Jump to content

Are JPEG's worth it?


Daniel D. Teoli Jr.

Recommended Posts

Beside arguing CMOS vs CCD sensors, the camera fondlers like to debate RAW vs JPEG. 'Are JPEG's worth it?' was the title of one of their latest threads on the Rangefinder Forum. I was on that forum years ago, but the control freak that runs it banned me twice. Maybe the last ban was within a week or two of rejoining. So I sucked it up and accepted I just don't fit in. But I still read that forum periodically.

Anyway, RAW and TIFF is better than JPEG...if you plan to post process. If you shoot RAW and don't post process it does not look as good as JPEG, generally speaking. JPEG has been reduced in size as well as auto post processed a smidgen. The auto post processing of JPEG makes it look better than a RAW image not post processed.

Here is their thread on this subject...

https://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173904

For myself, I shoot JPEG and RAW and for scans it is JPEG and TIFF. But for the scan work I do now, I seldom use TIFF anymore. I found JPEG work fine. Plus I work in 8 bit not 16 bit and again it is not an issue at all. Where TIFF comes in is when I have an important image that may be worked on later. So I save it in TIFF and it looses nothing if I need to rework it. And if it was some big job that was very important then maybe I'd go with 16 bit. 

I found the lossy aspect of JPEG is overblown greatly. You can see more of the lossy degradation when working with video software. But for still work, it is just not a big deal.  

Here are 31 generations of JPEG's. You can see how lossy they are. Seldom will you post process an image 31 times, importing and exporting it out of the software. And even if you did...what is the big deal as you can see here? 

https://danieldteolijrarchivalcollection.wordpress.com/2019/05/01/31-generations-of-jpegs-compared/

The deal with TIFF and RAW is it gives you a little more depth or richness in capture so you can monkey with it when pushing an image in post.

Here is an example of a TIFF scan worked for 2-1/2 hours in Lightroom. 

NSFW

https://danielteolijr.wordpress.com/2015/04/12/an-example-of-what-2-12-hours-of-lightroom-can-do-for-a-photograph/

But JPEG is also a decent option if you want to use it. I shot this last week while driving around PA. Pulled in for gas, rolled down the window and boom. Shot it with point and shoot camera. Nothing wrong with it. As long as it is not being blown up for a billboard or needs 2 1/2 hours of Lightroom.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logging_Truck_PA_D.D.Teoli_Jr.jpg

I got about a 10mb image of the truck after post and that is after a heavy crop as well. Click on the image and see the hi res version. Plus I have higher res than what is shown.

I used to shoot everything in RAW and JPEG, even all the snapshots and crap. It got crazy having all that extra material to keep backing up and backing up that was going to eventually be deleted anyway. So I switched over to JPEG for most work and am very happy. Now, if I am out shooting IR flash or street shooting then I'll use RAW and JPEG. Otherwise it is JPEG me. And the only reason I shoot both JPEG and RAW is for editing on the computer where it wont show the RAW image. 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, some fundamental parameters are missing here.

A RAW file cannot be seen by the eye, it cannot be displayed. So it cannot “look good” or “look bad”. It has to be processed in some ways : de-bayering, white balance, and so on. Indeed, there is not such thing as a "RAW image", even if everybody uses this term. There is only "Raw data", that can be processed immediately  in the camera or stored as RAW data to be processed later.  You cannot compare the quality of a RAW and a Jpeg image. You can only compare RAW data processed by a user and the same RAW data processed automatically by a device. And YES, automatic algorithms can do a better job than an inexperienced user. Algorithms may even do as good as an experienced user.

What’s more, in most imaging devices, the automatic algorithm generating the Jpeg will be tweaked by the user. White balance is a tweak. Offsetting green/magenta in the white balance is a tweak. Adjusting ISO is a tweak. Choosing what “picture profile” / ”film simulation” / ”whatever the manufacturer named its tone shaping algorithm” is a tweak. Depending on the camera, adjusting the ISO might change the Jpeg only or both raw data and jpeg image.

On the other hand, the user might process the RAW file externally in LightRoom/CaptureOne/otherApp using the same algorithms as in the camera because the manufacturer made them available. It could even be that the user performs in an external software the exact same processing as in the device, getting exactly the same jpeg image eventually.

Using Jpeg compression-decompression 31 times in a row does not prove anything. What is important is the compression ratio. Compress an image only once with a very high compression ratio and artifacts will already be obvious. This is exactly the same for video, audio, as soon as one use lossy compression. Again, the compression ratio is usually tweakable in a camera, but even the highest ratio is still conservative compared to what will be used to post an image on the internet.

I really do not see the point of a “RAW vs. Jpeg” battle. These are just tools you choose according to your needs, work, motivation… I am a jpeg shooter. I do not want to spend my Sunday afternoon processing family portraits. If I were a pro selling pictures, I would probably shoot Jpeg+RAW: I could then use the RAW data for highest quality work, heavy correction and so on, and I could use the jpeg version to show the client what the picture looks like on the rear screen of the camera.

Edited by Nicolas POISSON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like to shoot RAW and scan film in at TIFF (although I haven't shot  film in a while).

I usually take stills with a deep depth of field (just my preference) so am at f8, f11 or f16. So for example, when I'm in low light or inside and I dial the ISO to 3200 at maybe 1/60th and f8, I know that I can bring up the exposure and/or shadows in Lightroom as I'm shooting RAW. But even in day light or a lot of light, I shoot RAW just for the control (or idea of control). I like to have the 'negative' per say and then make a 'print' from that.

I also like to tweak the hues of my colours. I know you can do this with a JPEG fine but I just prefer knowing I have a lot of data to work with, although I hardly push the colours that much. I guess my point is that I have in the back of my mind whilst shooting how I could tweak things in post.

I've got some stills on my website (a bit of self promotion, sorry) where you can see that I'm not what may be seen as 'over processing'.

 

For the point of RAW vs. JPEG... I'm not sure really. Its an interesting topic but I guess it comes down to the needs of the photographer.

A close friend who shoots photos as a hobby asked me for advice when they got into it. I explained RAW as best I could but he decided to just shoot JPEG because it works for him. He doesn't need RAW. But another friend is a photojournalist and only shoots RAW, as do his colleagues. He's the one who says that about having the 'negative' then making a 'print' from that as they used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Premium Member

I record raw and jpeg in camera at the same time; the jpegs are just as a back-up in case someday some software can't read my raw files plus the jpegs don't need color-correction, if that isn't necessary (like for location scout photos.). If my jpegs were truly a back-up though I should be using a low-contrast picture profile to preserve detail but then I'd be back to color-correcting them... I mostly work with raw files in Lightroom -- once you get used to that, it's hard to go back to jpegs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Camera manufacturers love to give us features, which is nice. But where was JPEG 2000? We could have had it over a decade ago. HEIF has only just begun to be implemented, which is better than nothing. JP2K/HEIF files are the ideal compromise. You can recover exposure and WB errors pretty easily, while not having to deal with RAW converters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

blah blah blah one of this endless discussions that will always get you nowhere.

I shoot jpeg when I'm working and raw when I'm taking pictures ? 

Now for something completely different : do you scan your films to jpeg or is it worth doing raw/nef or tiff?

Edited by Piotr Wołoszyk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 5:36 AM, Nicolas POISSON said:

Well, some fundamental parameters are missing here.

A RAW file cannot be seen by the eye, it cannot be displayed. So it cannot “look good” or “look bad”. It has to be processed in some ways : de-bayering, white balance, and so on. Indeed, there is not such thing as a "RAW image", even if everybody uses this term. There is only "Raw data", that can be processed immediately  in the camera or stored as RAW data to be processed later.  You cannot compare the quality of a RAW and a Jpeg image. You can only compare RAW data processed by a user and the same RAW data processed automatically by a device. And YES, automatic algorithms can do a better job than an inexperienced user. Algorithms may even do as good as an experienced user.

What’s more, in most imaging devices, the automatic algorithm generating the Jpeg will be tweaked by the user. White balance is a tweak. Offsetting green/magenta in the white balance is a tweak. Adjusting ISO is a tweak. Choosing what “picture profile” / ”film simulation” / ”whatever the manufacturer named its tone shaping algorithm” is a tweak. Depending on the camera, adjusting the ISO might change the Jpeg only or both raw data and jpeg image.

On the other hand, the user might process the RAW file externally in LightRoom/CaptureOne/otherApp using the same algorithms as in the camera because the manufacturer made them available. It could even be that the user performs in an external software the exact same processing as in the device, getting exactly the same jpeg image eventually.

Using Jpeg compression-decompression 31 times in a row does not prove anything. What is important is the compression ratio. Compress an image only once with a very high compression ratio and artifacts will already be obvious. This is exactly the same for video, audio, as soon as one use lossy compression. Again, the compression ratio is usually tweakable in a camera, but even the highest ratio is still conservative compared to what will be used to post an image on the internet.

I really do not see the point of a “RAW vs. Jpeg” battle. These are just tools you choose according to your needs, work, motivation… I am a jpeg shooter. I do not want to spend my Sunday afternoon processing family portraits. If I were a pro selling pictures, I would probably shoot Jpeg+RAW: I could then use the RAW data for highest quality work, heavy correction and so on, and I could use the jpeg version to show the client what the picture looks like on the rear screen of the camera.

Sure, compression is a big deal. But it is commonly thrown out that every time you save a JPEG you lose info. The 31 generation test shows how much data is lost with multi generation JPEG work. I will do more tests on the RAW / JPEG debate when I get some time. 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Piotr Wołoszyk said:

blah blah blah one of this endless discussions that will always get you nowhere.

I shoot jpeg when I'm working and raw when I'm taking pictures ? 

Now for something completely different : do you scan your films to jpeg or is it worth doing raw/nef or tiff?

I used to scan flatbed to TIFF. Same with movie film. Now generally use JPEG. But only due to size. If I had an unlimited budget, I'd go with TIFF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/21/2021 at 4:47 AM, Karim D. Ghantous said:

Camera manufacturers love to give us features, which is nice. But where was JPEG 2000? We could have had it over a decade ago. HEIF has only just begun to be implemented, which is better than nothing. JP2K/HEIF files are the ideal compromise. You can recover exposure and WB errors pretty easily, while not having to deal with RAW converters.

Dunno. Sometimes I've found things on JPEG 2000 and can't open it. I don't know what it is.

Here it is.

JPEG 2000 - Wikipedia

Around that time I was still into film and missed all the hoopla. 

 

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/28/2021 at 7:26 AM, David Mullen ASC said:

I record raw and jpeg in camera at the same time; the jpegs are just as a back-up in case someday some software can't read my raw files plus the jpegs don't need color-correction, if that isn't necessary (like for location scout photos.). If my jpegs were truly a back-up though I should be using a low-contrast picture profile to preserve detail but then I'd be back to color-correcting them... I mostly work with raw files in Lightroom -- once you get used to that, it's hard to go back to jpegs.

As new cameras come out, that is a common problem with older software. The old software wont work with new RAW files. I only have Lightroom 5. It opens older Sony RAW but not newer Sony RAW. So I convert the RAW to DNG. Works good for me.

Here is a photo with Sony RAW converted to DNG converted to JPEG.

Fashion shoot on Wall Street – Daniel D. Teoli Jr. (wordpress.com)

You can get the DNG converter free from Adobe. 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/27/2021 at 6:58 AM, Dan Hasson said:

I like to shoot RAW and scan film in at TIFF (although I haven't shot  film in a while).

I usually take stills with a deep depth of field (just my preference) so am at f8, f11 or f16. So for example, when I'm in low light or inside and I dial the ISO to 3200 at maybe 1/60th and f8, I know that I can bring up the exposure and/or shadows in Lightroom as I'm shooting RAW. But even in day light or a lot of light, I shoot RAW just for the control (or idea of control). I like to have the 'negative' per say and then make a 'print' from that.

I also like to tweak the hues of my colours. I know you can do this with a JPEG fine but I just prefer knowing I have a lot of data to work with, although I hardly push the colours that much. I guess my point is that I have in the back of my mind whilst shooting how I could tweak things in post.

I've got some stills on my website (a bit of self promotion, sorry) where you can see that I'm not what may be seen as 'over processing'.

 

For the point of RAW vs. JPEG... I'm not sure really. Its an interesting topic but I guess it comes down to the needs of the photographer.

A close friend who shoots photos as a hobby asked me for advice when they got into it. I explained RAW as best I could but he decided to just shoot JPEG because it works for him. He doesn't need RAW. But another friend is a photojournalist and only shoots RAW, as do his colleagues. He's the one who says that about having the 'negative' then making a 'print' from that as they used to.

 

For 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 film scans, it is TIFF for me. They need all the help they can get. Although a new trend is to shoot the negs or chromes on a lightbox with a digital camera. I have not compared the results.

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/22/2021 at 10:53 PM, Daniel D. Teoli Jr. said:

For 35mm, 6x6, 6x7 and 4x5 film scans, it is TIFF for me. They need all the help they can get. Although a new trend is to shoot the negs or chromes on a lightbox with a digital camera. I have not compared the results.

I have seen some results, comparing a scanner vs a Canon camera, with the same negative. Sadly I lost the URL. In short, the Canon DSLR was terrible, the Nikon scanner was fine except that the edges were a bit soft, which could be because the negative wasn't set up right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, I have done some tests with RAW / JPEG to prove my point. Now, the difference is not that big, but it is noticeable and material. As I've said before. The RAW file (without post processing) does not look as good as the in-camera JPEG file and the test proves that.

Here are the test files...you have to download the 2 files to see the difference.

In Camera JPEG D. D. Teoli Jr. : D.D.Teoli Jr. : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Full res TIFF files from the RAW files looked exactly the same as the JPEG from RAW.

 

 

Edited by Daniel D. Teoli Jr.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...