While an amateur can
get lucky, it takes thousands upon thousands of captures, prints, and
evaluation… hours of practice & education, and a clear
understanding of your equipment to become consistently good. The post
processing can take the technically good, and help make them great.
However, failure to understand your camera’s settings, ability, and how
to properly take a photo can’t be fixed in post processing… whether in
JPG or RAW. Enjoy… f
June 06, 2012 at 1:21 pm, Curious Canuck said:
Proof is in the pudding:
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/197198/0#/A126040
http://www.kenmarcus.com
27668+ Photographs
June 06, 2012 at 1:19 pm, Mark S said:
…”
For many photographers RAW is a great crutch; it’s wonderful to use if you are learning and don’t yet have control over your techniques.” !!
What a joke
June 06, 2012 at 1:18 pm, richburroughs said:
Ken is just plain wrong.
If you prefer to use JPEG that’s fine. I’m not going to try to talk you out of it. But the images he sent to the magazine didn’t look crappier because they were RAW images. That’s just a ridiculous claim.
The images were edited by two different people. He liked his JPEG edits better. Someone who knew how to edit RAW images well could get those same results he produced.
Sure, if you can’t afford enough disk for RAW files, or like the convenience of using your cameras programmed looks, or just have a fondness for JPEGs, by all means use them.
And I’m not sure how you are really in a position to compare the two if you’ve never shot RAW? Many of us have.
June 06, 2012 at 1:17 pm, Markasanders said:
Seriously!? Someone at MM needs to take this article down and send apology emails out for posting it. I’m sorry, Ken may have been published and all that, but he does not know about what he writes. MM and photographers…. do some research before making foolish statements please.
June 06, 2012 at 1:17 pm, Gary Livingston said:
You don’t seem to realize that RAW is UNPROCESSED RAW DATA and JPEG IS PROCESSED (horribly) IN CAMERA.
You need to PROCESS RAW FILES but, if you understand digital imaging and photography they will always look better than a JPEG out of camera or a JPEG that has been edited.
JPEG is a compressed format. Every time you save/resave a jpeg you are degrading the file.
Why is this in the “education” section. This is just erroneous information of someone that doesn’t understand anything about digital photography, digital imaging, or any related to either topic.
Take this crap down. Or, leave it up and continue to tarnish the already crappy brand that is Model Mayhem.
June 06, 2012 at 1:15 pm, endus said:
Yikes.
I do not mean to second guess the author’s credentials. He is a more successful photographer than I will ever be in every possible way. However, this article is way way off base and clearly comes from a misunderstanding of what a RAW file is, does, and should be used for.
The reason that the jpegs the author shot looked so much better than the RAW files is that the jpegs are post processed in the camera. They usually have their contrast bumped, a bit of sharpening applied, saturation can be tweaked, highlight tone adjusted, etc. The variety of adjustments that cameras offer in their jpegs continues to grow all the time. The bottom line, though, is that you are essentially allowing your camera to post process your images for you with absolutely no per-image input.
In terms of the bit depth of files, the point of larger bit depth is not to look better in print (or on the web or on any other output medium you want to mention. The idea with capturing greater bit depth is that you are able to push the files much harder in post processing without running in to unwanted effects such as posterization. The difference you would see in a print would be when you heavily process an image (say burning down the sky in a landscape). The print processed from jpeg would show posterization as a result of a lack of detailed color information in the area you are tweaking. The print from the RAW file would have smooth gradients.
The fact that the term “dynamic range” was not mentioned in this article gives me the willies. The main difference between print and slide film is that print film has much greater dynamic range than slide film. The author describes this limitation effectively, but what is missing is a comparison with digital. Whether you are shooting RAW or jpeg you are working with a greatly decreased amount of dynamic range than you would with film. If you want to talk about black and white film, there isn’t even a comparison to be made…film blows digital out of the water. Digital files are much closer to slide film in terms of dynamic range. What a RAW file will allow you to do is recover detail from shadows or highlights that would otherwise be lost. This can often be the difference between having blown highlights and not. With cameras like the Fuji X Pro 1, they are even starting to expand the amount of dynamic range you can capture, and the results are immediately visible in the files.
The point is, there is absolutely no excuse for *processed* RAW files to look any worse than the jpegs. The only reason the RAW files look worse in this example is that they were not effectively processed, while the camera did its automatic processing on the jpegs. The entire point of the RAW file is that it is raw information captured by the camera with which you can do whatever you want. You can push RAW files MUCH harder in post than you ever could a jpeg. I also prefer RAW because often the in camera processing isn’t very good. In particular, the sharpening algorithms are usually disappointing.
There are certainly cases where shooting jpeg is appropriate. If card space is at a premium jpeg is the only way to go. If you are shooting an event where the expectation is that you will deliver a huge dump of files without really doing a lot of processing on them jpeg is fine. In that situation, you could just bulk convert your RAW files, using a recipe cooked up on a calibrated computer monitor rather than foisted on you by your camera, but that’s beside the point.
What’s surprising to me is that it seems like the author’s primary method of working…doing a shoot with a model from which a small number of images will be processed and used…is absolutely the perfect time to shoot RAW. It’s more or less the textbook case for shooting RAW.
In no way do I want to discourage getting your exposures precise (check those histograms!) or doing as much as you can to minimize post processing. Getting things right during the shoot saves time and just makes things look better. However, it’s silly to compare a RAW file that has had no contrast or saturation adjustments applied to a jpeg out of the camera. It’s like asking why the roll of black and white film you just shot didn’t capture very good red tones. You’re misunderstanding the purpose of the tool.
Sorry for the rant, but I just do not think this article is technically sound. I certainly understand why some people would want to shoot jpeg sometimes, but the reasons presented here are simply not valid reasons.
June 06, 2012 at 1:13 pm, Jason Wood said:
the “(white) bride’s dress” and the “(black) groom’s tux”
the white giving meaning to the Bride’s dress, and black to the Groom’s tux. You can’t leave out the main points and try to twist them and then say but we getcha’. They could have just said dress and tux, but they were not talking about anyone else wearing a tux or dress but just the bride and groom.
June 06, 2012 at 1:05 pm, richburroughs said:
This is pretty amazeballs.
I’ve heard people make pretty legitimate arguments for why they shoot in JPEG, like the storage point Ken raises. But the idea that images look better in JPEG than RAW, that’s just plain silly. The images look different because they were edited by different people.
June 06, 2012 at 1:04 pm, `Gillespic said:
Deek I agree wholeheartedly,I remember when Digital was first in introduced by the newspaper group that I had the misfortune to work with at the time, the bean counters refused to issue each office with their own copy of Photoshop to let the local snappers to do their own processing, we were all ordered to upload every picture to head office where they would be processed at one central point ,photographers had no say in the picture editing process at all…….Result a bloody mess, the guys who worked there did not have a clue and were not interested in colour balance contrast and composition ,a complete shambles, my own preference I change Nikon raw files to Tifs for storage in the Mac and compress to jpgs for distribution What Ken Marcus says about pre digital days is very true B/W studio shots on a 6×7 using Tri-x processed D76 1+1 produced superb negatives full of fine detail and smooth contrast and gradation an experience which the Digital generation have never known.
June 06, 2012 at 12:57 pm, Andres Moya said:
Screened article quickly. Author should learn how to use RAW converters. Or teach those editors how to use them. RAW have lot of benefits. 2 seats Ferrari not comforatable to do sex inside, and probably noisy to drive to office everyday. Sell it cheap and get old big car.
June 06, 2012 at 12:57 pm, Frank Simard said:
This is simply a loaded subject! I shoot RAW and JPEG on important shoots($$$) and accordingly utilize one or the other for a final product. I have some fellow amateur photographers who are simply PS geeks, only shoot RAW and produce an outstanding image. However they are not making a living at it and would obviously starve if they were as the technical perfection they seek is irrelevant. Speed of production and WOW factor are! On a normal shoot with normal outcomes I will simply shoot JPEG. There are priorities in being a professional photographer, time and money are the determinants for me. And it seems I have less of each lately, RAW or JPEG!
June 06, 2012 at 12:52 pm, Capn Scott said:
Wow, this article couldn’t be any farther from the truth! I color correct, process and everything in RAW. I’m even an Adobe Certified Expert. Now, I feel like a total idiot that he’s getting work with his craziness and I’m not.
June 06, 2012 at 12:52 pm, Carl Blum said:
I have been shooting
digital almost as long as Mr. Marcus.
I understand the color
depth a bit more than most due to my graphics experience, 16 being CMYK and 8
being RGB, while most photo printers use 8bit for sampling, a good commercial
press prints in CMYK.
Until I was recently
insulted by a young photographer (who is very very good) I would usually be
shooting in JPG. I took her insult of me being set in my ways to heart and
learned a bit. One Program out there actually has me shooting in RAW now and
probably forever. Lightroom 4. Its ability to work with the 16 bit files is
above anything out there, yes it works well with JPG, but excels in RAW. It
sees colors that just are visible in 8 bit and you can make the pop or have
them fade away.
In the End, I export to
JPG and I have never been happier.
June 06, 2012 at 12:50 pm, Shoon said:
it’s just a before & after post processing image…..nothing to do with Raw
June 06, 2012 at 12:49 pm, Kaya Brown said:
I like to use JPEG because its easier to tell which images I want to use, and when I try to upload RAW images to a lot of websites, the colours go all strange and dull, regardless of what format I save them in.>_< I'll get it looking absolutely perfect on photoshop only for it to look awful when its uploaded. Then again, I haven't had this camera long, so it could be down to lack of experience. Either way, I just prefer JPEG personally.
June 06, 2012 at 12:44 pm, Too Embarrassed said:
I don’t think the comments are of a personal nature, it’s a question of professionalism.
First off, the photographer isn’t that good. Popular in some circles but not a great photographer. Secondly and most important, his knowledge of post-production and file types is an insult to professionals. Especially to those working in more professional environments. This might fly at Playboy but an editor at Conde Nast would know this isn’t opinion, it’s a question of what is right and what is wrong. And this “article” is quite simply wrong.
June 06, 2012 at 12:42 pm, Guest said:
I stumbled upon this article, and have to say that this guy doesn’t have an understanding of RAW and JPEG. He also shows unprocessed RAW images and compares them to processed JPEG files. This guy is a professional?? I went to his gallery and have to say some of his images are really good. But I think he has no understanding of the two different formats here.
June 06, 2012 at 12:38 pm, Chris Ijams said:
Deek has basically hit it on the head with “Pilot error” working with RAW, HOWEVER Ken Marcus is right in his discipline of getting the lighting and shot right in front of the lens at the time of exposure, “pretouch instead of retouch”! I follow this mantra and use the Zone system, prevision mindset in how I approach my work, and I still see great advantages to using RAW over JPG! Number one about JPG files, is that they are a compression file that actually throw away bits of data every time they are opened up and closed, while on a HD or re-writable media, so over time the image file will deteriorate! RAW is a losless compression file, then you have a wide range of post production options from applying various preset film type feels like choosing between Kodak, Fuji, Agfa and rendering beautiful RGB B&W over a grey scale. Then of course your options for out put into photoshop, or using your Photoshop RAW plug-in presets to meet or enhance your shooting style would place you closer to the final goal out of the gate!
Ken, don’t fear the RAW file over JPG, it gives you the option to kick Murphy’s Law in the jewels when he appears on set with two stops of data +/_ your normal exposure, to rescue that “moment” of capture that other wise would be lost! And in the future, send a brief series of your adjusted images, with a print out or two for the client based tech geek to match from the RAW!
Chris
CSI Studios LLC
June 06, 2012 at 12:35 pm, Rick Cross said:
Hey, I noticed that the Green
Box position on my dial produces much better exposures than the M
position. So I prefer the Green Box over M because M produces flat, unsaturated images.
June 06, 2012 at 12:31 pm, www.bryonpaulmccartney.com said:
After reading this, I am not sure I would look to the author for advice regarding anything technical. Are we really debating RAW vs JPEG? It’s not the file formats that are in question, it’s the workflow and process behind working with the respective formats. I don’t have a sense that the author has any understanding of this whatsoever.
June 06, 2012 at 12:30 pm, Shagrila 128Bit RAW said:
In the land of Utopia with perfect lighting sets and perfect models, yes I will agree with Ken. For the rest of us, we deal with the “harsh” light and “raw” reality, but someday we may make it like Ken but downgrade to Jpeg.
June 06, 2012 at 12:29 pm, Bill said:
First of all, I agree with Ken……I have been conducting glamour workshops all over this country since
1992 first in film and then in digital shortly after it came out and have never shot in RAW. I know the stories about there more info in RAW but as Ken says you can’t see it.
I’ve published six books, three of them in color, everyone of the images in these books were shot as a fine JPEG.
I think that most of the photographers use RAW to correct exposure, if you use a light meter you won’t
have that problem, to many depend on the LCD and the Histogram for the exposure.
If your shooting RAW now try going out and shooting some JPEG’s and compare the two. I think you’ll make a switch…..Now with cameras that are able to shoot larger files for example the Nikon D800 36 megapixels , double that for a RAW file your at 72 megapixels , there goes the hardrive…..
No matter what you choose, go out and get some great images…..
June 06, 2012 at 12:29 pm, Daniel said:
Thanks to those who clarified the use of RAW and pointed out the bogus example images. I’m a retouch artist using Lightroom and PS. While I’m not a pro photographer, study, practice and knowledge is absolutely necessary to do my job well. Over the years, in my experience, those photographers I work for who shoot in RAW have better images which also allow me to do much more than I could with JPEG. Again, before processing, RAW is much better, yet the author specifically compares his retouched JPEGS as better. At first I thought I was missing the obvious, but thanks to the comments, I see the author was. He i) misses the point of RAW, ii) forgets that the final image is then compressed for it’s destination, print, magazines, web, etc., and iii) doesn’t know how to make his case by comparing different images. Disappointing for Model Mayhem. Perhaps their editors also don’t know much about photography in the 21st century.
June 06, 2012 at 12:29 pm, Doug Jantz said:
Ken doesn’t misunderstand RAW, you guys are missing the entire point. Out of the magazines I publish in not ONE has ever asked for RAW files. They all want high res jpeg at 300 dpi. Why should someone spend a lot of time on processing RAW (NEF on Nikon) when jpegs work?? My time is better spent shooting. There is a time and place for each. Most of my work doesn’t need or require RAW even though I have tried it. Shooting collegiate tennis on outside courts has ZERO need for RAW and it would be stupid for me to use it. Weddings? Yes, maybe. Though I know pro shooters who shoot those jpeg too. And some VERY well known ones.
June 06, 2012 at 1:24 pm, richburroughs said:
Actually it reads like he does misunderstand it.
He compares what came out in the magazine to the JPEGs he edited, and uses that as some judgement on whether JPEG is better than RAW. It’s a pretty ridiculous point
If it’s stupid for you to use RAW for practical reasons that’s fine, that’s a very valid argument to make. But you’re not going to tell me that JPEG just looks better than RAW are you? Not with a straight face?
June 06, 2012 at 1:37 pm, Doug Jantz said:
Wasn’t my point. He KNOWS there is more file info, we ALL know that already. So what? If it can’t be seen who gives a crap? Can you tell in my port here which ones I shot in NEF and which ones were jpeg?????
June 06, 2012 at 2:21 pm, Andrew Ness said:
Most of the replies I’ve read have said that if it works for you, shoot however you like.
Arguing that JPG is better than RAW on the basis of an unprocessed RAW shot against a JPG is missing the point, however you look at it.
June 06, 2012 at 2:22 pm, richburroughs said:
The issue in the example he raised is that someone else did the editing, not him. It has absolutely nothing to do with JPEG vs RAW. He liked the images he edited better and they didn’t want to use them.
He wrote:
“Here are some of the tests results that I sent to the editors to
illustrate what they are getting with RAW and what they could doing with
JPEGs”
The “what they could doing with JPEGs,” in addition to being horribly incorrect grammatically, makes it sound like he’s somehow attributing the superior quality of his images to the fact that they were shot on JPEG.
The “RAW” images weren’t flat because they were RAW files, and his didn’t look better because they were JPEGs. They were simply edited differently. Someone could take those same RAW files and get at least as good results as the JPEG images if not better.
Maybe he actually does understand this all and it was just a poor choice of wording on his part. But a lot of people seem to have read it the same way that I did. If his argument was that you just wouldn’t see a difference between RAW and JPEG on the page, this was a really poor way to illustrate that.
June 06, 2012 at 2:57 pm, GeraldPeake said:
Ken does misunderstand RAW… “Well, JPEG is like Kodachrome in many ways and RAW is a little more like wedding film.” What a crazy statement. Professional magazines should all want tiffs or jpegs, but that’s nothing to do with how you shoot. The real problem with this article is the title, it should read, ‘From RAW to JPEG, why I prefer to let the camera do the converting’
June 06, 2012 at 12:28 pm, Rick Cross said:
The guy may be an expert at
lighting but he’s clueless about the technical side of digital
photography. The main points that he misses are that jpegs start out
life as “raw” and the camera converts the photos from raw to jpeg for
him; and the second point is that Penthouse took raw images, didn’t
process them correctly and screwed up the outcome. That’s like blaming
the chicken because the cook made runny scrambled eggs.
June 06, 2012 at 12:26 pm, Casey Walker Thorp said:
This is a nice opinion piece, and should not be taken as a point to counterpoint argument. For print work and tight schedules, JPEG has it’s advantages. Taking high speed action shots in RAW ends up bogging down my camera for about ten seconds while it is “Busy” processing. Doing that several times in a shoot can get frustrating for me and the model. RAW is great if you like to spend time retouching every image, but for capturing the moment and getting the job done with nominal image loss, JPEG is a personal preference. I have no qualms with retouching after a shoot, but it feels better for me to get it right on the first pass.
June 06, 2012 at 12:26 pm, Ellis said:
I suspect the real reason Ken Marcus shoots JPEGS is not quality but time and money: if he shoots in camera produced JPEGs his work is done. And if he doesn’t want to do the processing then he also doesn’t have to hire or supervise a digital tech who can do it him.
If you have total control over every aspect of your shoot and you like the way your camera maker’s software renders all of the colors in your JPEGs or can work out the in-camera processing parameters to reliably produce the color and contrasts you like – and let’s be honest, Ken Marcus’s subjects are mostly heavily made up and retouched nudes and skin tones are easily handled by sRGB JPEGs – the reasons for not shooting in raw mode are far fewer.
June 06, 2012 at 2:18 pm, Matt Hunsaker said:
There are very few images that could not benefit from post-processing. RAW processing doesn’t take that much longer and when done correctly the difference is staggering, especially when throwing printing into the mix.
June 06, 2012 at 12:24 pm, Jonbrath said:
Ken, I believe that if the RAW image were post-processed correctly it would surpass the JPEG. Shooting in a studio offers a completely controlled environment. Not so in the “real world.” Then there is the issue of JPEG degradation every time a file is opened and closed.
June 06, 2012 at 12:24 pm, Lars Daniel Terkelsen said:
Ouch! 🙂 A slightly tragic read.
June 06, 2012 at 12:23 pm, Bill said:
I agree with the comments. You can get the same if not better results with RAW. The images you posted may only look nicer because of in-camera effects that are saturating the images with a little more color when the camera creates and processes the JPEG file.
June 06, 2012 at 12:22 pm, Tommygraham said:
ROFL – They printed this? Im not one to get hot under the collar easy but Im sorry..
One the comparison images, anyone notice the JPEGs look slightly edited, esp the one with the vignette. Two why is this even getting discussed. As said below… RAW is not a final product – its the digital negative – to be converted to a JPEG or TIFF, then edited.If your confident enough and under say time constraint then fine shoot JPEG but as most cameras allow you to shoot raw/jpeg at the same time… Even thats not a problem. Sorry, please publish articles that will help and not misslead people. I had to check it wasnt April 1st btw…
June 06, 2012 at 12:19 pm, Gabe said:
Geez and I thought I was a bad photographer. I ALWAYS shoot RAW + JPEG. I used to be just like this guy, and only shoot JPEG because of storage, but I saw the light when RAW gave me control over my image that I simply could not get with a JPEG.
The image comparisons are misleading. Show me a RAW unedited file and then show me an edited RAW file, and then show an unedited JPEG and a retouched JPEG. All within the same pose. Then you will be comparing apples to apples.
June 06, 2012 at 12:18 pm, james said:
dear model mayhem,
i like your site, i like the idea but please stop posting articles like this, your site already has low credibility in the creative world.
stop doing more damage.
thank you,
james
June 06, 2012 at 12:18 pm, Anthony Kurtz said:
I do like that RAW BOOTY…shoot RAW BUDDY! (and get some presets if you suck at Lightroom)
June 06, 2012 at 12:16 pm, Harmless Pervert said:
For many years, I have admired Ken’s photographic abilities, his lighting and posing skills. I have envied him for the models he shoots, the results he gets, and the clients he has. If he’s shooting JPG format and both he and his clients like the results, that’s great.
However, I’ll disagree with Ken on this issue. I’ll continue to shoot in RAW format. I’ve never been able to understand why photographers look forward to the next version of their cameras and spend big bucks for a few more mega-pixels and a better sensor then toss away all that expensive, new, technology by shooting in JPG format. I do understand it for sports and news photographers but their quality needs could often be met with a digital Holga, if it had interchangeable lenses.
June 06, 2012 at 12:09 pm, Dark Magus said:
I hate to say it but in some ways he is right. If you have the time and experience to make sure that every little nuance of the image is absolutely correct in camera then JPEG would work for you. If not then raw has the latitude to correct almost all errors. As for RAW being flat etc, etc if you work it you can fix it.
June 06, 2012 at 3:11 pm, Na Cl said:
When you say fix, you imply there is a flaw in RAW files. There isn’t. It’s just the camera stopping short of applying a format to it. It’s RAW in the camera regardless if you save it as RAW or have the camera process it to jpg.
June 06, 2012 at 12:09 pm, Paul Lara said:
Preferences and workflows are different for everyone, but this article really feels like its trolling. “You almost couldn’t make a mistake with those films—very much like shooting RAW in digital today.”
Well, you can still over or under-expose an image in RAW just as you can in wide-latitude film shooting.
This article fundamentally misunderstands the importance of bit-depth in image manipulation. In JPEG, almost ALL the data your camera throws away is in the shadows. Should you decide you need to brighten those shadows, the lack of usable data will reveal itself as horrible NOISE. RAW will prevent that.
Most importantly, I will decide what the white point, black point and black level will be in my images. I would rather not the camera decide for me.
June 06, 2012 at 12:05 pm, Curious Canuck said:
It seems out-of-camera jpg + some retouching covers the needs, wants, and requirements of Ken Marcus. Just plain can’t argue with that. He also qualifies it is for studio work: if he were to shoot a wedding, he’d shoot it in RAW. If jpg is sufficient for his gallery exhibits at 60×40…
I don’t think the author can be accused of low having low technical standards.If it is good enough for KM, it is good enough for us 🙂 But at the same time, I doubt KM is using camera default jpg processing settings either.
June 06, 2012 at 12:03 pm, Rclark55 said:
Thankyou for the info. I felt pressured into using RAW for model shoots and I agree. JPG is fine with me and it eliminates the conversion process.
June 06, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Doug Jantz said:
LOL, same comments and replies I am sure Ken gets on this all the time and the same arguments. Results speak for themselves, not tech talk and arguments. 🙂
June 06, 2012 at 12:02 pm, Jayterry said:
While everyone shoots the format that works best for them, for whatever reasons, this article misses the mark on so many levels. You can’t compare the finished results of a jpg and an unprocessed RAW file – it’s like comparing a Hostess cupcake to a ball of dough … the dough isn’t the finished product.
All due respect to your shooting experience, this article demonstrates a marked lack of experience with digital post. And, to say “For many photographers RAW is a great crutch; it’s wonderful to use if you are learning and don’t yet have control over your techniques.” is downright arrogant, not to mention insulting to photographers who actually know what they’re doing with a RAW workflow.
June 06, 2012 at 12:00 pm, Ed de Jong (Netherlands) said:
Ken, I’m a great admirer of your work. I agree with you on the benefits of the pre-touch vs retouch approach. Proper light-metering, thinking zone system, etc will save you tons of work in post-processing. It’s like what the MUA does. If he/she hides a skin spot, you won’t have to correct it in post-processing on all of the images you’ve shot.
But I disagree with your point of view on RAW vs JPG. To begin with: JPG is a lossy format. It’s like using a Tri-X pushed 2 stops where you could have used ISO 100 in a studio.
From an artistic point of view, I considered RAW files to be a properly exposed, undeveloped film. Which means that in post-processing you have ultimate control over both the ‘development’ and the printing process. I consider that a great benefit, rathers then an excuse for sloppy lighting and metering.
Weston is no longer with us, but I’d love to hear his view ont this matter. Exposure and development were 2 sides of the same coin in his approach. So my guess is he’d favor RAW.
June 06, 2012 at 12:00 pm, Magicshot said:
Most people don’t realize that your digital camera ONLY & ALWAYS shoots in RAW. Every time you push the button, a RAW image is captured. In order for you to get a .jpeg file from this, you have to tell the camera to save it for you as a .jpeg. Then, the tiny computer in the camera throws away most of the data and saves whats left for you as a .jpeg onto your camera card. Both RAW and .jpeg have their place, I prefer saving as RAW and doing the .jpeg conversions myself on a much more powerful color calibrated computer using a large screen.
June 06, 2012 at 11:51 am, GabeBennett said:
A simple way to think about JPEG vs RAW. A RAW file is like having an exposed roll of film that has not yet been developed. The JPEG is like a roll of film that has been developed. If you come from a film background then you know the options here (push, pull, chemical choice and development time). Of course there are more options in a “digital pre-negative” file.
It is obvious that Ken and his clients do not understand what to do with a RAW file. For this reason I would urge Ken to continue using JPEG. If you are happy with the results of in camera JPEGs, then let the camera do the developing for you. Although, when toughing up the JPEG files I would suggest saving in a format that will not further destroy the content (such as PSD or TIFF).
For those of you interested in a great explanation of RAW, follow this link: http://bit.ly/FAL8
June 06, 2012 at 11:49 am, Chicago Fashion Photography said:
Seriously!?! Ditto what Deek said.
June 06, 2012 at 11:38 am, John said:
Deek got it spot on – the publisher just didn’t do what needed to be done with the RAW files. Of course – your processed JPGs were ‘better’ in this situation. What I would add is that, while I shoot 100% in JPG, having RAW files would give you more latitude later in the workflow to make bigger adjustments, while shooting JPG forces you to ‘pre-touch’, as you called it, your images. I personally don’t want the hassle of adding RAW processing to my workflow, but I know of plenty of people who do just that. Comes down to a ‘personal preference’ issue.
June 06, 2012 at 11:35 am, Eric said:
The reason for jpg is time saving workflow and storage – and that’s perfectly valid. If you are shooting sets for web that have hundreds of files, shooting jpg does save time and a lot of hard drive space. Also a lot of time in the FTP process if you are uploading the image set somewhere…
But the image quality argument is silly, a simple preset which could be set to auto apply to every file would get you the same look as the jpeg.
June 06, 2012 at 11:31 am, 1RickPhoto said:
Seriously?
June 06, 2012 at 11:30 am, Dumas Photography said:
The title of this article SHOULD be “why I prefer JPG as my final output over RAW” since he still shoots in RAW.
June 06, 2012 at 11:27 am, Philipe said:
So many are talking about having more control in Post process.
You can have all the control you want in RAW.
But RAW can’t fix a bad picture (period)
Some will try enhance or try make it pop with a poorly lit
picture in RAW.
RAW does not make good photography.
Good photographers make good photography.
There so much emphasis on having “control”
But its only mentioned on post production.
Not preproduction with lighting and proper camera settings.
Whats funny is that when you see the end result.
No one ever discusses or asked if it was shot in RAW or jpeg.
They talk about if the picture is good or not.
If you say “My pictures came out bad because I shot in jpeg”
Then you need to learn photography.
Because jpeg or RAW does not make a better photographer.
Knowledge and skill does.
I don’t know about you but I am always prepared to have
my unedited images viewed by the client.
Jpeg or RAW, it has to be good…..
June 06, 2012 at 11:43 am, Andrew Ness said:
I don’t think anyone is claiming RAW makes you a better photographer. It does give you more control of the final image. Which obviously can result in better images a lot of the time.
As you say, it’s that final image that matters. A lot of us want to have a say in how that final image looks rather than leaving it to chance, which is what a jpg does. The amount of chance will vary with the conditions the picture is taken in, an experienced person in a familiar set-up can probably predict it pretty well.
But why simply predict what you can so easily shape?
June 06, 2012 at 11:50 am, Seeker638 said:
“But RAW can’t fix a bad picture (period)”
Neither can JPG
“Some will try enhance or try make it pop with a poorly litpicture in RAW.” JPG won’t help you here either…
“RAW does not make good photography.” Neither does JPG.
JPG will never make a photo better than raw. They may be effectively equal (depending on the final output.)
June 06, 2012 at 11:26 am, Naps29683 said:
Ken:
I sure you don’t remember meeting, PBM in LA. I shot under a suto name at the time. I agree with you and with Deek. I have defered from shooting raw as it was limited, as you said. I have now started experiementing with editing in Raw and converting to JPEG for retouch. I have great hopes for the Raw editing capabilities in CS6. This and I use a number of other editing progams to achive the results.
I admire your work and thank you for your article. You’re right not everyone will shoot for PB, but a serious artist will always demand perfection. Have a great day. Gerimiah
June 06, 2012 at 11:57 am, Seeker638 said:
The whole raw vs jpg debate is a matter of opinion, but when you say “raw is limited” you are incorrect. JPG is by definition limited, since you have less data to work with, not to mention that you can never “go back” once you save an image with any changes applied. Certainly sounds like a “limit” to me, and that’s not the only one.
Let me be clear, there ARE times when JPG may be better, but the ONLY advantage of JPG is file size, and RAW has so many other serious advantages.
Some people and some situations may be better served by using JPG, I don’t dispute that at all, but to try to make the case that JPG is better for the art of photography is just plain silliness.
June 06, 2012 at 11:24 am, Joe Drivas said:
If you guys think that editing 256 levels of tones as jpg is better than having over 65,000 levels, well be my guest.
June 06, 2012 at 11:22 am, Joe said:
Ken Marcus may be (and actually is) a great photographer, however I have lost all respect for him and his opinions based on this article. As many others pointed out, the problem is not a question of whether JPEG is better than RAW, but whether or not the person who is processing the images actually knows what they are doing. In the future Mr. Marcus, please spare us your sanctimonious articles and concentrate on your photography.
June 06, 2012 at 11:21 am, John said:
Wow talk about missing the boat! I have always likened the difference between RAW and JPEG as similar to handing someone a print and a negative and asking for a copy or retouched version. Of course the negative is going to give you much better results. What did the author expect when he sent his RAW images to his client to process. Of course a JPEG is going to look better then an a right out of the camera RAW or one that is processed by someone who is not up to the task.
June 06, 2012 at 11:19 am, Marco Chacon said:
Simply as this:
-Raw is like a digital film, JPG is like a digital print.
June 06, 2012 at 11:17 am, Guest said:
Amen Ken! You nailed it.. including the part about “techno-geeks”. Seems the ones that are so passionate about their precious RAW images are generally, the untalented nerds that are so micro focused on bits and pixels that they miss the creative shot or know how to work with models. It might appear from the responses on here that they are in the majority.. but, I think it’s just the fact that they like to spend much more time on their computers than we do. Welp, while they’re taking all that extra time in file management, you and I will be out creating and enjoying photography the way it was meant to be.
I too have the same time-line of growing up with negatives and slides ..and transitioning into digital… I work exactly the same way you do with JPEG and retouch in the same exact manageable size of 7.3 x 11 inches @ 300 dpi. And have also seen the final product blown up to 40″x60″ with awesome quality! My response to the pro-RAW “When was the last time you had to blow up an image the size of a billboard?”. lol.
Thanks for your article Ken 🙂
June 06, 2012 at 12:06 pm, Seeker638 said:
It’s not about the size of the final print, its about color quality, and JPG artifact.
JPGs don’t have less pixels, they just lose contrast and the level of color saturation with each save. When the camera saves it as a JPG to your card, that’s one save. When you open it on your computer and edit it, that’s another save. You’ve lost some clarity and color tone TWICE already.
It’s EXACTLY like a photocopy of a photocopy. If you compare any two copies of each others, they look identical to your eye. If you look at the original, and a 4th generation, you can see the difference. It’s EXACTLY the same idea. You can argue all day long about for your first generation copy is just as good as the original, but it just is not so.
Again, there may be a time and a place for JPG, and it may be the best option on occasion, or for some people, I use it sometimes as well, but don’t try to sell anyone that there is NO difference, or even that it’s superior as some commenters have done.
I just can’t imagine a PRO not wanting to keep the raw files. It’s so limiting to NOT have them just in case…
June 06, 2012 at 12:56 pm, Victorc Lab said:
It was actually three months ago and thank good I shoot in raw.
June 06, 2012 at 3:15 pm, Na Cl said:
I have to question your claimed credentials. You clearly have no understanding of digital processing. Either that or you’re a troll….GUEST
June 06, 2012 at 11:16 am, Lou said:
Wow… This is not a very accurate article… Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty of reasons to shoot JPEG (speed, size, knowledge of how the camera renders the JPEG from the sensor capture, etc). But these reasons in this article are just plain not right.
Break it down like this… The “raw vs jpeg” comparisons here can be likened to fruit. JPEGs being apples, and RAW being oranges. The apples are ready to go. Yeah, you have to wash ’em, you may want to peel the skin depending on what you’re doing, but they’re ready to eat. Oranges, well, have to be peeled. Or at least most people do. hah.
These example comparisons are just weak. All RAW images are flat. That’s the point of them.
If you’d come off saying “Look, the quality is there, I still tweak in post, but this gets images to the clients faster”, I’d not think twice. But the end quality of the image as your main argument? I think that this is horrible advice, and just simply wrong. Especially since these JPEG “examples” have definitely been retouched or edited somehow.
That said… Good work, image-wise.
June 06, 2012 at 11:16 am, Justmike65 said:
The problem is that RAW is a capture format, not a final format. Go with tiff, duh.
June 06, 2012 at 11:14 am, Randesigns007 said:
I really enjoyed this opinion article. I think it just explains Ken Marcus’s opinion of his workflow and commercial experience. I don’t personally feel he is attacking the use of RAW, more that it doesn’t benefit his style and why. It’s helpful for me. I am not a big industry name photographer, but I have shot nationally published magazine and locally published news work for a major US city. Also print magazine covers. And I’ve used film and JPEG to do so. It works for me too. So, just do what works for you. But it’s nice to have another viewpoint and perspective.
June 06, 2012 at 11:14 am, Andrew Ness said:
Ken is clearly a far more experienced and successful photographer than I am ever likely to be, so whatever works for him is fine, for him.
Aside from completely missing the point of RAW files – surely no-one seriously claims unprocessed RAWs are better than jpgs – what I get here is that Ken is trying to recreate his old film workflow with digital.
Get it right “in camera” and leave some other guy (with film, the chemist, with digital, the software engineer who programmed your camera and hasn’t actually seen the image) to produce the final output. Nothing wrong with that at all, so long as you are happy with the results.
For many of us who have learned photography more recently, though, surrendering that much control of such a vital part of the process is a bit like letting someone else choose the lighting or exposure. We can still shoot that way, but it doesn’t really feel like our work any more.
Personally, when I’m shooting, I prefer to be able to concentrate on the composition of the image, rather than worrying about every single setting on the camera. White balance? I can fix it in a second. And if I don’t like the result, I can change it. Any way I like.
As for storage, no-one says you need to save all your RAW files. If you prefer, once you’ve done your jpg conversion, you can bin them. Of course, you might want to revisit them and tweak a bit, but you don’t even really have that option in jpg to begin with, so what have you lost? Any adjustments you want to make to your jpg, you still can, because you still end up with a jpg.
June 06, 2012 at 11:13 am, Subhendu said:
Come on Ken….
If you’re shooting in JPEG, you rely on the PP of the camera. Whatever camera you use with whatever exposure settings in whatever lighting conditions, if I do the same, nobody will find a difference between Ken Marcus and Subhendu Sen. Where’s the style to identify you, man?
Got my point?
Ken, either you don’t know how to edit RAW or you’re too correct in your exposure settings. RAW is not delivered — what is delivered to the client is JPEG. So, there’s no point client knowing whether you shot in RAW or in JPEG. They’re bothered about the outcome.
You’ve great brands hanging on (or below) your belt, so I can’t question your credibility, but please don’t misguide people. If RAW didn’t have any advantages, the camera companies are not fool (including the PS/LR) to provide RAW as one of their major USP.
If I hurt you, please pardon me…
Other guys (photographers), please learn how to edit RAW – it will give you an opportunity to create your own style…so that just by looking at a photograph, people will (either ask, or) name you.That’s called, ‘branding’.
June 06, 2012 at 11:28 am, Subhendu said:
chk this
June 06, 2012 at 11:13 am, Holt said:
Interesting article, from a very talented pro, but a bit condescending. I could go on about snotty professionals claiming their way is best way and other ways are amateur and inferior, but I won’t. 😉
JPG isn’t like shooting film. It’s like shooting without film. You shoot and your image is instantly the finished product. No darkroom necessary. Shoot and send. Just like the guys on the football field wirelessly sending their images to the AP directly from the camera. Shooting film, even Kodachrome, requires post processing. JPG digital doesn’t. RAW is like film, where you shoot for a desired effect that you intend to complete later in the darkroom. Remember the zone system (N+1, push processing, etc.)? Shoot for a desired detail and bring the rest up to par in the darkroom. Film has the latitude to do that, just like RAW.Now, it’s true that if you have TOTAL CONTROL over your lighting situation, and don’t intend to do any post production at all (not even bw conversion) then by all means save the drive space and shoot jpg. That also affords you the ability to shoot a lot of images very quickly (good for action images). But, if you don’t have total control over your lighting (like changing weather conditions, bad and varied lighting at events, etc.), then shoot RAW just to be safe (and yes it’s okay to hedge your bets, even as a pro). The bottom line is that if you can completely control your lighting situation, then shoot JPG. But, if you enjoy the artistic freedom that post production offers, and have the time, patience and drive space, then shoot in RAW. End of story.
June 06, 2012 at 11:12 am, Karl Blessing said:
This article seems to suggest that you shoot digital the exact same way you shot film, i.e.: you simply shot, never did any post processing on your own.
June 06, 2012 at 11:18 am, F_luzzi said:
Karl, you do some post processing with film. You can pull or push the negative, you can dodge, burn, overexpose, underexpose… Of course you have more options with digital post-processing. I actually like to use the best of both worlds: shoot film+high resolution scans+digital post-processing with Photoshop.
June 06, 2012 at 1:05 pm, Karl Blessing said:
Yes I realize this, but I’m talking bout in the context that he may have shot film, probably treating digital exactly the same.
June 06, 2012 at 1:27 pm, richburroughs said:
Actually he states that the JPEG images were retouched/corrected.
So he shipped them RAW files and also included some JPEGs he edited. They used the RAW files and he thought the printed versions looked worse. And this is supposed to tell us something about RAW vs JPEG.
June 06, 2012 at 11:10 am, F_luzzi said:
Lazy “photographer”.
The digital world made the art of creating images very easy. But as anything else, easy things are not the best. No matter how many megapixels they pack into those digital sensors (full 35mm or medium format), digital photographs still looks flat compared to film. Long live film!
June 06, 2012 at 11:10 am, Seeker638 said:
JPG is a compressed format, and by definition has losses. I am looking at two files at the moment. The same image captured by the camera and written in RAW and JPG at the same time. The JPG is 5.5 MB, and the RAW is 16.5 MB. That 11MB of data must be something, right? What is it? How can you be so quick to toss that 11MB of data and claim it’s worthless?
When you open a jpg, make changes, then save it, the original information is GONE. With raw it is not gone, it is shown as you last saved it, but you CAN go back to the original file bit for bit if you undo your changes. Once you save a JPG, you can’t undo the changes. Most cameras have various settings that are applied when you save a JPG file. Those settings are adjustable, but once it is written to your card, you can’t go back to an “unmodified” file. If I’m printing 5×7 photos at an event, sure, JPG would be fine. I went to the White House to cover Obama recognizing a particular group. The person I was working for only wanted 1MB JPGs for an online news article. I ALWAYS shoot RAW, though sometimes I shoot RAW+JPG. Later I was contacted by a T-Shirt designer who was looking far an Obama photo from a particular angle. I had the shot, and she looked over some JPG proofs. When she decided on an image, she insisted on RAW, as the image was going to be stylized. Good thing I shot RAW. Hard disk space is cheap, and if you don’t think so then perhaps you are not charging enough for your gigs. If I use your math, and the difference is using 5GB storage per gig versus 10GB per gig, and if I use the example of $220 for TWO separate 2TB external hard drives, (one is a backup,) we are talking about spending $1.15 to store one gig’s photos in RAW versus $.58 for JPG. Is that REALLY too much to spend? If you can’t get all your images onto a single memory card, you must be overshooting. Memory cards are an investment, and should outlast your desire to keep them. Investing in a larger card enables you to use the extra space on every shoot. P.S. Hey MM, will you be accepting articles on why the cheapest memory cards are the ONLY way to go as well? Why spend $200 on a Sandisk, when the guy on the corner has one for $40? Save your money, and enjoy the added thrill of not knowing if your images will be there when you get back to your computer!Oh, and next month don’t miss MM article on why plastic kit lenses are better than the Pro series lenses that cost thousands.
When most of us are here to get better, why are we reading articles on how to settle for “good enough?”
Advancing in any endeavor is never accomplished by saying “this is good enough,” or “let’s cut corners.”
June 06, 2012 at 11:13 am, Seeker638 said:
I don’t know why SOME of my linefeeds were omitted, sorry for what looks like a HUGE paragraph.
June 06, 2012 at 11:03 am, Tom Kellond said:
If you are used to narrow tolerances as in shooting Kodachrome slide film, and you have control of your lighting direction,intensity,color balance and have no other light sources or materials that could contaminate your jpeg, I say fire away. If you don’t take care to insure that all these conditions are met, then processing a RAW capture may yield you better results. The thing about RAW is you are dealing with a file that is sometimes three times as large as your jpeg, so storage is an issue. Another issue is that not all RAW processes are created equal. Most defer to Photoshop, but it depends on how picky you are about your color profiles and your sharpening. In any event RAW needs post process time and storage to render the finished product.
Jpeg is quick and easy, but like Kodachrome it has narrow tolerance. If you have any doubts about your lighting, color temp, or contrast range, it would not be wise to shoot jpeg for a client.
Jpeg is also wed to the camera that produces it. If you shoot Nikon, you’ll get Nikon’s process. Canon, Pentax,Olympus,Sony,Fuji all have their own way of processing the final image. You need to know how that will happen before you go setting up your lights and creating your color profile for the shoot. If you don’t, you may be very disappointed in the results and even more disappointed if you didn’t hedge your bet and shoot a RAW file at the same time. Murphy’s Law know no bounds and is alive and well in high end photography.
JPEG’s are quick and easy if you have everything all set up and controlled. If you do.
Fire away!
One final note. JPEG is a compressed format and is not generally used if you intend to archive the images you shoot. RAW is uncompressed, but not a great choice for archive as it is dependent on software to decode the Nikon,Canon,Fuji etc format and render the final image. Most archive images are TIFFs and stored on gold not silver backed disks as Gold will not oxidize and destroy your image over time.
June 06, 2012 at 11:02 am, Kevin Decker said:
I agree with Deek. All of the data that jpeg has available is there in RAW, plus things that you may have missed. Setting just to jpeg is like a marathoner breaking his big toe before every race…just not that great of an idea. One the jpeg does have is smaller more compressed formatting. What this means is that what you see on the display is what you get with jpeg. All of the detail data which is so important to many other niches is lost when not using RAW. Thank you for your opinion. It’s wonderful that in your line of work you are able to use this format. I’ll stick with full format. And, if needed, shoot both so I can have bright shiny partial data photos for a quick and dirty slideshow at the wedding reception.
June 06, 2012 at 11:01 am, Uriel said:
This is the type of misinformation I’d expect from Ken Rockwell, not Ken Marcus.
June 06, 2012 at 11:01 am, Dirtydoctordaily said:
Yes a Lot of Pro Photographers shoot jpeg and the reasons are clearly explained in the begining of the article ” I became accustomed to dealing with exposure tolerances that were very narrow, and therefore I’d light my subjects accordingly. Making the switch to Digital JPEG was not really a challenge” His Skill and experience over the years made no need for the fine adjustments available in RAW processing. For us mere mortals lacking his years of Skill and experience the need for a more forgiving medium in which to shoot (RAW) is a godsend.
June 06, 2012 at 11:01 am, Jim Minics said:
I fully agree with Ken. I have been a working professional photographer with many published images and gallery shows over the past 20 years. I almost exclusively shoot jpeg. Go ahead and tell me I’m not professional and that I’m not giving a quality product to my clients.
Keep your tech talk, I’ll keep the style of images that has been making me my living over the past several years.
June 06, 2012 at 11:59 am, Joe Mays said:
Not saying you’re not professional, just that you’re not very informed. Raw images are a step in the process that produces the jpegs you get off the camera. You could shoot raw, and with a (tiny) bit of education take the step of throwing out all the information that turns your raw into a jpeg yourself, while keeping all the other information too. Instead you are letting your camera develop the images for you. If you want to keep the style of images that has been making you a living, raw format is a much better way of keeping that style.
June 06, 2012 at 12:01 pm, Greg Wolkins said:
if that works for you, great. The problem is not that Ken likes jpg’s. The problem is his misguided reasoning.
June 06, 2012 at 11:00 am, Cloudy said:
Sending RAW files to the client kills your chance to complete the shot – a RAW file can be opened and adjusted with endless parameters – it becomes someone else’s vision and not your own, exactly like providing a negative vs. a transparency or print. But sending JPEGs? Come on, even if they’re set at the max quality, 99% of art directors and photo editors will think “web images”. Send a TIFF. Hell, send a 16 bit TIFF. Send a flattened 16 bit PSD file. For jewelry or fashion, I flat out refuse to supply a RAW file. But I do deliver a format that’s considered professional and print-ready, and I do at least suggest they accept the file in a high bit rate. What looks amazing on my monitor may look radically different on a match print, digital proof or final offset page. The best way to go is to send a visually optimized, high-bit file… and a print showing your take on color balance, density and saturation – which can be compared to a matchprint or taken to a press check. Just my .02.
June 06, 2012 at 11:00 am, Dj said:
Camera raw is a way to store information. So I’m going to go ahead and say it if ansel adams was alive today he would be shooting in camera raw. J pegs are so limited in color space. This just sounds like someone doesnt understand how to use lightroom or photoshop or any other dozen programs that work raw files. And I’ve been shooting for 45 years and I’m really getting tired of comparing digital photography to film. They are not the same… so 20 years from now when photoshop cs 12 comes out I can go back to my raw files and I could redo those images that might have a little bit of a problem with today’s technology I’ll be able to reproduce those images with new software because I shot it in camera raw not and an 8 bit j peg file.
June 06, 2012 at 10:57 am, Karl Blessing said:
There’s a reason it’s called “unprocessed” raw… you actually gota process it accordingly. I think the editors would be more appalled that you were unable to do post-processing to the same or superior results to your in-camera software.
June 06, 2012 at 10:56 am, Wenzel said:
If you suck at processing, don’t like to process, don’t believe in it or are too cheap to hire someone qualified then sure, shoot in Jpeg.
As other’s here have said, a Jpeg is a by all accounts already processed & compressed image out of camera, while a RAW file is the raw lossless actual image data meant for controlled post-processing. RAW is not meant to be published in that state.. it’s “raw” after all.. it still needs to be cooked! ;P If you’re using/printing your images straight out of camera then sure JPEG is going to look much better & it would definitely be the way to go, but then you’re “committed” to that choice of your flattened compressed file, & have narrowed your options while also giving-up your pristine data file of that image for your archives (if you care about that sort of thing). Anyway, if you’re planning on processing at all at an even semi-pro level Jpeg would be a silly choice. By the way, if your processor can’t take a RAW image beyond the Jpeg out of camera image, or is in shock & awe over the huge difference between the raw & jpeg files, what you need to do is hire a new processor stat!
June 06, 2012 at 10:56 am, MLV said:
Oh my goodness…. Please do not listen to this advice! I think it may be a joke, but if not, PLEASE, given the opportunity, always shoot RAW. Someone needs to sit with Ken and provide him an understanding of the post process. Very bad information.
June 06, 2012 at 11:33 am, Kgphoto said:
Ken clearly knows the post process if you read the article. He has just made a choice for his work flow. In that, I agree with him. It is a good workflow for HIM. I don’t chose to do it for me.
Where I don’t agree, was his rational for chosing to shoot in JPEG. File sizes are similar unless you shoot smaller JPEG. I would agree if he had said he delivers only in JPEG.
June 06, 2012 at 1:06 pm, Karl Blessing said:
If he knew how to post-process then in those web examples the RAW output would look very similar to his JPEG output.
June 06, 2012 at 10:56 am, John said:
JPEG is a RAW file that has been processed – whether it’s been processed in the camera or on a computer – it always starts life as a RAW file of some sort. This is a silly article.
June 06, 2012 at 10:55 am, None said:
I read the other article on shooting Raw and was left feeling conflicted, especially after reading the comments, then I read this article about shooting JPEGS and I like what he says, only to read the comments where he’s ripped a new one. One thing is for sure, I thought some photographers were a holes but judging from the very common harsh criticism mixed with subjective opinion, I have some comfort saying many of them are. I don’t put me and you in the say category although we may do the same things. I understand that there are hardcore technical differences, such as raw producing photos with more information but do you really have to insult the guy and leave it at that? Who would want to deal with people who are such a-holes, only another a-hole. If you wonder why people flake and don’t want to do repeat work with you, now you know.
But back to the main topic at hand. I think that as Ken stated there is a time and place for everything. Since he has alot of experience with pre-touching (I like that word) he is used to shooting and being done with it for the most part. So if that’s the case, then why not use JPEG especially when the hardware can’t keep up with 16-bit output of a RAW. But if you were into controlling the amount of detail you output into a jpeg, and you had the time and storage space then shooting Raw is the way to go. Wouldn’t it be best to store it as a .tiff?
I’m glad that I am able to see a group of “experts” discuss their opinions and realize that there is no right or wrong just what worked for somebody else at that given time. Stick to the technical aspects and leave the character assaults out of it, if you can help yourself!
June 06, 2012 at 2:31 pm, Na Cl said:
If someone chooses to shoot jpg for whatever reason that’s fine. But what is wrong is saying that shooting jpg will give you a quality that RAW does not. That is flat out wrong. Anyone who understands RAW files understands this. I’ve read countless articles and books where the photographer says shoot in RAW because using by jpg you are letting the camera decide how to process the RAW data. Those who say they use jpg will state file size difference (RAW being much larger), the inability to see the image when it is RAW, the need for special software for which there is no standard to be able to edit that file. But for anyone to say RAW doesn’t result in as good quality as a jpg is unheard of. That is why there are so many criticisms of the author. The RAW files that he posted were converted to jpg. In that conversion, if the quality is less than the original jpg it is the responsibility of whoever did the conversion. No professional photographer who works with digital shots would be expected not to know this. And to anyone who has even read multitudes of digital photography books, this flies in the face of every author who has been published. Don’t be condescending by saying “so called experts”. There is not a right or wrong in what format you choose but when you give bogus reasons to put one format down then there is a right and a wrong and this is definitely, absolutely, 100% wrong. Period. You will learn this yourself the more you get into image processing.
June 06, 2012 at 10:54 am, Timothy said:
I think Ken is just messing with us, and having a good laugh. That’s the only explanation for this silly article.
June 06, 2012 at 3:18 pm, Na Cl said:
That would be a kick if it were true! He’d be laughing even more at the few who agree with him! 🙂
June 06, 2012 at 10:54 am, John W. O'Brien III said:
JPEG is a compressed format, and you’d rather shoot JPEG and let some engineer at Canon or Nikon dictate how your images are going to look? RAW images only look flat and lifeless if YOU don’t process them correctly…
just goes to show you can be successful and not have a goddamned clue what you are doing 🙂
carry on Kenny!
June 06, 2012 at 10:54 am, Sydneyalexphotography said:
ok. really i dont agree with the article. and i cant get over the fact the jpeg photos are better poses and photoshopped… so of course compared to the raw file they look better… in this article.. because you photoshopped the jpegs you dork!!!!!!!!! you totally lost credability in my book. maybe next time you can compare the same exact image in raw and jpeg without trying to tweak one and i might take you a bit more serious.
June 06, 2012 at 10:52 am, Randy Wentzel said:
Ken, thank you taking the time to write the article. Some of the comments are harsh. However, there’s a lot to be said when 90%+ of your peers are saying the same thing – RAW is intentionally “flat” so that that you can make it look the way you want during post processing. The camera’s JPG, as stated elsewhere here, takes about ten seconds of work to achieve in Lightroom or Photoshop. You can even do a lot in batch functions. You’re obviously a good, published photographer that has little to no experience with post processing. That’s just fine, as long as your RAW files are being handled correctly. Simply publishing those untouched RAW files would be like serving cake batter without having baked the cake.
I’d love more articles from you, but they should perhaps be focused on lighting, working with up and coming adult models, etc. You seem to be out of your element when it comes to this subject.
Now MM editors should have caught light of that, and never published this.
Kind regards – Randy (photographer who shoots RAW for everything)
June 06, 2012 at 10:55 am, Randy Wentzel said:
One more example would be a model that shows up to a shoot and she’s done her own makeup and hair when you have a makeup artist and hair stylist on set. It’s much easier to work with a model (photo) that’s not made up (JPG) vs. a model that comes to set clean with no makeup (RAW). 🙂 Cheers – Randy
June 06, 2012 at 10:51 am, Phil said:
The condescending phrase ‘newly hired techno-geek’ is a window to the mind of the author.
I shoot mainly in JPEG, as many pros do, but it’s a conscious choice based on simplicity & workflow, and because I like the discipline it instills in getting it right in camera. It’s not, like some, because I don’t understand the 2 formats, and the trade-off involved.
June 06, 2012 at 1:03 pm, Jason Wood said:
Why would a professional decide not to get the scene right with exposure etc just because its in jpg? Does your mua just do have the makeup because you can fix or add in photoshop after? would you allow that?
June 06, 2012 at 10:51 am, Sam said:
Totally agree with Deek. In addition, when shooting RAW you have a greater range of editing programmes to use (uh…Camera RAW comes to mind). Comparing an unprocessed RAW image to a processed JPEG is just silly, imo. This is one of the oddest photography articles I’ve ever seen. (Generally, it’s shooting in JPEG that is considered the beginner’s crutch.)
June 06, 2012 at 10:51 am, Mark Kaplan said:
Ken, your argument is flawed.
You say “…Well, JPEG is like Kodachrome in many ways and RAW is a little more like wedding film.”, the reality is that JPEG is like Polaroid and RAW is like a film negative.
Sure a Polaroid is ready to go as soon as the camera spits it out, but do a little processing on your negative, and chances are you’re going to have a better image in the end.
June 06, 2012 at 10:50 am, amportfolio said:
I think RAW is only ideal if you’re a touch-up/control freak type on your photos. I like shooting RAW and then doing post-processing. Those I’ve seen who are more about getting it perfect in the shot are better off on JPG.
I think for journalism or photos you don’t want to spend the time post-processing, you go JPG. Even Scott Kelby stated with RAW you miss out on the sharpening and color correction the camera itself does on its own. So I wouldn’t dismiss JPG ever if you’re a fan of RAW.
However, like most who like RAW, you need to know how to really process and tweak the photos to get the full value of RAW.
June 06, 2012 at 10:50 am, No More said:
I agree with Deek. This isn’t an issue of RAW vs JPEG, but an issue of knowing how to handle the RAW files. Now, he does make a point about JPEGs being like shooting Kodachrome… to an extent. If you shoot JPEG all of the time, and you expose for JPEG, you will get better at your exposures. It is not because JPEG is better, it is because JPEGs will force you to get better at setting your exposure and you will not be using your RAW files as a crutch. That said, I’ll take a perfectly exposed RAW over a perfectly exposed JPEG any day.
June 06, 2012 at 10:48 am, Chad M said:
Primarily from a Photoshop POV (I’m only amateur-ish photographically) thanks for sharing.
I’m almost always learning something new while manipulating photos. But it great to have from a professional the actual side by side proof. Didn’t realize there was THAT much of a difference!
June 06, 2012 at 10:47 am, Craig Colvin said:
Ken doesn’t understand RAW and the fact that it needs to be processed before being compared to a jpeg and that is fine. What is not fine however, is whoever at MM accepted this article without pointing out that he was making a fool out of himself.
June 06, 2012 at 10:46 am, Johnnyquattlebaum said:
Lol can we all just get along? I like to adjust contrast, sharpness, saturation, as I pre-visualize as well. I actually shot in RAW andJPEG doing monochrome on something I knew I wanted Black and White. When I went back to the RAW file it was still in color and I was happy about that. Pretty much the only reason!
June 06, 2012 at 10:45 am, @kenop said:
Not to mention you can take any of author’s raw files, boost the contrast, apply color correction, and even do touch up, and leave it in RAW format to deliver to the publishing house. So all these years he could have had better images getting published despite the publisher’s ignorance, by having a better understanding of what RAW is for.
June 06, 2012 at 10:45 am, Rcarballo said:
In the other hand, if you are a real photographer and you fully know your cameras and manage lighting as a pro, you can
shoot JPG files because it is the final product you want. Indeed, if you
are a bad with cameras&lighting and real good with computers, RAW is for you, shoot all Auto, RAW and then fix later on post production.
June 06, 2012 at 12:32 pm, rekanize said:
That’s a pretty extreme counterpoint… Also, I’m not saying it never happens, but RAW is only as much of a crutch as you make it to be… Millions of photographers shoot in RAW and take advantage of its latitude with no mediocrity to conceal.
June 06, 2012 at 10:44 am, GeraldPeake said:
I can’t believe that such a professional photographer has got the ‘argument’ so badly wrong. Students… please don’t read this article, it will give you completely the wrong approach to understanding both Raw and JPEG! Should I go on???
Firstly, you can’t help but shoot RAW, all digital images are RAW DATA. At some stage, this data has to be processed to be visible, that’s when it becomes a JPEG (or TIFF) Nowadays the photographer has the choice to either process in camera or on the PC, even the ‘review’ image you see in camera is raw data, very quickly processed into a jpeg image. By supplying the RAW files to the magazine, Ken gave up any control he had over the images and surprisingly it sounds as if the magazine just used the default conversion which resulted in flat looking output.
“I have heard the arguments that RAW captures much more information than JPEG.” RAW is actually…. all the information, any JPEG by nature of it’s compression, gives you less, but you decide how much less.
I could go on all day but as this is an ‘EDU’ article, here are the things to remember…
1. Always shoot in RAW and save the files, storage is cheap.
2. You cannot see a RAW image, when it’s opened in a converter (like Adobe Camera Raw) you are seeing pre-sets being applied to data, that’s why you can change so many parameters, it’s all numbers really.
3. RAW converters are continually updated, in five years time you will be able to produce much better JPEG files from the original, but if you let the camera convert to JPEG at the time of shooting… you won’t!
4. Break the link between film brands and digital, it doesn’t make sense anymore.
5. NEVER release RAW files to clients, (or make sure there’s a very good reason to) Your name is on that picture as the photographer, some idiot who does a bad (or no) conversion could ruin your reputation.
Sorry Ken:)
June 06, 2012 at 12:48 pm, Mariobonetta said:
I’m surprised Penthouse required raw. Here in Oz, where I live, but also in Milan, where I used to work, magazines and agencies request always tiffs.
June 06, 2012 at 10:44 am, M. Dixon said:
Life is too short for RAW.
June 06, 2012 at 11:05 am, Mark Kaplan said:
I’d argue that life is too short for mediocrity.
June 06, 2012 at 10:43 am, @kenop said:
I checked my calendar to see if it was April Fool’s day. I know it’s an Opinion article so I can’t say it doesn’t have its place, but please, newer photographers, don’t believe any of this as fact.
The author fails to articulate that the issue is publishing houses don’t seem to know how to process RAW and expect print ready artwork from the photographer. In which case a final processed JPG, TIFF, or other format will obviously be desired over raw.This is absolutely NOT a reason to shoot directly in JPG. Even the best DSLR’s introduce artifacts and reduce the ability to fine tune in post processing, versus RAW. Your eventual output file will be in a regular image format, of course.
June 06, 2012 at 10:43 am, neojejune said:
I would send the sidecar file along with the raw file (NEF + XMP). That way the raw file is adjusted as I saw fit.
June 06, 2012 at 10:42 am, Kentaro Masahiro said:
I agree with the detracting comments written so far. No need to rehash. But I’ll say this – the author’s point sample images are different making comparison indirect. Granted you assuming lighting is similar but how difficult could it be to show a direct comparison.
While Ken might be published and I’m not, that doesn’t mean he isn’t a fool.
It’s not fair to compare processed images to unprocessed. And yes when that camera writes the JPG, it’s processed.
June 06, 2012 at 10:41 am, Brian Carter said:
This article is wrong in so many ways… First of all you are comparing un-edited Raw images with retouched jpgs. Secondly, yes Raw files give you better bit-depth, for the editing process, not for printing. You render raw images to jpgs after editing them and adding the contrast, shadows etc you want.
June 06, 2012 at 10:40 am, Anthony S. Torres said:
I always enjoy these discussions, but I agree with others. You’re not comparing file formats, and instead you’re critiquing workflow: the ease of JPG vs the processing of RAW. Do you want the camera’s software to interpret your image, it’s compression, color accuracy, noise reduction, sharpening… or do you want that technical ability yourself? I prefer the latter with RAW.
Of course RAW images come out flat by default. If you look at the the concept of RAW, it’s supposed to. It gives you all the raw data for you to edit yourself without making any decisions for you as to contrast, color vibrancy and more. That’s the point. It’s simply providing you with the dough to cook yourself. I guarantee you someone who knows how to properly edit your RAW file can achieve not only the same images you compare in JPG, but better and with more control. Oh yeah, and when you do decide to change things in the image, you will do it in a non-destructive manner, which is golden. The question is, do you want to?
It’s not a point of “this data isn’t even visible”, it’s that you’ve allowed the camera to decide what parts to discard, which is fine if you prefer that, but don’t describe it as a waste when you can pull back details that your JPG file cannot. While it’s true that some folks do use it as a crutch for not preparing the shot ahead of time, most just want more control of each of those steps that a JPG straight from camera will not give you. Most pros I know would never, ever rely on the camera software to determine their final product if the option existed to give them more control. If you also look at most detailed camera review sites, they show you how they can get more detail from converting a RAW to JPEG than just the JPEG itself. I think we’ve hit the point where that’s accepted as fact.
Now let’s get back to time and workflow. When I import my images from a session, I have preset import settings in Lightroom that add some of the basic changes I would make to an image which severely cuts down editing time. Storage is no longer a problem and computers can handle most imports well, 16GB+ at a time. You can get fairly cheap terabyte drives now. I’m looking at your images now and by default, you can probably get someone to help import them with settings to your liking within minutes.
Finally, I’ll just say, since you’re doing a lot of studio work it seems rather than any rapid-fire situation, why not simply shoot RAW+JPEG. You keep the negatives and still get your pre-cooked photos all done at once. In fact, on most newer cameras, you can do that on separate cards and hand it off to someone to walk away with if lack of time was a concern.
June 06, 2012 at 1:08 pm, Jason Wood said:
I agree, if we go with the logic in the article, to make things easier why not have someone else set up the lights and then to make the workflow easier just have someone else shoot the pictures as well.
June 06, 2012 at 10:40 am, Allicette said:
Deek & Ahmed thank you for your voice of wisdom!!
I also do not see RAW as a crutch. It’s quite the opposite. I normally find those that say it’s a crutch people who are no where skilled enough to use the RAW format. OR assume that HDR equals RAW ‘tweakage’ an it isn’t. The other huge thing is that if you need to make any adjustment to the JPG you will have to use Photoshop in the worst possible of ways.
Photography has always been a two step process. 1. Making the image 2.the other developing the image. It remains the same using the RAW process. Additionally, digital photography is not meant to emulate film photography. That is like being angry that oil paintings are not watercolor paintings, because of different drying times or opaqueness or…
With regards to the techno-geek who said RAW is better, that is true, but it’s half true. In addition to that you need to start with a properly taken image and then you need to understand the art and science of developing an image in raw.
The bottom line is if you shoot digital you will need to learn to use more than your camera. o one gets mad a photographer for dodging and burning in an actual physical darkroom. RAW IS THE SAME THING!
June 06, 2012 at 10:38 am, Jen said:
Not sure why folks get so passionate about the RAW vs JPEG debate. Do what works for you. For Ken it makes sense to shoot in JPEG because every shoot has carefully controlled lighting. The formula probably never changes. Every shoot is studio or “studio on location”. He also has a good point about the 16 bit often being overkill. Ever met the type who thinks they need the newest processor and 12GB of RAM to send emails to grandma and work up a home budget? Keep in mind: todays Jpegs are probably better than RAWs were 5 years ago.
Does it make sense for most of us to shoot JPEG? Depends on why you shoot and what you are shooting. My interests are travel and fine art (not studio). So I shoot RAW because I need all the control I can get. And Lightroom works so much better with RAW.
But please, lets take some of the anti JPEG passion and put it directly into making great art.
June 06, 2012 at 11:14 am, GeraldPeake said:
Hi Jen, folks are getting so passionate because it’s total miss-information going out as Education!
June 06, 2012 at 12:07 pm, Anthony S. Torres said:
Exactly. I do shoot JPG when I’m with family and just taking random shots, but this article is saying “look, the reason to shoot JPG is because of the flatness and bad processing in comparison to JPG” which is completely misleading. It just means it wasn’t processed correctly.
June 06, 2012 at 10:38 am, Jason said:
This guy in very uninformed, I hope no one takes his advice. RAW files do look flat out of the camera, they MUST be processed afterwards to get a good result.
Rather than refusing to learn new techniques he is doing anything to relate to how he shot with film… which is fine, but don’t write an article intended to educate beginner photographers with an uninformed point of view.
June 06, 2012 at 10:38 am, Ed said:
Jpeg is a “lossy” format. Every time you re-save a jpeg file you loose a bit more information. For that reason alone professional work should always be saved as RAW files and re-saved in a non-lossy format (tiff or PSD, ect) for post work. Then the final image can be re-saved and sent to the client in whatever format requested. Great color is in the RAW file and you’ll have a better quality final image. I’ve been a professional retoucher for over 12 years and a pro in the graphic art biz for over 20. It’s not “wrong” to save in jpeg. Jpegs might be fine for web only images but for large format it’ll hurt the final quality of your work.
June 06, 2012 at 10:38 am, Mvphoto said:
Ken you really are losing a lot in regard to quality shooting this way. Do a basic Photoshop course and move on.
June 06, 2012 at 10:37 am, aesthetic sherpa said:
Must be nice only to have to print things the size of a magazine…
And did anyone else notice how much artifacting there was in high contrast areas where there has been retouch? Specifically the edge of the underwear where skin has been smoothed but the underwear hasn’t. A clear result of working with JPGS.
Ken, you’re clearly grandfathered in from the film era and have no need to learn new tricks. Everyone else who wants to make a name for yourselves: learn how to use Camera RAW in photoshop. Any adjustment your camera makes for you, you can make tenfold in Camera Raw.
JPGs…
June 06, 2012 at 10:35 am, Skullyface said:
I guess I’ve never seen anyone (seriously) try to make the JPG vrs RAW argument on the pro-JPG side. Now I know why. There are just way too many holes in the logic. Keep shooting JPG if you like. I’ll keep shooting RAW, thank you.
June 06, 2012 at 10:35 am, pink_panther said:
I couldn’t agree with Ken more. When I get a new camera, I shoot some RAW and some jpegs of the same exact images to see how well the processing engine in the camera performs. Then, I will refine the RAW images into finalized jpegs to compare the results. After I’ve proved to myself that the jpegs are great, my eyes cannot discern any differences in the final products, I switch to only jpegs. That, in turn, saves me a bunch of storage space for any video clips I might want to throw in during the shoot.
I too, used to shoot models with Kodachrome, and you maybe had a half of a stop at best to play with. If you weren’t dead on, you were screwed! If we force ourselves to “pre-touch” rather than “post-touch” as Ken suggests, it makes us much better photographers.
And personally, I would never let anyone else process my files anyway. Now, I’m going to huddle down, surround myself with hefty defense shields, and wait for the onslaught of poison darts and arrows! :o)
June 06, 2012 at 10:35 am, Bad Bunny Studios said:
I agree with Deek. The person processing the RAW files did not know what they were doing. RAW files have more data info to work with – Of course one should always light properly. The RAW data should be used only to enhance what is already there not try to fix it.
June 06, 2012 at 10:35 am, Hans-Peter van den Berg said:
The RAW images coming out of my EOS 5D MKii contain more details than the JPG Images while comparing those side by side. I.e. Convert the RAW to a TIF and the TIF to a JPG and finally size both JPG’s equal and you will be surprised the JPG created from the RAW constaining more details than the original JPG image from the same scene. So before you decide shooting only JPG I advise to check out this for your camera. Furthermore all good editors must know that the RAW image can very well being fine-tuned, which is not possible with an original JPG from the camera. So advice is to do more practice before advicing people to go for the JPG format. I do not want to offend the writer of this article but what I write is my experience with RAW versus JPG with a Full size sensor 21 megapix pro-camera.
June 06, 2012 at 10:33 am, Michaelkeel said:
In my comparisons using a canon 5D mk 2. Starting with the raw file was far superior to JPG. The JPGs were not as sharp or detailed as the raw.
My clients could easily see the difference and much prefer the raw file converted to JPG TIF or PSD.
June 06, 2012 at 10:31 am, Julesf said:
Obviously not to many photographer agree, really not well thought out article.
June 06, 2012 at 10:33 am, Julesf said:
I would like to add that Markus is a great photographer, but I do not agree with him.
June 06, 2012 at 10:30 am, Rist Photo said:
This article is truly ridiculous. In my experience, photographing for publication, I have always been asked for tif files because they are uncompressed never raw. It’s been said already, but RAW is like a step — it is not the finished product. You take your RAW image and compress them to jpeg or tif AFTER editing.
June 06, 2012 at 10:30 am, DragonStudio1 said:
I’m not sure if it’s just that these are on the web or not- but it looks like the jpeg samples are photoshopped… did anyone else notice that?
June 06, 2012 at 10:30 am, Brandon Harris said:
There are plenty of valid reasons to shoot JPG over RAW. Unfortunately none were mentioned in this article.
Comparing a straight-out-of-camera RAW file to a processed and re-touched JPG is apples and oranges.
June 06, 2012 at 10:29 am, csroc said:
What an awkward article.
June 06, 2012 at 10:28 am, Tony said:
This isn’t about image formats, it’s about keeping artistic control over your work … as such, it is a lesson learned.
For those of us who shoot images as components for cgi RAW is a real asset.
June 06, 2012 at 10:28 am, Stefan said:
As a photographer, I feel embarrased about this article. Judging by Ken’s work, he is a really good photographer, but harnessed by some significant misconceptions regarding digital work flow.
June 06, 2012 at 10:26 am, BIG T said:
uhuh….. you really should ask your assistant for explainig thr RAW Converter to you.
June 06, 2012 at 10:26 am, Alex Primehd said:
Yes, sorry to say but the article does not make much sense… RAW contains all sensor data, and all other formats – including JPG – derive from it, usually by throwing away tons of information (compression).
By having access to RAW, you control what information to use, how to modify it, and what to throw out.
JPG is useful when you need fast image acquisition where the hardware may not be able to cope with saving RAWs that fast. Also when you deal with thousands of images per shoot, such as in timelapse.
But other than that, RAW rules.
And even the virtually-perfect lighting will probably leave *something* in the frame that might benefit from heavy post-processing, which is where you need RAW instead of the lossy JPG.
So the advise to light properly is good, but in reality RAW will win every time.
BTW, to call RAW files “dull” is same as to call sun “bright”. All RAW is originally very flat and dull looking, by design – this preserves widest options of post-processing. (As the opposite to the baked-in look of JPGs and other compressed formats that derive from RAW either in-camera or in post…)
June 06, 2012 at 10:26 am, Shimuzu said:
Raw gives you much more control in post production, jpeg is limited. Deek is absolutely spot on.
June 06, 2012 at 10:25 am, Jlorf said:
I used to shoot RAW exclusively because when I switched from film to digital, EVERYONE told me I had to, to get the best pictures possible. Deek, you are correct in what you are saying, however, as a photographer who shoots 2-3 thousand images a week, I don’t want to spend so much time on the computer tweeking RAW files to make them look good. Modern cameras (I shoot Canon) do such a fantastic job of post production in camera that I now shoot JPEG 95% of the time. That being said… When I shoot a landscape or wildlife I normally do it in RAW also as I assume I may be touching the image later anyway and want to get as much dynamic range as possible.
June 06, 2012 at 12:11 pm, Andrew Link said:
BUT at least you understand the JPEG is a processed RAW from the camera and the RAW can be made to look exactly like the JPEG in Camera Raw or similar software. This horrible article makes claims that RAWs are “flat, low-contrast, unsaturated, dull and very unexciting” which shows almost no understanding of what a RAW file is and how to work with one.
June 06, 2012 at 12:40 pm, Gabe said:
You can shoot RAW and JPEG at the same time. That’s my default setting.
June 06, 2012 at 10:24 am, chadsimages said:
I shoot only RAW, but I would never fault someone for doing what works for them and their needs. Ken shoots RAW when a client requests it, and JPG when he can. He prefers JPG as the title states. It was a great viewpoint on the old RAW vs. JPG argument.
June 06, 2012 at 10:24 am, Johnsmith said:
This is dumb
How about you just preset your cameras custom settings to get your desired final results and still shoot raw ?
Oh wait this is model mayhem website I forgot . Donkeys
June 06, 2012 at 11:47 am, Dennis said:
I don’t think the presets will show up on the RAW file when you transfer it to your PC (or Mac, for people that don’t know how to work a computer [snicker snicker]). I thought the presets only showed up on the camera display. Am I wrong?
June 06, 2012 at 10:23 am, Bálint Hajagos said:
Hehehe, is it Aprils 1st today?
June 06, 2012 at 10:22 am, Dwarf9999 said:
Wow! Is this article for real?
A properly post-processed RAW -> JPG conversion will always be at least as good, if not better, than the in-camera produced JPG.
In other words, (properly PP-ed) RAW >= (in-camera) JPG. Always.
June 06, 2012 at 10:22 am, Photonerd said:
It’s quite simple and factual, RAW provides exactly what the name suggests, raw image data that has not been processed by the cameras’ processor. JPEGs’ will always look better right off the camera because they HAVE been processed by the cameras’ processor. True imaging professionals use RAW files because they know how to manually process the images to achieve the result they are after, once processed, RAW will almost always look much better than a JPEG image ever can.
June 06, 2012 at 10:21 am, Momdennie said:
sad to see such a low level of understanding from a “big name” whom I previously had some respect for but will never again make that mistake…
June 06, 2012 at 10:20 am, Jimi Sweet NYC said:
Sorry, this is a joke. I don’t care where you’ve been published. If you can’t make a RAW file look as good (or better than) a JPEG file then you should not be a retoucher. Stay in front of your camera and shoot your pretty vapid girls. Can I have my 3 minutes back?
June 06, 2012 at 10:19 am, Frank V. said:
I thought these silly debates died a decade ago. Why would a professional settle for letting the camera throw away 90% of the image? The fact that some incompetently processed the raw files is no indictment of raw…it’s an indictment of the idiot that processed them.
June 06, 2012 at 10:19 am, Lfcanon said:
Are you seriously giving us a side-by-side comparison of an UNPROCESSED Raw vs a Jpeg? Is this a joke??
June 06, 2012 at 10:19 am, Oscar said:
Hi
I shoot weddings, and Raw has about a one stop advantage for latitude, but
the files just take up too much space. Jpegs is fine, and the trick with digital is
just to shoot underexposing a bit, which are easily corrected in ACR, or your favorite app. I wouldn’t give RAW files to anyone, that would be like asking a chef to give a raw hamburger to a patron to cook instead of himself.
June 06, 2012 at 10:18 am, DrToast said:
Ken,
You are shooting raw. You’re just letting your camera do the jpeg processing.
June 06, 2012 at 10:57 am, Holt said:
AMEN!
June 06, 2012 at 10:18 am, 95536 said:
People need to realize we’re all different. We shoot different things, under different conditions, for different purposes. There is no one right answer, otherwise we’d all be shooting with the same camera, same lens, processing with the same computer, and using the same workflow. What a dull world that would be. What Ken does works for him, I’m not going to argue that. It doesn’t work for me because I’m not always shooting in a controlled studio environment. I could show samples of my Raw vs. JPG and show just as dramatic differences as the samples Ken showed. Personally, I’m in favor of using the camera to best record the scene and then do some post processing, rather than forcing the scene into something the camera can automatically record. Neither approach is right or wrong, they’re just different.
June 06, 2012 at 10:18 am, Scott Smith said:
Why would anyone shoot JPEG? All you’re doing is in-camera processing without any control over color balance or other in-camera settings. Do your processing in Canon DPP and you can get much better results.
June 06, 2012 at 10:16 am, Www.danspeicherphoto.com said:
Both have their place. But i dont believe one is better than tje other, just dwpends on subject and output. Why not just deliver a huge beautifully edited .tif file. Then it looks like you want it to, and they get the “big” file they want. Personally a tiff will trump a RAW any day of the week. If clients ask for Raw, I explain the difference and push them towards a solid, finished product. Whoever is doing their raw conversion is obviously not adding contrast or any color settings to the file.
June 06, 2012 at 2:53 pm, Na Cl said:
??????? TIF is a processed image RAW is not! To say a TIF file beats a RAW file any day is ridiculous. That’s like comparing a mixing bowl with the ingredients for a cake to the finished cake itself. RAW files can’t be viewed. They have to be processed and converted into TIF, JPG, PNG whatever. You want to provide someone a beautiful edited TIF? Great. How are you gonna do that? Take a jpg file and convert it (ridiculous thought) or (of course) take the RAW file, process it and then save it as a TIF.
June 06, 2012 at 10:15 am, seeker69247 said:
Use Raw, fine tune in LR, export ->JPEG, done.
June 06, 2012 at 10:14 am, Lee said:
This isn’t an article about RAW vs jpeg, it’s an article about whether or not a publisher knows what to do with a RAW. It seems in this case they don’t. Whilst you compare negatives and slides, comparing RAW and jpeg is like comparing negatives with 6×4 prints. An unprocessed RAW is never ready to go straight to print.
June 06, 2012 at 10:10 am, Dan said:
Bull roar.
June 06, 2012 at 10:08 am, Gw Burns said:
Thank Ken, great article. I have been shooting mostly JPEG as well for the same reasons. I might also add that most of my beach shots have the added element of sand and salt to contend with so the less I open the back of my camera and change memory cards or lenses the less those elements can effect my camera body in let’s say not say favorable of way 🙂
GW
June 06, 2012 at 10:25 am, Rist Photo said:
This is just plain dumb. Unless you’re shooting huge files, I can get 2k RAW files onto a 32gb memory card in my D700. If you’re worried about changing memory cards, get a bigger memory card.
June 06, 2012 at 11:17 am, Tom Kellond said:
Storage (cards) is no longer an issue unless you are bracketing like hell and shoot ten jpegs of every pose.
I agree with the lens change and salt exposure comment, but for different reason. More body’s with different lenses is my solution.
JPEG gives you quick images at low file size (compressed format). To edit such a file in Photoshop without destroying it you need to be very careful and very skilled at your manipulations.
I never shoot just JPEG if the image is important. I like to have that ACE up my sleeve to be able to render the image the way I intended it to be. I’m biased as I learned zone system and am a big fan of Ansel Adams (negative shooter) work.
June 06, 2012 at 10:08 am, Carlopanameno said:
Seriously I don’t want to disrespect you because you actually know what your talking about for the most part, but come on. There is no preferring one to the other. They go hand in hand. You shoot Raw to get the best edited outcome in any other format you want to leave it in. So i have to say this article is ridiculous. I always submit my work in both formats with a clear note saying, “these are fully edited JPEG’s and these are the self explained RAW files.” If the idiots using them are getting them and without editing go on publish them then the simple fact is I wont submit my shots to them no matter what.
June 06, 2012 at 10:00 am, Carlos David said:
I agree with this article with one exception.. change jpg to tif.
RAW is a crutch for many. Zone system and spot meters rule.
June 06, 2012 at 10:34 am, Mdrisser said:
I’m sorry, but RAW is not a crutch. RAW is the digital equivalent of the film negative. The crutch comes from letting the camera decide how to process the RAW file and produce the JPG, rather than making those decisions yourself.
June 06, 2012 at 11:28 am, GeraldPeake said:
Do you have any idea where one could buy a RAW crutch? They tried both the Zone System and Spot meters in my neighborhood last year, but the parking is just as bad if not worse!
June 06, 2012 at 9:59 am, Peter Camarena said:
I am listed in MM as a model but I am also a photographer. Like Ken, I started with film many years ago then moved to digital. I shoot some RAW but mostly JPEG, depending on what I will need the final outcome to be.
When shooting a wedding in a church under low light with the white bride’s dress and the black groom’s tux, I will usually go with RAW. Maybe because I am not a full time photographer, I need the ability to pull out the extreme differences in contrasts.
For most of my shoots, I simply use JPEG since the new cameras are very, very good in giving us much more than the older film cameras ever did.
However, I think that the point of this article is that it gets us to thinking about what we do and why.
Remember that minds, like parachutes, work best when open.
June 06, 2012 at 9:44 am, Kgphoto said:
While I understand your response to your experience, it wouldn’t be the reason I would counsel others to adopt your policy. Using RAW for capture simply allows more quality adjustments to be made BEFORE the file is converted to JPEG for printing.
If someone is satisfied with the adjustments made to the file in camera, then fine. If not, RAW gives you much more control over the changes you may wish to make. It also allows for less noise recorded in the image, but still provides the final tonal range that matches your creative vision.
As to size, my RAW is 12 megs and my JPEG is 12 megs from my camera, so no file size saving unless I wish to choose a smaller file.
June 06, 2012 at 12:04 pm, Curious Canuck said:
misplaced post
June 06, 2012 at 12:15 pm, jeff said:
I wonder how many of you pros have anywhere near the tears the author has…. same ole bean bag experts…
June 06, 2012 at 1:09 pm, Foghornleg90 said:
SERIOUSLY?? What camera are you using?? What dimensions on the RAW & JPEG’s?? I’ve NEVER seen them the same… and I’ve used over 100 different digital bodies these last 15 years.
I agree with RAW giving you much more control… and allows for less noise. (I usually shoot RAW’s unless it’s a major time deadline – line state championships & playoffs, where I’m downloading & sorting every time out, half time, and trying to email to the editor for print later that night or the next morning). Time constraints are the only reason I can reasonably see to shoot JPG… usually. However, when traveling with limited memory cards & power access, I have switched to jpg to get more shoots on a card. Otherwise… RAW is clearly the better option, IF the photographer takes the time & responsibility to do their own post processing. (Handing anyone unprocessed work is not only unprofessional in my opinion, but LAZY).
June 06, 2012 at 9:40 am, Doctor said:
Indeed, if you are bad with computers like Ken apparently is, JPEG is for you, because your camera is doing all the post processing for you. RAW is an unprocessed image, and it’s your responsibility to process it. Comparing unprocessed RAW to JPEG is like comparing two uncooked and cooked hamburgers and saying the cooked one is obviously better.
June 06, 2012 at 9:21 am, Miamifashionphoto2 said:
I am sorry… and not to be negative but…. your reasons not to use raw over jpeg in your image example is just plan silly. Your going to tell me that a magazine like Penthouse didn’t have their own in house editors edit and adjust your raw file before printing? Doubtful. The only reason you got a different look in your jpeg then your raw file is because…. somewhere along the line someone was lazy and didn’t complete the image editing. two seconds of adjustments and it looks the same as the jpeg file. A ‘raw’ file is a ‘raw file’. When I shoot for magazines and they want the raw file over my jpeg finished edited image, it’s because they have their own editors on staff and they want to tweek the colors etc to be perfect to match their prints and look of their magazine. File size is bigger yes. But man, don’t be cheap. Your complaining about storing images for a portrait shoot and it taking up too much size? Ha, please. An average wedding is 60-80 gigs of files. Storage is cheap. Stock up. If you want to shoot jpeg over raw, no problem. But your reasons you gave for doing so, sorry, just sound silly and uneducated to me.
June 06, 2012 at 9:10 am, FADM_Nimitz said:
Totally love ya Ken, but couldn’t agree less on this one. Especially when it comes to image degradation on JPEG vs. RAW. RAW is a lossless format. JPEG loses compression each time it is opened, so you must save it to another lossless format right away.
June 06, 2012 at 9:32 am, Ken Elsner said:
Your JPEG analogy isn’t exactly right.
JPEG doesn’t lose compression or quality ‘every time it’s opened’.
You can open a JPEG ten million times and it will still look the same as when it was first made.
JPEG does lose some quality if it’s opened and then resaved.
June 06, 2012 at 10:47 am, Mike said:
Where is quality lost ? Is it lost in the editing process. Please explain.
June 06, 2012 at 11:17 am, Thomas_j_w_sellberg said:
.jpg is a compressed file, overtime as it is saved it compresses again and again. And because the compression process throws out data it is “lossy”. Since finding lightroom have been shooting raw, adjusting (with better results than .jpg, because the data is there to adjust) then export as .tif. When it is time to send to the client, I adjust my export settings and export a .jpg (if requested), otherwise they get a tif. The down side as mentioned is the file size, but I’ll never loose the data like I would if I used .jpg.
June 06, 2012 at 12:42 pm, Mariobonetta said:
Perfect! saving as .tiff is the best pro practice. All ad agencies in Oz ask their designer to save jpg files from photographer into tiffs. Bravo.
June 06, 2012 at 11:28 am, Greg Wolkins said:
a jpg loses quality each time because it is re-compressed each time it’s saved
June 06, 2012 at 11:29 am, Seeker638 said:
Everytime a JPG is saved, it is compressed. When you open it, it is uncompressed. If you don’t believe it, try this:
A. Open a color photo.
B. Save as a copy (new name)
Now:
C. Open your new file, rotate 90 degrees, save it.
Repeat step C. 7 more times.
You may notice your colors are not quite as bright, and you may even notice some JPG artifacts creeping in, (when compared side by side with your original file.)
Repeat step C. 8 more times, and you definitely will see the degradation.
The point is NOT that you will be saving and opening 8 or 16 times, but that there ARE losses involved, and with just a couple of open/save cycles there will be differences at the pixel level.
Everytime you SAVE it, you lose quality, no matter what
quality” of JPG you are saving with.
June 06, 2012 at 9:38 am, Adam Sternberg said:
.jpg files don’t lose quality every time it’s opened, but it does every time it’s SAVED. Big difference.
Still though, I find this article to also be 100% ridiculous. There are a lot of arguments to shoot .jpg instead of RAW but this article doesn’t make any of them. Ken is arguing about the retouching of his files which has nothing to do with the file type. He’s comparing apples to volkswagons.
June 06, 2012 at 10:27 am, Jeff Navarro said:
I agree with the consensus opinion shown in the comments…. I’m a (usually) RAW shooter, myself, btw….I’m just curious, Adam, what do you see as the arguments to shoot .jpg?
June 06, 2012 at 11:16 am, Seeker638 said:
One I can think of is if I am doing a gig where they want JPG downloaded to their computer before leaving the venue. Rare, but it happens. In that case I shoot RAW and JPG. They can have the JPGs, but I get the RAW in case I want to do something later with any of the shots.
June 06, 2012 at 11:44 am, John said:
I prefer to shoot JPG just because I don’t want to add RAW processing into my workflow. I know there are advantage of RAW such as far greater flexibility in retouching down the line because more data is stored with the file, but in my case I just chose the easier route of simplifying my workflow. I may change the way I work at some point, just not yet.
June 06, 2012 at 12:59 pm, Jason Wood said:
If you want to have pictures immediately with at least a good amount of processing done for a client needing it NOW. Or if you are shooting high action and need the speed that jpg gives for rapid shooting. Just a thought.
June 06, 2012 at 11:24 am, FADM_Nimitz said:
Pardon me, saved. Shows you how old of a film fart I am too!
June 06, 2012 at 8:58 am, Deek said:
The problem here is not that RAW has inferior image quality vs jpeg, but that the person processing the RAW file (instead of you) doesn’t know what they are doing!
You can’t pin it on a file format, or say the RAW format provides ” inferior, low-contrast, dull, and uninspired images”. It isn’t the format… it’s pilot error. Anything you can produce in camera as a jpeg you can reproduce from a raw file… because ALL images start out as RAW. The ONLY difference is whether you are applying your image adjustments automatically in camera, or later, in the computer where you have the ability to make changes and finer adjustments.
June 06, 2012 at 9:29 am, Ahamed said:
Deek- You are correct
This would be like complaining about a Ferrari being slow because you let an old man drive it instead of a professional
June 06, 2012 at 10:11 am, Amy said:
Or like saying prints are better than negatives because negatives are in the wrong colour
June 06, 2012 at 10:11 am, Allen Taylor said:
Thanks Deek for beating me to the punch and being dead on with your reply. What a ridiculous and naive (thank you too Andrew) article. BTW, I have been shooting since the 80’s and adopted digital, and learned it, even before Ken.
June 06, 2012 at 10:28 am, Fernando said:
I AGREE TOTALLY WITH YOU!!!
June 06, 2012 at 10:35 am, PLP said:
Deek is exactly right. This article is embarrassing.
June 06, 2012 at 10:53 am, Trevor said:
Agreed. And the example images here are extremely misleading. The JPGs have had obvious post processing done on them (skin softening, etc.) but the RAWs seem to have had none. I also feel that the JPG images used are better images overall (pose, etc.) and that tends to give more “weight” to the JPGs as looking better.
I know Ken has been doing this for a long time and I’ve seen a number of his images that I like but this is just plain misinformation here.
June 06, 2012 at 1:54 pm, Na Cl said:
With regard to the difference in the quality of images (poses for example) it reminds me of those weight loss or muscle building programs where the before shows them slouching with their stomach out and the after where they have perfect posture in their stomach sucked in. The last example has the model in a different position (there’s no rail in the JPG shot), the light behind the shower curtain is different…A real comparison would be effective if it were taken in RAW and JPG and then show that single shot in both formats. When I was reading it I couldn’t figure out why he couldn’t take a RAW file and make it look like a JPG. It was poor RAW conversion. I know Ken is an expert in photography and getting it right in the first place is the way to approach a shot but RAW in no way prevents you from getting the quality that a jpg would.
June 06, 2012 at 11:05 am, Nomad said:
Right on! Those side by side comparisons are bogus. A raw file does not have a “look”, flat or otherwise until someone sets all the parameters. The raw file could be set to look exactly like the jpeg. My own projects tend to be on-location, on the fly situations and shooting raw has saved my ass many times. If you shoot studio and control everything precisely I can see using jpegs for the other reasons mentioned.
June 06, 2012 at 11:09 am, Wing Wong said:
Deek, you hit it right on the nail. Anyone who’s done any post work on RAW and JPEG files can see how quickly the JPEG breaks apart. Those “invisible” details and extra bit depth provides the information required for the post processing. Without it, you clip very very easily.
Sounds like Ken is an expert when it comes to shooting to tight tolerances. He knows how to work around the limitations of JPEG by shooting within the tolerances of JPEG.
However, attributing bad contrast and poor image quality to the RAW file format because someone did not process the file properly is just plain wrong.
I would add, as an observation, that the side by side samples were not Apples to Apples. The RAW files shown has bad posing of the leg and bad lighting on the model in the first shot, and a bad flash shadow on the wall and bad posing in the second shot. Contrast this with the better lit and better posed model in the JPEG column. An apples to apples comparison would have been to shoot RAW+JPEG and compare images from the same shot.
If you prefer JPEG over RAW because of workflow speed reasons, fine. If you like the way the JPEG looks coming out of camera and don’t want to work RAW into your workflow to produce that same look consistently, fine.
But don’t blame bad processing on the file format.
June 06, 2012 at 11:46 am, Rob Caleffi said:
Absolutely. This article is akin to saying; “I never put my kids in a seatbelt, because I am a super amazing driver who never makes a mistake.”
That is pure arrogance.
WHEN you DO make a mistake, your clients are screwed because you were too super awesome to take some precausions.
Back in the day, there were no seatbelts, and there were no Raw files. You dealt with it… true.
And yes, many new photographers use it as a crutch, I understand your old-school frustration over that.
However, that fact does not mean that the Raw file itself is flawed.
This poor, misleading advice.
Silliness.
June 06, 2012 at 2:12 pm, Ka4wwn said:
Amen. I was going to say that, Deek said it better. I’m not really a pro but give me RAW any day.
June 06, 2012 at 2:13 pm, Dave Gaze said:
Deek is absolutely correct. Ken may like the jpeg result, but it all starts in Raw.
Jpegs are the product of the camera settings. Raw files are not manipulated by the camera. They are RAW. You process the Raw file to produce a better Jpeg than the camera can. The camera has a constant process, where manipulating the raw file has a billion more possibilities.
June 06, 2012 at 2:57 pm, Kotchka said:
Thanks Deek – this is almost exactly what I was thinking as I read this article.