EOS20 wrote:
Jpeg throws away pixels so the quality is just not going to ever be as good as a RAW\TIFF, I would rather shoot Raw and convert to jpeg becuse you have the RAW File there for future use!
You'll find that a properly exposed Jpeg file will print just as good as a properly exposed RAW file of the same scene. So long as the jpeg compression is low, you're not really going to see a difference. Be careful with your statement regarding future use..... how far into the future do you plan on being able to convert your RAW files? Jpeg and Tiff files will be around a VERY long time, but can anyone gurantee you that Canon will continue to support the RAW files 20 years from now? I have already owned one early canon digital camera which I can no longer convert the RAW files. I don't have the original software anymore, and canon does not support this format. If you want to archive your shots for future use, convert a TIFF and save it alongside your RAW file.
Dave Baker wrote:
What pixels would those be, then?
When a Image is compressed "In camera" the camera determines which pixels to throw away in the process, These "cannot" ever be recovered!
You don't get something for nothing!
If you do a 100% Crop of a RAW File converted to a uncompressed TIFF and compare it with a Jpeg image taken streight from the camera you can see how the image has been compressed, The Pixels are more ovious than they are in the TIFF image, The more compression the more pixels are thrown away to give you the compression. More compression = More pixilation which then limits how large a image can be printed. For newspapers and some magazines this is fine as most images arn't that big, But for someone who wants to print out Posters oviously a TIFF would be a better option.
There is nothing wrong with shooting a jpeg, But if you plan to do serious editing to the image then it would not be a good option as the more your edit\save a jpeg the more you diminish the quality of the image. Thats why TIFF's are prefered as you don't loose much quality even from heavy editing compared to a jpeg image.
Bearing in mind the quality of the publication (assuming by PJ we mean newspapers) would it make the slightest difference whether or not you used RAW (apart from recovering from gross exposure errors?)
Not really, But don't forget If you shoot in RAW you could sell images to stock Librarys or to publications who need the extra quality of a TIFF.
Jpegs also have the advantage of being quicker to transfer and recive, This means it won't take forever to send a image back to the office, expecally if you have a slow conection when out in the feild.
EOS20 wrote:
When a Image is compressed "In camera" the camera determines which pixels to throw away in the process, These "cannot" ever be recovered!
What Dave was getting at is that JPEG does not actually "throw pixels away." No pixels are lost in the process of making a JPEG.
The JPEG compression process is considerably more complex than implied here. Instead of storing distinct data about each and every pixel, the JPEG algorithm stores generalized data about groups of pixels. It is a lossy format, in that the distinct data for each pixel is not stored. But it does not throw away pixels. Instead, each individual pixel will be described in more general terms. If the compression ratio of the JPEG is very high (i.e., very small files on disk), then a lot of information will be lost and what is retained will be significantly different than the original data. This will be instantly noticeable in the image.
However, if the compression ratio of the JPEG is relatively low (i.e. large files on disk), then the difference between the JPEG-compressed image and the original image will be very small -- so small in some cases that nobody would be able to tell the difference side-by-side to a TIFF converted from RAW with the same settings as were used in-camera.
If you do a 100% Crop of a RAW File converted to a uncompressed TIFF and compare it with a Jpeg image taken streight from the camera you can see how the image has been compressed
No, you can't -- and I know because I've done the experiment myself. If the JPEGs are done in-camera at their highest quality setting (superfine), and the photo is exposed properly in non-wacky color temperature light, the difference between a high-quality JPEG and a RAW file converted to TIFF with the same settings is impossible to see in a side-by-side comparison.
I would set up an experiment to demonstrate this, but all images destined for web display would be JPEGs anyway. You can try it yourself. Take a photo with your camera set to RAW + Large JPEG. Make sure it's a properly-exposed photo in decent light and that the color temperature setting is appropriate. Convert the RAW file to TIFF using the same exact settings in the Canon RAW converter that you had the camera set for to produce the JPEG, then compare the two photos at 100% in Photoshop. Even better would be if somebody else did this part and masked the filenames before you made the comparison, so the test is blind.
But if you plan to do serious editing to the image then it would not be a good option as the more your edit\save a jpeg the more you diminish the quality of the image.
Yes... this is the biggest advantage of RAW over JPEG -- the ability to edit in a non-lossy format. Every time you save a JPEG the data is recompressed. Multiple JPEG saves compounds the loss at each save.
paulhodson wrote:
But can't you do the saves in a non lossy format like PSD while editing?
You can, of course. It's just that you're starting with a file that has already experienced one generation of JPEG algorithm data loss. It should be a very minor loss, as described above -- but for editing purposes I'd prefer to start with the original data when possible.
Seems to be a good choice to me. For a pro being the first means to get the copyright fee, being second won't bring anything at all. If a pro photographer doesn't meet deadlines the same is true. So conversion and postprocessing time often takes too much. OTOH, I also know a lot of editors and publishers who have high quality standards and have the conversion and postprocessing done at the newspaper editing department. They will accept RAWs with no problem. Then again, according to my experience, cropping without the consent of the author seems to be their favorite hobby Talk about throwing away pixels...
Anyway, choose whatever fits to your needs. I do 95% RAW and only a very few events in JPG.
I've found that it's mostly only internet message board geeks who shoot RAW. Most come for a technology background, as opposed to a photography background. I, and every single pro I've ever met and shot with, shoot only JPEG.
teriba wrote:
I've found that it's mostly only internet message board geeks who shoot RAW. Most come for a technology background, as opposed to a photography background. I, and every single pro I've ever met and shot with, shoot only JPEG.
teriba wrote:
I've found that it's mostly only internet message board geeks who shoot RAW. Most come for a technology background, as opposed to a photography background. I, and every single pro I've ever met and shot with, shoot only JPEG.
Makes sense that PJ's shoot JPG. If I were in the same boat, I would shoot RAW+JPG for future archivalness, as well as the ability to rework an image if I got it dead wrong, but was a pulitzer prize winning candidate.
I used to shoot jpeg, but I've switched to raw. Why? Because my photography skills suck, and sometimes I need all the help I can get.
I have a 10D, and there are certain things about that camera that, quite frankly, drive me crazy. I can take the exact same image, seconds apart, with the exact same settings, and the resulting photos look different. Colors will differ ... contrast will differ. Very frustrating.
So, I switched to raw, because I can save some photos that I otherwise would probably throw away. As I get better (I'm not holding my breath), I'll probably switch back to jpeg.
teriba wrote:
I've found that it's mostly only internet message board geeks who shoot RAW. Most come for a technology background, as opposed to a photography background. I, and every single pro I've ever met and shot with, shoot only JPEG.
Isnt the very fact your on an internet message board and debating RAW vs JPEG enough to you one of those so called geeks as well ?
I wouldnt knock those from the technology backgrounds either because they are to thank for the very JPEG and digital camera technology your using today.
teriba wrote:
I've found that it's mostly only internet message board geeks who shoot RAW. Most come for a technology background, as opposed to a photography background. I, and every single pro I've ever met and shot with, shoot only JPEG.
While I dont know that I would have put it as bluntly as that, for once I actually agree with Mike.
I work as an assitant with several photograhers and I am around pros all the time on my shooting assignments, and apart from a small handful of them, none of them shoot RAW.
I know one or two guys that insist on RAW, but in the end I dont find their photos have anything on my jpeg captures (apart from their photographic skills and composition).
While I wont argue whether RAW retains more info (we all know that is the case and in many cases can certainly help) I dont believe that a well taken jpeg at the highest quality setting will be noticable AT ALL in final print.
When I shoot jpeg they are always saved as a .psd during processing (if I have to stop and come back later, such as poster designs etc.) and in the end they are re-saved as a tiff for their final printing. This ensures that only the very first jpeg compression will have any affect on the information.
Like the other poster mentioned, I have done the side-by-sides, and even as a 24x36" poster, I could not tell the difference between something captured as a jpeg and something captured as a tiff or RAW.
Why do I shoot jpeg. Ease of working with them and size of storage. While memory is cheap, I already carry almost 6 gigs worth of cards per day on a shoot and upon completion of an assignment a couple weeks ago, had 5 DVDs worth of jpegs stored. With RAW files running about 3 times the size of the jpegs I'm capturing, carrying around 18 gigs worth of cards or burning 15 DVDs per weekend seems a little crazy.
Until I or a client notices some huge difference between jpeg and RAW, jpeg it is. I would put money on the fact that I could hand about anyone on this board two prints and they would not be able to tell the difference either.
BrianC & FretNoMore -- Actually it is a little tricky but well worth the price. Another little known fact, strange as it may seem, is that the pixels lost in .jpegs are really transformed into RAW pixels as a by-product. So to get them in color values, you have to use special INVERTER software. There is an idiot savant from Madagascar, that offers a free trial (good for two years) package. I wil PM you the address. Keep in mind that the RAW pixels are opposite of what you want, so you will have to figure each pixels' reciprocal value and apply it on a one-to-one basis.
BE CAREFULL - I used this method on a beautiful swimsuit model and it turned out as a sepia print (she also developed a heavy moustache).
Talk about throwing away pixels... 
You just opened a can of worms! 
