RAW vs Jpeg (All in one thread)

Um, no?

The fact that JPGs are, by design, lossy immediately dismisses them has having any potential to do so. We don't like throwing away data.

Besides, the JPG algorithm isn't improving at all; it's set in concrete. And starting with (arguably) better data doesn't change how it works. It can't improve.

I thought there was an update on JPEG quality last year? 

Ira Weber wrote: I thought there was an update on JPEG quality last year? 

There was.   www.slrlounge.com/jpeg-gets-major-update-now-rival-raw-tiff

But it doesn't change things.  JPEG is still lossy.  I want all the data that my camera captures.

Oh god not this again

It's never gonna stop! 

hghlndr6 wrote:

Ira Weber wrote: I thought there was an update on JPEG quality last year? 

There was.   www.slrlounge.com/jpeg-gets-major-update-now-rival-raw-tiff

But it doesn't change things.  JPEG is still lossy.  I want all the data that my camera captures.

I'll take "Worthless Articles" for $100, Alex.

The first photo, showing a RAW image next to a JPG, is supposed to impress us? Only those that don't understand what they're looking at. And the second comparing a PS-produced JPG to a camera-produced JPG shows that The RAW starting point produces a superior image on every count. "Rival RAW and TIFF"? I don't think so.

Why god, why?

Scotty wrote: Why god, why?

Because Jpg has an inferiority complex and will always challenge it's big brother, RAW.

Scotty wrote: Why god, why?

Because, apparently, it's considered impolite to suggest that the OP go and actually research the issue before posting questions that have been addressed before, repeatedly, almost ad nauseum.

It continues to amaze me that anyone would choose to not do even the least bit of homework before posting any question at all. I mean, really, are search engines that hard to use? So we take the question at face value and address it. Even if it's the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) verse of a very familiar song. Since digital bits never really go away, perhaps this will actually benefit someone else, someday. Maybe.

Or not.

garyrhook wrote:

Scotty wrote: Why god, why?

Because, apparently, it's considered impolite to suggest that the OP go and actually research the issue before posting questions that have been addressed before, repeatedly, almost ad nauseum.

It continues to amaze me that anyone would choose to not do even the least bit of homework before posting any question at all. I mean, really, are search engines that hard to use? So we take the question at face value and address it. Even if it's the 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) verse of a very familiar song. Since digital bits never really go away, perhaps this will actually benefit someone else, someday. Maybe.

Or not.

If everyone just used google, what would we talk about

Hassner wrote:

Scotty wrote: Why god, why?

Because Jpg has an inferiority complex and will always challenge it's big brother, RAW.

We have a WINNER! 

My question would be, how do you pronounce "GIF"?

Honestly I feel if you are willing to take the time to edit your photos than you should always shoot in raw but if you're one to just want a good photo and you don't want to edit anything than shoot in Jpeg and understand your cameras setting. Make sure you have a proper WB, ISO, Shutter speed, Picture control/style. Your camera is an awesome computer and if you adjust it correctly then your photos will come out great. 

I shoot in RAW myself but I will tell you that after I get home from a vacation and I go through all of my files, sometimes 1,000s I very side tracked with editing all of them and sometimes it will be months later when I actually show them. So if you shoot in RAW don't procrastinate or else the next thing you know your going on another trip before you even finished editing your last trips photos. This is also where the RAW/JPEG choice comes in but then your just even more so planning to procrastinate. 

Everyone is correct with saying you have more control and manipulation but just ask yourself first, do I want to work for these shots after I take them or do I just want to take them.

garyrhook wrote:

hghlndr6 wrote:

Ira Weber wrote: I thought there was an update on JPEG quality last year? 

There was.   www.slrlounge.com/jpeg-gets-major-update-now-rival-raw-tiff

But it doesn't change things.  JPEG is still lossy.  I want all the data that my camera captures.

I'll take "Worthless Articles" for $100, Alex.

The first photo, showing a RAW image next to a JPG, is supposed to impress us? Only those that don't understand what they're looking at. And the second comparing a PS-produced JPG to a camera-produced JPG shows that The RAW starting point produces a superior image on every count. "Rival RAW and TIFF"? I don't think so.

The jpeg 9.1 format being talked about on that site is not being used in the photo examples. It is not available. It is supposed to rival RAW if it becomes adopted widely because it has 12 bit color rather than the normal 8 bit and it can be lossless.

Curiously, RAW is also lossless compression (Nikon once described it as 'visually lossless'  ) so the 'benefits' over RAW could only really be in the universal aspect of the jpeg format which would then be virtually equivalent to a TIFF file but smaller. As per the announcement, the universal adoption is currently nil . 

I can't believe this is even a topic, if JPEG 9.1 lives up to it's name then you will likely see a firmware update for your camera come out. Until then it's RAW.