x100 - RAW or JPEG?

[rbelyell]

Originally Posted by gavinlg

Also - I've noticed in Astia mode a tendency to clip shadows a bit - which I actually really like as it reminds me of a positive film scan. Sometimes there's a richness to the astia JPEGs that's really strong and pleasant - like in this photo:

gavin, ive found that astia is to my eye simply a less sharp, slightly less saturated version of 'velvia'. it has been pretty well documented that the velvia setting severly clips shadows, so no surprise astia does also, though less severly. i set 'shadow tone' to 'soft' when shooting velvia, and that seems to alleviate the clipping problem.
tony

[dreilly]

Any thread that starts with an early evocation of Roddy Piper and "They Live", moves on to Ken Rockwell, and then produces this gem from MrbessaR4a:

"The jury was done on RAW in 2006. JPEG is a distribution format, RAW is a capture format. Don't waste your camera and shoot JPEG. It's not archival, it's not full quality, it's not maleable, it's mostly stupid. JPEG is for ebay sales and iPhone cameras."

...is, well, my kind of thread. Incidentally, there is a very good couple of posts on The Online Photographer about just this issue. Worth reading.

I'm a JPEG shooter, so much so that I've sold cameras because their JPEG processing sucks. I come from a slide film background, and never minded working within the constraints of slide, and certainly don't mind the much more considerable lattitude a you can get from a digital file from a camera with a fine JPEG engine (which is Olympus, Epson and Fuji in my book, Canon and Nikon is usable but not particularly endearing).

But I am convince enough by this argument about "losing information" that I will only shoot with an extreme wide-angle fish-eye lens from now on. That way I'm capturing more information and discarding less.

Someone up above wrote:

"Personally, I wish reviews would spend more time assessing in-camera processing..."

I totally agree with this. There are better JPEG engines than others. JPEG engines are like film stock and deserve a little more analysis and experimentation.

I've only had the x100 for a week or so but so far I'm enjoying the JPEGs. I did a shoot last weekend with the x100 and shot RAW+JPEG just to see the difference, and by far I liked what I got from the JPEGs with minor tweaks vs. what I could do in LR3 with the RAWs and much more significant tweaking, which took me more time, and since I don't like postprocessing (and generations of photographers had little to do with pp, the slide shooters I mean), then the less time I spend on that the more I can be out making images. I look for a camera like I would choose for a film stock, something that helps me match my vision. The X100 seems to fit the bill. Any Olympus camera does. The Epson R-D1 had the best I've ever seen.

It really depends on the person. I shoot JPEG. My images end up in a magazine. Others do too. It certainly wasn't decided in 2006.

To directly address the OP's...O.P....I was using Astia with medium-soft shadow and medium highlight, I think the color was bumped up one or two.

cheers
doug

[Deep Fried]

raw. exported from Lightroom as jpeg with no adjustments


In camera jpeg velvia setting

[Deep Fried]

That's why I shoot raw boys and girls. At the end of the day you still get a jpeg but there is a big difference in what that final jpeg looks like

[dreilly]

Deep Fried,
One comparison a successful argument does not make. The Velvia setting is by all accounts not the optimal one.
doug

[Deep Fried]

Originally Posted by dreilly

Deep Fried,
One comparison a successful argument does not make. The Velvia setting is by all accounts not the optimal one.
doug

Loss of detail is the same regardless. The film simulation doesn't alter the amount of compression.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by Deep Fried

That's why I shoot raw boys and girls. At the end of the day you still get a jpeg but there is a big difference in what that final jpeg looks like

Yeah, but sometimes the JPEG looks better than what I can do with the RAW. Actually, a lot of the time!

Also, the JPEGs are a lot better at high ISOs IMO. Even utilizing lightroom 4's very good noise reduction, i can't get the same balance of detail and low noise as the JPEGs seem to be able to...

[Snacks]

I shoot fine+RAW.
I found that some jpegs had excess noise reduction, so I set that to medium-low.

I take many shots but am very selective in those I show to others. I enjoy the editing process, and can take my time over a small number of images. Lightroom makes simple adjustments very easy and quick.

I find sometimes that when editing the RAW image I develop a different opinion about the shot, especially when the jpeg was black and white.

By the way, since I have an older version of Lightroom that does not handle X100 RAW files, I convert to DNG with Adobe's converter first.

[Deep Fried]

Lightroom users never complain about shooting raw. Same amount of work to do as shooting jpeg, but so much to be gained.

[dreilly]

Originally Posted by Deep Fried

Loss of detail is the same regardless. The film simulation doesn't alter the amount of compression.

Loss of detail is not necessarily the result of compression. The image processing engine sometimes sacrifices detail for smoother (less noisy) images, and some poor engines (like the Leica M8's atrocious one) has really redimentary sharpening routines that massacre fine detail. The JPEG engine doesn't have as much data as a raw, that's true, but that's not necessarily detail.

I shot a set of images in Moab, Utah two weeks ago and shot both Raw and JPEG. Most of this set was taken from the JPEGs. I couldn't really tell the difference, but my hard drive could in terms of storage space.

FYI, a few of these images were done with an EPL-3. But the X100 is so fun I mostly used that!

http://www.flickr.com/photos/xenar/s...7629702885549/

[Deep Fried]

Its all good. There is no right answer. That's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

Raw has saved so many family photos shot indoors with mixed lighting it is worth it to me just to be able to fix white balance. Our house has built in halogen track lights, compact flourescent lamps and I like to shoot flash Living at a northern latitude means its dark for many waking hours in the winter. Sometimes the kids end up as blue aliens and I sure can't create custom white balance settings while they are running around like wild rabbits. The same thing applies to weddings in dim churches and receptions with DJ lighting. For me, it is as easy to use raw in lightroom as to not and huge hard drives are cheap like borscht these days. So for me, I would never consider jpeg again. I will however let others do it but I will be kind enough to let them know there is a better wayJ/K

I came to these conclusions by testing the differences for myself, for my work using my processing methods. I can certainly understand how someone else could do there own analysis and arrive at the opposite conclusion. I also enjoy a friendly debate, so I may not stop arguing. Hope that makes sense and no hard feelings!

Cheers,
Jeff

[Deep Fried]

when I got my X100 I tested jpeg vs raw instead of just doing raw as I had always done with nikon dslrs. The test that really made up my mind was our carpet and upholstery. Low contrast, high iso fabrics/textiles turn into mush with the X100 jpeg engine. Iso 1600+ jpegs with DR on gives great shadows but it can't compete on the fabrics and things like wood grain and hair. I saw a huge difference. I see the same difference in landscape for things like fields of wheat or grass.

[zvos1]

Thanks for the info Jeff, I'll make sure I use raw next time I take shots of my carpet at 1600iso :-)))
Jokes aside I think Nick is onto something here...

My belief is that jpeg vs raw debate is mostly psychological..we photographers whether pros or amateurs in our quest for perfection can't stand the fact that some data is discarded whether we really need it or not. In my opinion it really matters only in extreme conditions...
Someone said above "but what if I take a best shot of my life and it's jpeg and not raw". If that "best shot of your life" really depends on whether it is raw or jpeg I can tell you that it is not much of a shot, a shot that has no much substance...

[Deep Fried]

'striving for perfection'

or

'good enough'

if 'good enough' really were, we would all use our cell phones and leica would never sell a single lens. Maybe film shooters should time developer with a sundial? That would be good enough I bet. I also suggest that slide film is a waste of time. C41 is good enough.

PS, my carpet portraits are very special to me. They record a special moment in time that can never be repeated. That spot has a cranberry juice stain now, and those magical images are the only memory I have of that piece of carpet now. I would be inconsolable if they were merely jpegs.

[Richard G]

I haven't yet tried raw With the X100 except for two shots, when I pressed the raw button. The truth is I didn't notice the effect of that the first time I did it. When I got an M9 and Lightroom I knew I had to shoot raw. I took some shots. I linked the camera to the computer and imported the images. Instead of header text and a whole slew of 1s and 0s I saw some lovely images! I really had no idea what shooting raw might entail. It's nothing. I was scared of it through complete ignorance. It's not all my fault. Everyone says you really ought to shoot raw in such a tone of voice that there is this implication that all the extra work, which you'll eventually get used to, will be worth it, in the end, most likely.

Just thought I'd post this for raw v jpeg thread lurkers like me who might still be wondering.

[Bill Clark]

In my mind:

RAW is like undeveloped film.

You develop the RAW file with your computer & software.

Lots more info. and latitude making RAW files.

Don't need to be concerned with white balance and other things the camera can do as this is put on the files when processed by the camera into:

JPEG

I think of as a Polaroid. The camera (computer & software) is making the decisions for you.

Less control of the final outcome.

Only get to work on 8 bit files, at least that's what I've been told! Always have captured in RAW! Gotta have lots of sunscreen tho! HA!

Can work where constant conditions are present like a studio.

In summary, RAW works for me as I'm making photos with many different conditions at gigs I get hired to do. It's my workflow.
I also make DNG of each photo I make at each gig.

Card sizes, hard drives more and more capacity, costs are going down. It doesn't make economic sense to make in camera JPEGS because of capacity.

My 2 cents.

Hope this helps.

[maggieo]

I shoot Raw, but for obvious color keeper shots, I hit the RAW button and have the X100 do up a JPEG version of the shot cooked to my liking. Sometimes I use the OOC JEPG, sometimes I use it for a guide.

[Dektol Dan]

RAW often gives you what you need to cast aside, non just compensate for: compression, noise filtering, incompatible color saturation from pixel to pixel, and with digital sensors when compared with film very poor gray scale rendering. Digital is all about compromised color and color contrast.

Every film scanner I have ever owned worked with less headaches when I used the software shipped with it. The folks who made them did them homework.

The same applies with JPEG in digital cameras. JPEG has improved tremendously over the years. I was using scanners when JPEG was in its infancy, and it just ain't the same.

JPEG works on the notion that software can compress image areas more that have less information, like a blue sky.
I don't want to waste my time with that!

It's like the RAW folks want me to go back to the world before digital ICE. Sure I can do it better by hand, but for God's sake, WHY?

[Deep Fried]

Originally Posted by Dektol Dan

RAW often gives you what you need to cast aside, non just compensate for: compression, noise filtering, incompatible color saturation from pixel to pixel, and with digital sensors when compared with film very poor gray scale rendering. Digital is all about compromised color and color contrast.

Every film scanner I have ever owned worked with less headaches when I used the software shipped with it. The folks who made them did them homework.

The same applies with JPEG in digital cameras. JPEG has improved tremendously over the years. I was using scanners when JPEG was in its infancy, and it just ain't the same.

JPEG works on the notion that software can compress image areas more that have less information, like a blue sky.
I don't want to waste my time with that!

It's like the RAW folks want me to go back to the world before digital ICE. Sure I can do it better by hand, but for God's sake, WHY?

sometimes the camera gets it right, but sometimes it gets it wrong! I always get it the way I want when I make the decisions. Nothing wrong with Jpegs. My end result for print or publish is still a jpeg, but I control how it gets turned into one.

[boomguy57]

I shoot RAW+Fine. The JPEGs are really great out of the camera, but there are often shots that I am glad that I have RAW so I have more latitude to work with the files once I have them on my computer.