RAW & Image Quality (Food for Thought)

[jonrayner]

Hi All

I have just been on a course with Experience Seminars (for Canon Camera Users) and apart from teaching me almost everything I need to know about my camera, it also opened my eyes to a lot of things.

Before going into the course, I was adament that RAW is the way to go (better image quality), and it still maybe for some people. However on the course I was taught that the Canon JPEG compression is so good that it rivals RAW in quality, so much so that Getty images will only except images in a RAW format AND JPEG FINE from Canon EOS cameras. Now if it is good enough for them, then I figured that it would be good enough for me, plus I can fit a whole lot more images on to a memory card!

The only thing that worries me, and I am yet to test this out, is that when shooting RAW, it was very easy to amend the colour balance when converting the image. I am not sure whether I can do this as easily when in JPEG. However, and this is the bit I need to test, with the camera comes some free software (DPP) which you can use to amend the picture styles after the shot has been taken, so I thought that if I can do this, I might be able to amend the JPEGs with it as well. With the software being free, I dismissed it and plumped straight for the Photoshop Elements, but after this course, I am going to try out this software!

Also with JPEG's in mind, when shooting in JPEG on the Canon, you have certain picture styles. I have always left it in Standard mode, thinking that the picture styles were a bit of a gimic and thus leaving it in Standard mode would not affect my images. It transpires that the Canon camera (not sure if it is the same in other camera's) actually processes the image in-camera, thus if you are going to do some post-processing, then you would be processing the image twice, thus degrading the image. If you shot in Neutral or Faithful style, then there is no in-camera processing, thus when getting to Photoshop, this would be the first time the image is processed!

So after my ramble, I come to the conclusion that I am going to shoot in JPEG fine with a neutral or faithful picture style, thus giving me good quality images that do not take up as much space as RAW. Also I do not need to convert my RAW images to be able to use them. The only doubt left is the ability to amend the colour balance in the PC software, but I shall find out!

If you got his far, thank you for listening, what do you think?!

[dkippen]

Jon -

I would be very interested in your results as I have a Canon as well. Currently, I shoot in RAW the PP with Adobe's Camera Raw. I knew about the picture styles, but have never really used them. This will also be of further interest since I just sprung for Adobe Lightroom as I've seen and heard the amazing results you can get. After reading your post, I think this may not have been a necessary purchase.

I look forward to your test results. BTW - was this an online course or a local event you attended?? If online, this might be interesting for me as well.

[jerryph]

Honestly, it sounded more like an attempt to push the validity of their software for newbies more than a genuine argument for RAW vs JPG.

Here are my 5 main reasons why JPG will never outdo RAW, but I will also give a good reason why you still need JPG.

Reason #1:
You will NEVER get white balance adjusted as accurately or as easily with JPG as you will with RAW. In the RAW file, you directly affect the WB with a simple slider in Adobe Camera RAW. Of course that means that you need an Adobe product like LightRoom, Elements or of course, Photoshop. In Adobe Camera RAW, it is a simple slider. If one was serious and tried to get it to be done as accurately in JPG, it could take anywhere from minutes to hours instead of seconds. Ah, but we have camera settings, yes? Yes you do. Sorry to tell you, but they are all compromises. No one setting is accurate for all conditions. It may get you closer, but personally, I won't settle for closer when "spot on" is a 3 second slider adjustment away. This way I never need to worry about WB. I shoot in auto WB and adjust later... if it is needed, becuase on most modern digital cameras, AUTO comes very close to "spot on" 75% of the time.

Reason #2:
Generational losses. There is a reason JPG is called a LOSSY format and RAW files are called LOSSLESS. Everytime you re-resave a JPG file, a little amount of data is lost due to the compression. Visual artfacts can start to present themselves in as little as 3 re-saves according to tests I have done with my own eyes. This information is forever gone and unrecoverable.

Reason #3:
Using ACR (Adobe Camera RAW), I can get some amazing increases in sharpness that is worlds better visually than if I am trying to sharpen a JPG file. This is totally understandable. Sharpening is the manipulation of light and dark contrasting areas in a given picture. A RAW file just has a LOT more information to work with than a compressed JPG file. Sure, you can sharpen a JPG file, I have done it many times successfully, but it all comes down to QUALITY. The results you get when you sharpen a RAW file are superior to the results you get trying to sharpen a JPG file. Sharpening a JPG makes it look grainier compared to that same file sharpned in RAW.

Reason #4:
Many camera companies include data in their RAW files that is impossible to place into a JPG file. Things like:
- white balance settings
- sharpness settings
- saturation settings
- contrast
- copyright notifications
- and a ton more.

I am not sure about Canon, but Nikon software has the ability to directly access and change these settings in the RAW file. The changes do two things, first it gives you the ability to play with your camera settings "off line" and see the advantages. This means that the next time you set your camera, you will KNOW what a +2 sharpness increase or +1 saturation increase is, what it looks like and if you want it or not. This then saves you time in the post processing, becuase these settings are then the way you want and you do not have to change them later in post processing. The second advantage is that it lets me "change" the camera settings to what I like with NO loss in file data. This information is called "METADATA". These settings are impossible to use if you saved to a JPG format.

Reason #5:
The quality of a RAW file will always be superior. It is impossible to put the same amount of data in a file that is 3-10 times smaller, thats simple physics.

Reason #1 why JPG is needed:
The only two places where JPG files are needed, are for display on the web and sending files to your photolab to get print-outs. Display on the web mandates a smaller file for reasons of display speed. JPG is perfect for that. If your photolab cannot print a lossless format like TIFF (and very few do), you are forced to convert that file to JPG.

-----------------------------------------------------

So there you have it. These are the reasons why I will ALWAYS shoot in nothing but RAW. If it is an image that I will need to do a lot of post processing on, I may convert it to a TIFF, but I will NEVER use JPG unless it is to print out my picture, or to put it on the web. As an added note, I convert any given file into JPG only ONCE. If I need to make changes, I go back to my RAW file or my TIFF file, make the changes and then output another brand new JPG. In this manner, any given JPG generational losses are completely eliminated. This is something that you cannot do if your original file is JPG format.

Hope this helped! :)