UNDERSTANDING DIGITAL EXPOSURE:

Part 1: Exposure Reduction for Highlight Retention
Part 2: Digital Exposure & Noise
Part 3: When Blocked-up Shadows Aren’t Really
Part 4: Take a Balanced Approach to White Balance
Part 5: Dynamic Range
Part 6: Extending the Tonal Range
Part 7: What’s the Real Difference Between RAW and JPEG?

GENERAL:

1) COST-EFFECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHY
2) CONTROL THE RANGE OF FOCUS
3) IMAGE INTERPOLATION
4) LOSE THE DEAD SHOTS
5) SCANNING 35MM FILM
6) THE RAW vs. JPEG DEBATE…
7) IS PHOTOGRAPHY EASY?
8) MUST EVERYTHING HAVE AN ADOBE SLANT?
9) A CAMERA TO PAINT WITH
10) WHAT'S THIS COMPOSITION THING ABOUT?

The RAW vs. JPEG Debate…

“Who needs JPG except websites? The only format is RAW…”

Yawn… Zzzzzzzz...

It's not a debate – it's a choice, but you wouldn't think so when you listen to some photographers. The above comment was a response to one of my infrequent forum posts. I've come across many comments like this. They typify the wonky mindset of many who religiously shoot and process RAW and RAW only for serious work – and can't understand why everybody else doesn't do the same. Do they really know their subject? I have to wonder.

On another forum where this subject was being debated someone chimed in with something like, “Why are we even debating this? Of course RAW is best. Of course we should all be shooting RAW.” This arrogant elitism hardly brings balance to the discussion. In fact, it's downright misleading, particularly for conscientious amateurs who are trying to make key decisions about digital photography based on their own needs and circumstances.

Just last night I read online that “one of the main reasons given” for buying a particular camera is the inclusion of RAW as a shooting option. So, in the minds of many, this camera is actually undesirable without the RAW format. (Don't tell anybody, but I have this camera and don't shoot RAW.) Has RAW reached this incredibly lofty status on merit alone, or is there more to it?

For years now I've been bemused and irritated by this rumbling ‘debate'. It all started back in 2003 when, as a dedicated amateur I processed images from JPEG and RAW files and found that I had similar flexibility in both. For the vast majority of my images, clear and irresistible RAW processing advantages proved impossible to find.

I'm happy to shoot JPEG most of the time. It suits me and I'm pleased with the results I can see in my prints that are usually made from JPEGs sent to the lab over an Internet connection. For most of my work, RAW wouldn't take me any further.

A few years ago I had an opportunity to respond to a forum post by Michael Tapes (RAWworkflow.com) who, in my humble opinion, responded in turn with a less than convincing marketing-speak spiel eulogising the RAW format, a format he has a vested interest in ($!). I wish him well and many millions of dollars below his bed. But he won't get a penny from me.

Among those who favour RAW is Mr Reichmann of The Luminous Landscape fame. I generally like his approach and appreciate his expert input. However, I'd suggest that because he spends so much time jumping in and out of bed (figuratively speaking) with Tapes and Thomas Knoll (the Adobe person), it's hard not to imagine a hint of bias. Maybe this is a disservice. Maybe…

I'm reminded of something he once said: “”If anyone tells you that in-camera jpgs are sufficient, tell them to go to the back of the class.” Well, there are quite a few back here and some empty seats up front.

You can colour-correct images shot in JPEG. You can process them in a wide variety of ways while still retaining an original “JPEG Negative”. (The term Digital Negative is an unfortunate one.) You can tone JPEGs down in-camera to provide a more neutral foundation for software processing using a variety of tools – I've done this many, many times, with adjustment layers, masks, and other fundamental tools like Curves and Levels. There's usually no need for heavy, data-damaging manipulation that leaps out at you in the prints.

These photographs are tonally sound, although in my case the content may be lacking. Our goal for each shot is proper digital exposure that can be verified in reasonably healthy histograms. After intelligently shooting our images so we make the most of the tonal range we move on to applying careful processing techniques wherever the image needs them most. The second phase of digital photography happens when our images are fine-tuned and perfected.

A lot of people new to digital photography are thinking about what format to shoot. I wonder if dubious forum posts are browbeating them. Are they reading glowing essays that indirectly have their source in RAW-espousing companies who are compromised by profit-making considerations?

RAW's touted advantages are often packaged in a way that indirectly (I hope) undermines JPEG processing. So the strengths and overall usefulness of JPEGs rarely get a mention. And time and time and time again we hear, “Why throw away all that extra data?”

Some time ago I came across a website run by a really good pro. But I found myself at odds with his comments on RAW. I thought to myself, “Oh no. Here we go. The same old tune”:

“Shoot in RAW mode – I often come across digital photographers who shoot all their images in Jpeg. This makes it easy to process the images, sure, but also means that you're throwing away valuable image quality every time you take a shot… Jpeg's compress the image by throwing away information, so leave them for family snaps only…” He comes across as a nice bloke. He creates very good work (and I'm jealous!) but this generalisation is way too problematic to hold water.

“Easy to process [JPEGs]”? Why should it be? “Leave them for family snaps.” Really? I regularly process to TIFFs from original JPEGs and I can tell you from much experience that there are times when it's very demanding work. But the results are worth it. The processing of JPEGs (saved to other formats) can be a prolonged and involved procedure if needs be, and it doesn't necessarily follow that is should be any more 'simplistic' than RAW editing and conversion. I just can't grasp this rationale!

And there is another more pressing issue for pros. Many prefer the more cost-effective workflow simply because time is money: “…I was looking around the websites of some professional photographers who use digital cameras to see if they had any words to say on the topic of RAW Vs JPG. What I learned surprised me. Quite a number of them shoot in JPG mode rather than RAW format. The reason is time” (Gary Nugent, photographer).

Let's get away from this silly debate. It's time we stopped pontificating about RAW and JPEG. It's about a reasoned choice that's based on personal situations, goals and preferences. If you honestly think that shooting JPEGs results in inferior images, then you haven't grasped the key issues involved. If you think converted JPEGs can't be processed to very high standards, then you've been misinformed.

You've lost your way if you think “the only format is RAW.”

“Both formats are capable of the highest quality images… Unfortunately tech folks push Raw without consideration as to how photographers like to work…” (Rob Sheppard).

“In the end, it doesn't really matter which format you choose to shoot in, as long as it is right for the kind of photography you do – you might find you switch from RAW to JPEG depending on the subject matter. The only way to satisfy yourself about the debate is to try both modes and see what works for you” (Steve Young, Outdoor Photography).

"Why should you consider shooting RAW instead of JPEG? The answer... is mainly one of flexibility, with a few quality issues thrown in as well... a JPEG is a compressed file whereas a RAW file... contains pure uncompressed data... Whether this loss of data causes the JPEG to be to be visually inferior to the RAW file is subject to debate and I have made a number of tests that demonstrate that, although on paper there should be a difference, in reality there is very little visible difference.... a RAW file has more dynamic range than a JPEG, which cannot be directly seen. But when you start to make colour corrections to your images, you will soon see that a RAW file has more tones to play with and therefore you can correct them with a higher degree of accuracy and control" (Andy Rouse, Understanding RAW Photography).

home | Personal Pages