GRAPHIC: Why you should shoot in RAW

[ohkphoto]

Data on a pc though is saved as binary values....and it doesn't matter whether that refers to numbers, words, pictures or whatever, it's simply not possible for pictures saved on a pc to degrade each time they're viewed.

I don't think I buy this. I understand that binary values are the basis of computer "language". But the data is still written to a "hard drive" which is just another "disc" that looks like a glorified version of a CD. A jpeg file looks the same whether it's on the computer's storage space or on a CD, at least to me. Or is there a "secret" place somewhere in the computer where this "jpeg" is permanently stored as a binary file? I have had data files go bad on the computer . . . they could not be opened. I've also had registries get messed up and other stuff go awry. Are you saying that the "1's" and "0's" can never be 'accidently' transposed or eliminated? My apologies if this sounds simplistic. Just my opinion and I'm always willing to learn.

 

[pforsell]

This entire discussion has ignored the fact that jpegs degrade every time they are opened.

The degradation is small but cumulative. If you have photos that you want to stay pristine, use raw.

Simple as that.

Your wording is not completely accurate. Reading or opening a file does nothing to it, but you are correct that every time a file is re-saved as a JPEG, degradation may take place because the JPEG compression algorithm is run to the image before the data is written back to the disc.

You may open (aka view) the image as many times as you like, the data will be intact.

 

[Eduard]

Your wording is not completely accurate. Reading or opening a file does nothing to it, but you are correct that every time a file is re-saved as a JPEG, degradation may take place because the JPEG compression algorithm is run to the image before the data is written back to the disc.

You may open (aka view) the image as many times as you like, the data will be intact.

Correct. Reading has no effect on image quality.

 

[AxeMan - Rick S.]

This entire discussion has ignored the fact that jpegs degrade every time they are opened.

(Or as posted in a later post every time a JPG is saved)


Ok, trying to stay on topic here, let me throw this out. My basic workflow: LR for adjustments, CS5 for Cropping (I don't like LR cropping tool), High Pass Filter, and maybe some image removal. Back to LR for Watermark, and maybe Noise Reduction and a little Tweaking.

My question is am I losing something bouncing back and forth between LR and CS5 doing this?

Or did I miss something in CS5 that I can send a RAW file to LR?

Trying to understand and learn

 

[Eduard]

Rick: Your work in LR is non-destructive. When you go to PS CS5, you're most likely creating a TIFF file. Your PS CS5 edits are to this file and are commited when you save the file. When you re-import the TIFF back to LR, any additional changes are non-destructive to the TIFF. This process results in at least two files: 1) the original NEF, 2) the TIFF and 3) possibly a sidecar XMP.

Take a look at your LR external editing preferences and you'll probably see that you're sending your files to PS CS5 as a TIFF. You don't actually send a RAW file to PS CS5.

The aren't losing anything with this approach but you are creating additional files. Personally, I try to minimize the editing in PS (or other plug-ins and editors) if possible.

Check out this site for a nice video tutorial on LR to PS editing.

 

[Browncoat]

Your wording is not completely accurate. Reading or opening a file does nothing to it, but you are correct that every time a file is re-saved as a JPEG, degradation may take place because the JPEG compression algorithm is run to the image before the data is written back to the disc.

You may open (aka view) the image as many times as you like, the data will be intact.

The above is 100% accurate.

The JPEG file format is lossy compressive, meaning that whenever it is saved, data is compressed to save space. Each time that is done, data (aka pixels) is permanently lost. JPEG is not suitable where extreme quality standards must be met or where multiple edits need to be performed for this very reason.

 

[bluenoser]

For me, aside from the memory eating monster that RAW files can be I see no reason not to shoot RAW other than the special circumstances previously mentioned (but I'm not a sports photographer working on tight deadlines, etc).

A few years ago I used to be intimidated by the thought of shooting RAW (thought only pros needed to do that and also didn't want to get familiar with more in-depth PP programs) and I let my intimidation convince me that RAW was unnecessary and inconvenient and that JPEG was the way to go .

The common thought that RAW is for the "serious" photographer and JPEG for the newbie or casual photog.is misplaced. When you think about it, the irony is that RAW should be especially appealing to less experienced shooters. Why? Because it's the RAW format that is more forgiving and allows for mistakes (exposure, WB, etc.) to be made by the shooter which can be more easily corrected in post work. In effect JPEG is the more demanding format as you have to ensure you get the important aspects of an image correct at the get go. You just don't have the latitude to - for example - push the shadow areas in any meaningful way during post with JPEG.

Are beautiful images possible to capture with JPEG? Absolutely. However the *best* images are more likely to be captured through RAW and post-work.

. . . though I have to admit I didn't expect such a lively discussion!

Really? RAW v. JPEG?? I'm not sure I buy that! This issue is arguably one of the biggest - if not the biggest - hand grenades you can throw into a photography forum along with "filter or no-filter" and "primes vs. zooms".

I must say I'm relieved that this thread hasn't gone off the tracks like so many other RAW v. JPEG debates on other forums like dpreview, etc..

 

[Carolina Photo Guy]

I tried my best to de-rail it, but no one would bite!

Blame all them serious folks out there.

Dang party poopers!!

 

[bluenoser]

I tried my best to de-rail it, but no one would bite!

Blame all them serious folks out there.

Dang party poopers!!

LOL! You're a real hoot Pete! Love your sense of humour!

 

[Eduard]

Really? RAW v. JPEG?? I'm not sure I buy that! This issue is arguably one of the biggest - if not the biggest - hand grenades you can throw into a photography forum along with "filter or no-filter" and "primes vs. zooms".

I must say I'm relieved that this thread hasn't gone off the tracks like so many other RAW v. JPEG debates on other forums like dpreview, etc..

I thought we had beat that horse to death already. . . but as my Canadian friends would say, "I guess we had a dead moose on the table". . . .

 

[Eduard]

I tried my best to de-rail it, but no one would bite!

Was that your entry into this week's challenge?

 

[Carolina Photo Guy]

Was that your entry into this week's challenge?

It can't be. No picture!

 

[bluenoser]

I thought we had beat that horse to death already. . .

You'd sure think so after all this time debating that issue. However whichever forum I visit, the issue inevitably gets raised (about a thousand times) and a free-for-all breaks out!

...but as my Canadian friends would say, "I guess we had a dead moose on the table". . . .

LOL! It's against the law to beat a moose to death in Canada
View attachment 4806

 

[ohkphoto]

It's against the law to beat a moose to death in Canada

Crap! I misread it as "mouse" . . . got really concerned about Canada . . . guess I better put my glasses on

 

[Browncoat]

I must say I'm relieved that this thread hasn't gone off the tracks like so many other RAW v. JPEG debates on other forums like dpreview, etc..

Are you happy now?

 

[bluenoser]

Are you happy now?

Of course Anthony....always...