I hate editing. (jpegs vs RAW)

13

Comments

  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    @Golf007sd: Practice, practice, practice. I-)
    Always learning.
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    Do digital pictures degrade overtime?..and is it true that jpegs do and raw don't as I was told by a serious hobbyist when I acquired my first dslr in 2006?
    What someone was referring to is how windows and other programs will "re-save" the jpegs each time you open them. Over time it does "destroy" (over compress) the images and they become "ugly." As long as you use a good editor you won't have an issue.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    +1
    I almost always shoot RAW+jpeg, cards are cheap, as is storage. This gives maximum flexibility down the road.
    I don't get the RAW+jpeg shooting at all. In my head, Why have two of everything? If you are going to save both, why not just shoot raw?


    (Not just at you Ironheart) but the phrase "cards are cheap, as is storage" is such a load of crap. So many say this, but I find it so terribly incorrect it isn't funny and wonder if anyone ever actually buys storage or forgot file sizes have grown exponentially. 32gb SanDisk 90mb/s = $130 and storage is about $70/TB. Cheaper than what it used to be, but 5 CF cards = $650 + 2x 3tb USB3 (main/backup)= $250 = $900. $900 ain't cheap. I'm having to move to a NAS raid soon + need a back-up solution and I'm looking at $3,000+. The actually cost (the money you spend) that keeps up with file sizes has not changed much in the last 6 years. I'm still spending $100 per card, and $150 per external HD to store approximately the same number of files that I shoot.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member

    What someone was referring to is how windows and other programs will "re-save" the jpegs each time you open them. Over time it does "destroy" (over compress) the images and they become "ugly." As long as you use a good editor you won't have an issue.

    Any time you save a jpg, it is recompressed, since its compression is 'lossy' each 'save' degrades the image, it does not matter which editor you use. If you have displayed without changes, I recommend that you quit or close without saving, thereby preserving the original image, os 'save as' with a new name thereby creating a copy and preserving the original.

    That is one of the reasons for using raw if you intend to edit.

    When caught with jpg's that must be edited, I will then save as a TIFF which is uncompressed and avoids fiurther loss, but the TIFF is usually twice as large as a RAW would be.

    Regards ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    @TaoTeJared: Depending of how fast the enduser has to distribute his or her work to others, I can see the need to save images in both formats. Hence, saving time in distribution.

    Storage cost (dollar/mb) have come down significantly over the years, across the board. With more MP in modern DSLR, the need for more space is very much expected. Buyers need to be aware of this...be it their storage device (memory cards, Hard Drives...etc) as well as, the CPU power needed on their computer(s) in processing and/or editing them. Getting the latest high-tech goodies does not end by getting the goody itself...there is more to it than that.
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • PapermanPaperman Posts: 469Member
    edited August 2013
    @haroldp

    Any time you save a jpg, it is recompressed, since its compression is 'lossy' each 'save' degrades the image, it does not matter which editor you use. If you have displayed without changes, I recommend that you quit or close without saving, thereby preserving the original image, os 'save as' with a new name thereby creating a copy and preserving the original.

    That is one of the reasons for using raw if you intend to edit.


    This is not a sound argument and no reason not to work JPEG. Of course one saves a JPEG it with a different name to keep the original untouched - just like one keeps both the RAW and the converted JPEG . Would anyone be that stupid to work on the JPEG and then save it with the last touches ( with same name ) losing the original forever ? Why is it assumed that one will work on the same JPEG so many times - over and over again - saving it every time on top of each edit ?

    Post edited by Paperman on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited August 2013
    +1
    I almost always shoot RAW+jpeg, cards are cheap, as is storage. This gives maximum flexibility down the road.
    I don't get the RAW+jpeg shooting at all. In my head, Why have two of everything? If you are going to save both, why not just shoot raw?
    If you get the jpegs right in camera = no further action > delete.raw. If jpg needs some editing, = edit raw > save over jpg > delete raw.

    On storage/filesize: I think we all have files we could/should have deleted. I think I could gain a TB if I got rid of all the 'nearly good' shots I have. My next rainy day is going to be spent installing a larger SSD and deleting files.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    edited August 2013
    Many (if not most) photographers these days use "non-destructive" programs like Lightroom, Aperture or even iPhoto. With non-destructive editing, the JPEG masters once "imported" become "read-only" and are never "re-saved". So there is no worry about image degradation due to re-compression, and there is no need to convert to TIFF, etc.

    RAW vs RAW+JPEG:

    Personally, I have switched between RAW and RAW+JPEG several times over the years.

    When the D200 came out, RAW processors weren't that great yet, especially at higher ISO settings. Often, the D200's "out-of-camera" JPEGs were much cleaner in terms of noise vs. what could be accomplished by manually processing the RAW images, even using 3rd-party plugins like Noise Ninja, Neat Image, etc. The smart thing to do at the time was to keep both RAW & JPEG files when shooting anything over the base ISO.

    When the D700 came out, noise became less of an issue for me so I switched to RAW only.

    That didn't last long, however. Since I traveled a lot, I bought a mini portable printer. I use it to print pictures of random people I meet on the road (as a gift to them). However these printers work in PictBridge mode which requires JPEG. So once again I switched to RAW+JPEG.

    With the D800, Nikon added the ability to do "ad hoc" RAW to JPEG processing in camera (from the retouch menu). I no longer needed to have RAW+JPEG for every single picture, since I could always ask the camera to generate a JPEG image from a particular RAW file at any time. I switched back to RAW only. [This in-camera conversion was somewhat possible with the D700 by using the D-Lighting feature, but is much more convenient with the D800].

    Last week, though, I bought an Eye-Fi Pro X2 wireless SD card. Now I'm experimenting again with the idea of shooting RAW+JPEG (with the JPEG going to the Eye-Fi) for easy transfer to the iPad / iPhone.
    Post edited by Ade on
  • spraynprayspraynpray Posts: 6,545Moderator
    edited August 2013
    "Last week, though, I bought an Eye-Fi Pro X2 wireless SD card. Now I'm experimenting again with the idea of shooting RAW+JPEG (with the JPEG going to the Eye-Fi) for easy transfer to the iPad / iPhone."

    @Ade: How big is a jpeg fine from a D800? I used that exact card for my D7K raws and found it painfully slow.
    Post edited by spraynpray on
    Always learning.
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    edited August 2013

    With the D800, Nikon added the ability to do "ad hoc" RAW to JPEG processing in camera (from the retouch menu).
    Hate to break it to you, but that feature was first added way back with the introduction of the D80. ;) That said, the abilities of the in camera RAW conversion have been greatly improved since it was first introduced.
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • AdeAde Posts: 1,071Member
    The D80 is completely irrelevant to me.

    As I wrote, I went from a D700 (which did NOT have this capability) to the D800 (which does have this capability). That the feature is in a D80 didn't help me at all.

    As I mentioned, on the D700 one can process JPEGs but it is by using D-Lighting (with its own set of problems).
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    If you get the jpegs right in camera = no further action > delete.raw. If jpg needs some editing, = edit raw > save over jpg > delete raw.

    On storage/filesize: I think we all have files we could/should have deleted. I think I could gain a TB if I got rid of all the 'nearly good' shots I have. My next rainy day is going to be spent installing a larger SSD and deleting files.
    I can get the "delete raw" aspect. Usually for me I have 16 or 32gig cards in both slots and have them overflow to the other. Granted those instances I'm shooting 500+ photos but have just as many shoots where I only have a 100 or so.

    In my workflow I delete first - all garbage/marker (hand over lens to indicate a good shot) and keep working backwards until I get down to the photos I want to edit. That way it is cleaned up from the get go. I find it works a bit faster overall as well. The personal stuff though just gets loaded - that is a mess of garbage on my HDs. ;)
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • PB_PMPB_PM Posts: 4,494Member
    edited August 2013
    n/m
    Post edited by PB_PM on
    If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
  • haroldpharoldp Posts: 984Member
    @haroldp


    This is not a sound argument and no reason not to work JPEG. Of course one saves a JPEG it with a different name to keep the original untouched - just like one keeps both the RAW and the converted JPEG . Would anyone be that stupid to work on the JPEG and then save it with the last touches ( with same name ) losing the original forever ? Why is it assumed that one will work on the same JPEG so many times - over and over again - saving it every time on top of each edit ?

    Because I have observed many people do just that, which is why the 'degradation' question keeps popping up on this and every other forum..

    If one preserves the original jpg, renaming edited versions, and then wants to tweak one of several changes made on an 'edited' renamed version, one would have to first re enter all of the prior changes to the 'original' jpg and then the incremental change.

    Raw processors such as NX2 or ACR do not touch the raw image, but keep a 'sidecar' file with the changes which can then be incremented.

    Remember also that Nikon Raw is 12 or 14 bit where jpg is 8 bit color. This can have a profound effect if one is editing heavily.

    I always save to jpg as a final form for print or display after all editing is done (in 16b mode), when all that the jpg will do is be printed or displayed.


    If the subtle differences in final IQ do not matter, than why are we discussing other, far finer IQ nuances endlessly in these forums.

    I shoot exclusively jpg on my iphone.

    Regards ... H
    D810, D3x, 14-24/2.8, 50/1.4D, 24-70/2.8, 24-120/4 VR, 70-200/2.8 VR1, 80-400 G, 200-400/4 VR1, 400/2.8 ED VR G, 105/2 DC, 17-55/2.8.
    Nikon N90s, F100, F, lots of Leica M digital and film stuff.

  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator


    (Not just at you Ironheart) but the phrase "cards are cheap, as is storage" is such a load of crap. So many say this, but I find it so terribly incorrect it isn't funny and wonder if anyone ever actually buys storage or forgot file sizes have grown exponentially. 32gb SanDisk 90mb/s = $130 and storage is about $70/TB. Cheaper than what it used to be, but 5 CF cards = $650 + 2x 3tb USB3 (main/backup)= $250 = $900. $900 ain't cheap. I'm having to move to a NAS raid soon + need a back-up solution and I'm looking at $3,000+. The actually cost (the money you spend) that keeps up with file sizes has not changed much in the last 6 years. I'm still spending $100 per card, and $150 per external HD to store approximately the same number of files that I shoot.
    No worries TTJ, "cheap" is obviously a relative term. I never spend more than $1/GB on SD cards. In fact, I can usually score the 16GB ones for like $12 on sale (perfect size for me). Decent 3TB USB3 drives go for $120 which works out to $40/TB. In addition I back up keepers (about 10%) to archival BD-R so I don't need RAID or extra HDDs. Total spend so far? About $500 which is cheap compared to my investment in gear, or at least it seems so to me. My math says I'll be able to get over 100K photos (Raw+jpeg) on that 3TB. If I spend another $500 on redundant everything that will make my storage costs 1¢ per photo. Cheap! (to me)
  • Golf007sdGolf007sd Posts: 2,840Moderator
    Off Topic and only in good humor because I know the SOB: FYI everyone, Ironheart drives a kickass BMW (a.k.a. Broke-My-Wallet). Hence, why he has to look for good deals. >:)
    D4 & D7000 | Nikon Holy Trinity Set + 105 2.8 Mico + 200 F2 VR II | 300 2.8G VR II, 10.5 Fish-eye, 24 & 50 1.4G, 35 & 85 1.8G, 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR I SB-400 & 700 | TC 1.4E III, 1.7 & 2.0E III, 1.7 | Sigma 35 & 50 1.4 DG HSM | RRS Ballhead & Tripods Gear | Gitzo Monopod | Lowepro Gear | HDR via Promote Control System |
  • IronheartIronheart Posts: 3,017Moderator
    I have no idea what you are talking about...
    DSC_0017-1
  • MsmotoMsmoto Posts: 5,398Moderator
    edited August 2013
    OK, now back to the topic....LOL

    I shoot RAW, primarily because I am so sloppy and screw up the exposures, etc., I have to be able to fix them in post processing....or at least some of the time this happens.

    It is interesting to note the original topic of "I hate Editing", suggest what we used to say with film, "I hate printing" or "I hate developing", or I hate.....

    It is my opinion and only that, the process of being a photographer may mean a lot of different things to different people. I would suggest all professionals who are of any merit understand the difference between shooting JPEG and RAW, Advantages, limitations, etc. Also, some photographers...like in the 1960's early 70'swhen I was shooting professionally, shot the film and never saw the final product until proofs were made by the lab. Then our professional print folks did miracles from the negatives or the dye transfer prints from the transparencies were stunning. So we did not do any real editing ourselves.

    Today, this may occur, but for me personally, I find I like to take the digital data, then from this create a photograph with the sublet nuances I desire. in many cases these are unknown to another person thus only I can do this work.

    From a JPEG data set, one has already given themselves great limitations as to what can be accomplished in final production. RAW is simply having a lot more to pick and choose from in making the technical decisions regarding the final product.
    Post edited by Msmoto on
    Msmoto, mod
  • kyoshinikonkyoshinikon Posts: 411Member
    Ive regretted every shoot I do in jpeg. Ill never go back. Raw allows me to control more. 14bit uncompressed raw on both my prime shooters. When it is 2am in the morning and I want to batch a bunch of photos, a few clicks and Im done.

    I personally dislike editing myself. While I like tuning up personal photos. I dont like going through 1000 pics and picking the 100 ones my client wants... I love darkroom editing. Back when I did film and had a local photo-processer I would sometimes go back into his darkroom and "edit" my prints myself...
    “To photograph is to hold one’s breath, when all faculties converge to capture fleeting reality. It’s at that precise moment that mastering an image becomes a great physical and intellectual joy.” - Bresson
  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 567Member
    I think we are getting lazy with digital cameras - I know I am. Back in 1988 I traveled for 6 month. I was shooting color slides. With slides - that you want to use as slides - there is only one way you can edit - keep the good ones and dump the bad ones.

    If it was possible to make mostly keeper without editing back then why is it not possible today? I am shooting RAW and do edit - sometimes a lot but most of the time very little.

    Not long ago I shot RAW+JPEG. And by mistake I loaded the JPEGs - they looked much better than the RAW files coming out of my D800. I have to work to make them look as good as the JPEGs.

    I don´t find editing my photos a total waste of time. I will have to face my mistakes - sadly I tend to make the same mistakes again and again - I can always do something about it in post - just being lazy.

    Maybe it is time to shoot JPEGs only for a while - to force me to think before shooting?
  • dissentdissent Posts: 1,329Member
    Is there a way to determine from the JPEG settings in-camera what the corresponding slider positions would be in Lightroom? You could just make a preset fro the camera, with the option to do additional editing on the RAW, when warrented or desired.
    - Ian . . . [D7000, D7100; Nikon glass: 35 f1.8, 85 f1.8, 70-300 VR, 105 f2.8 VR, 12-24 f4; 16-85 VR, 300 f4D, 14E-II TC, SB-400, SB-700 . . . and still plenty of ignorance]
  • sevencrossingsevencrossing Posts: 2,800Member
    Is there a way to determine from the JPEG settings in-camera what the corresponding slider positions would be in Lightroom?.
    in a word, yes
    you can do it automatically on import but at the moment, I cant remember the settings

  • henrik1963henrik1963 Posts: 567Member
    As I understand it view NX and capture NX will read the camera settings and apply them when rendering your NEF files. Can you make LR or Aperture do the same thing? Or would you have to make one profile/preset for "vivid" and another for "Neutral" and so on?
  • TaoTeJaredTaoTeJared Posts: 1,306Member
    As I understand it view NX and capture NX will read the camera settings and apply them when rendering your NEF files. Can you make LR or Aperture do the same thing? Or would you have to make one profile/preset for "vivid" and another for "Neutral" and so on?
    You can set LR up to apply the "jpeg" settings that were selected in camera for your raw files.
    D800, D300, D50(ir converted), FujiX100, Canon G11, Olympus TG2. Nikon lenses - 24mm 2.8, 35mm 1.8, (5 in all)50mm, 60mm, 85mm 1.8, 105vr, 105 f2.5, 180mm 2.8, 70-200vr1, 24-120vr f4. Tokina 12-24mm, 16-28mm, 28-70mm (angenieux design), 300mm f2.8. Sigma 15mm fisheye. Voigtlander R2 (olive) & R2a, Voigt 35mm 2.5, Zeiss 50mm f/2, Leica 90mm f/4. I know I missed something...
  • DaveyJDaveyJ Posts: 1,090Member
    A comment about JPEG shooting and subsequent saving. The way I store images does not keep re-saving JPEGS at all. They are saved in a folder as they came out of my Nikon DSLRs. If for instance I used Photoshop and keep re-saving images the file size keeps reducing to the point of QUICKLY becoming unacceptable. It would be better to save RAW than to shoot JPEG and not KNOW how your images are being stored and treated. But with my suystem which I have talked over and run through some of the best minds in the industry does NOT result in decreased file sizes.

    WHEN I was scanning a lot of sharp 35mm transparencies I became very alarmed at compression of file sizes. So when I import I keep all imports in the event file and put that on Lacie external hard drive. I also keep the same files on Apple iPhoto and have noticed that without editing the Apple iPhoto file is always the same size as the original JPEG Fine, Large. As soon as I start cropping or editing, (which I do when it is called for) the file size begins to alter. I also do the same on Apple Aperture 3 which gives me more control than Apple iPhoto. I have stopped using Photoshop at all as the file size reduces with each saving. That will change your original to putty.

    Same comments though as I always make about JPEG Fine, Large. You'd better be close to the proper exposure. I have shot for so long with medium and large format that a quick checklist of camera setups are made with each new condition. Then my JPEGS are very close to what I want. Recently I shot a batch of RAW images and was very disgusted with the effort, even results. Personally I prefer JPEG and always will. Another thought though must be added. ONCE you get that amazing shot I suggest saving the image to TIFF also if you are not completely certain how your images get saved, stored, etc. And I am not for a minute advocating that you ALL switch to JPEG. But when it takes quite a long time to make RAW look as good as JPEG Fine, Large I suggest you may investigate very seriously how shooting in JPEG may be done and done right.

    Lastly the edit capability of JPEG is quite amazing to me. So I do use editing every time I think it is needed, justified, etc. However the latitude of RAW editing is GREATER. If you shoot in JPEG get very comfortable with fast camera setup in various lighting conditions so you can make the most of jPEG. If you do use this the way I do and others before and after me have and will, I think you will be amazed at JPEG quality and speed. Besides the final product you need for printing, emailing, publishing, etc. will be JPEG.
Sign In or Register to comment.