Using Jpegs as working files rather than RAW. Good idea ?

[Fedia]

I noticed in my previous post that people where surprised when I mentioned I only shot Jpegs and that I did it intentionally.

 

In the end of winter this year I shot a little bit of raw to make a comparison and to make sure I wasn't missing something important.

 

I found that there was a benefit in choosing Jpeg over Raw for at least one reason that has nothing to do with conviniency. Exemple below :

 

The following are two version of the same picture. Both have been processed in Lightroom but one is from the RAW file and the other from the Jpeg file. It was shot on a full spectrum Canon 1000D with the Lee "loving amber" gel / midopt DB850 combo.

 

JPEG :

 

RAW :

 

It appears that with the Jpeg the color palet is broader. It extends from blue-green to purple whereas in the RAW version the purples comme out rather greyish. So overall I would say the Jpeg has a better color articulation and that's precisely what I'm looking after artistically.

 

I wanted to quote Birna from my introduce yourself post because I think it raises an interesting question :

"With jpgs, you are limited to whatever solution the engineers of that camera decide is best for you."

 

To this I would answer that with RAW you are also limited by what the software you are using to develop your RAWs has to propose, In my case Adobe Lightroom. I have to trust the Adobe engineers to take care of files produced by as old canon sensor knowing that they also had to find a solution that would work for all the other camera models on the market. I'm not talking about details or highlight recovery, Jpegs are very destructive it is a fact. I'm focussing on color science only here.

So that's why I'm wondering if the solution to get the most out of a given camera is to process its data with its internal software because at least we know it was concieved to match the specs of its sensor.

 

So that's it for my first official post. I hope it can interest some even if you don't fonction the same way I do.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[nfoto]

Firstly, there is no UVP police patrolling the streets to uphold a UVP Law. So whatever pleases the individual is OK. We are concerned with the results not necessarily the means to get there.

 

Secondly, a jpg is 8 bit (processed) and RAW is 10,12, 14 or more bits of information for each sensor element.  Thus claiming a jpg can be showing a wider colour palette is contradictory and not something each and every one will observe. Perhaps the RAW processing steps should be examined? The maker's own programs are not by default the best.

 

I agree software might not always extract the information one wants, however using RAW files allows the user to alter processing after the capture and different options can be tried out. Basically it is sound advice to use a software that by experience shows one the expected results, meaning there is some kind of reproducibility involved. As camera technology evolves, so do the processing options, and reprocessing older RAW files can give unexpected benefits. With jpgs only you are stuck.

[Andy Perrin]

I agree that everyone should do their processing how they feel like, but this is simply false:

2 hours ago, Fedia said:

So overall I would say the Jpeg has a better color articulation 

JPEGs store 256 shades for each channel (by default) and RAW can store 65536, although the true number is limited by the sensor. If you like the way the colors come out in JPEG it can be duplicated in RAW in principle. 

[photoni]

@Fedia

I checked, you inserted a "true" Jpeg and a fake "RAW"
the Jpeg is what your Canon processed with its in-camera soft, trimming highlights and shadows and fixing lens flaws (if it's a lens in the camera's soft list)
The RAW is "soft" because lightroom is with zero parameters, and has cut the shadows and has not processed well all the information.

 

.

 

 

This is your Jpeg with a little extra light and contrast to spice it up

 

 

If you start from a Raw everything is more flexible and adjustable.
Your photos are incredibly good, having obtained them without a "mathematical" white balance ...

perhaps this is your recipe ...

do exactly the opposite of what is a dogma for us. :)

 

 

@nfoto Firstly, there is no UVP police patrolling the streets to uphold a UVP Law.

[Fedia]

1 hour ago, photoni said:

I checked, you inserted a "true" Jpeg and a fake "RAW"

I didn't know it was possible to upload a RAW files on the site, so the exemples I uploaded in order to show the difference were exports from lightroom, not the originals.

 

Both files when they came out of the camera were really flat since the filter combo I used produces very low saturation images. The RAW literally looked like a log file.

I tried to make both images match in terms of contrast and saturation and then examined what were the differences.

 

The white balance was set from a white subject the day I took the photo. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by mathematical white balance.

 

5 hours ago, Andy Perrin said:

I agree that everyone should do their processing how they feel like, but this is simply false:

 

7 hours ago, Fedia said:

So overall I would say the Jpeg has a better color articulation 

Maybe I misused the term "overall". I only refered to my specific exemple. This cannot be a general rule.

[nfoto]

You cannot upload a RAW file as it is not an image as such -- it is a set of data points, but require processing before it can be presented. The processing steps are up to the user and there is no given answer. Another drawback is the file size per se. UVP is a small enthusiast site and the services are offered for free. Thus we need to set limits as to what members can upload anyway.

 

Sometimes, members upload RAW to a file sharing service (Dropbox or similar) to allow different interpretations, and discussions thereof. That approach is of course applauded.

[photoni]

8 hours ago, Fedia said:

The white balance was set from a white subject the day I took the photo. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by mathematical white balance.

 

I used an inaccurate term. better "neutral"
The best thing is to do a white balance before shooting with a thick, opaque PTFE, Teflon, panel. works well from IR to UV, it's important not to overexpose this measurement.
Then there are more precise and expensive professional tools
Some posts : LINK1  LINK2 LINK3

 

it is impossible to judge Jpeg and RAW if both have been processed and saved in Jpeg.

it is also difficult to apply a white balance if there is no "neutral" reference in the image

 

For file sharing I recommend wetransfer, the files remain available for a week then are deleted from the web.

(dropbox messed up my client's PC, he can't delete my files from the server ... I don't use it anymore)

[dabateman]

I would say do what you like.  I always capture jpeg and raw same time. Always have as a back up. I think I will go back and manipulate the raws, but never really do.

Nailing it in camera is really the best. But since storage is so cheap, capturing both doesn't cost much.

I have a huge stock pile of images that I will have to look at and see if processing the raws will be better.

The other advantage of raw is software has significantly improved over time. I can really get a lot out of old images.

 

[Yves W]

I only use RAW with PTFE.

Fedia, Hello from Les Sables d'Olonne (Vendée, France)

[StephanN]

+1 for raws, and reprocessing years later with new versions of software, OR revisiting them with a new attitude. So, I usually only take RAW-photos.

 

Where I'm stuck at the moment with JPGs, are UV-photo with my FS-camera, as I haven't quite mastered the white-balance issue there. However, also in this case I always capture JPG and RAW, hoping that in the near future, when I find the time, I'll get around to solving that problem, and then I'll probably forego the JPGs here as well.

[Fandyus]

I don't think it is a good idea. Almost anything that I do in photography, I would not be able to do if it wasn't for RAW files. Or at least I would not have been able to do the things I do without extremely distracting artifacts that emerge from lack of data recorded.

 

The "broader" color range is simply due to processing, and you could absolutely replicate it in a software of choice. Darktable for example has many color profiles to choose from and I'm quite sure at least one of them would suit you.

 

You really shouldn't think of the people who designed the algorithm that converts the RAW files into JPEGs in-camera as some magicians that knew everything best and made the perfect process to match. They did not, because there is no perfect process. If it seems perfect to you, that is your choice, but you are limiting your potential when it comes to aesthetics. But if you are certain that your aesthetics might take a hit if you were to give up the convenience of shooting in JPEG, it's probably better you stay where you are.

 

That's what I have to say about it.

[nfoto]

Much can be said for having a workflow where the camera records RAW and jpg concurrently. later, time or other factors decide how to proceed. With the new generation 45MPix cameras, i often do test runs of focus stacking or stitching first on jpgs to check whether there are problems in need of solving. Then, I can later do a full-scale run using freshly generated TIFs.

[Doug A]

@Fediause what works for you. I recommend that you keep investigating Raw. Just because Lightroom doesn't convert Raw the way you like doesn't mean other programs won't. Many here use other programs, especially for UV. I don't even use Adobe Raw conversion for standard visible light photography. Pentax files look better converted in their Silkypix based software. Raw converters look different on the same file. 

Thanks,

Doug A

[Yves W]

I use Fuji X-Trans III in RAW Adobe-RGB with 3 WB after Capture one for WB, output in Tiff to Adobe PS6.

FastStone Image Viewer to visualize.

[VideoJohn]

On 6/30/2023 at 10:50 AM, nfoto said:

Firstly, there is no UVP police patrolling the streets to uphold a UVP Law. 

 

You have the right to shoot in RAW or JPEG. Any 8 bit file will be used against you in a court of law or public opinion. You have the right to use any filter or editing software you choose before and during post processing. If one does not come with your camera, or you can not afford one, an open source alternative will be promoted to you.

I've been at this long enough to know there is no benefit to Jpeg shooting outside of space, which isn't worth as much as the flexibility you are giving up. Jpegs are like a frozen dinner. Sure, you can add more, and make it taste better, but it will never taste as good as starting with the raw ingredients and making it yourself.

[Andrea B.]

OK, Video John, you made laugh with the Miranda warning. Do other countries have that? 

 

I think the OP, Fedia, got many good answers about raw vs. jpg.

 

Some actual examples showing how some processing can be done in raw but not in jpg might be useful. The first example I think of is white balance. Usually the false color white balance achievable in a raw file cannot be matched by white balancing the corresponding jpg. (Assuming of course that one wants to make a false color white balance. That seems not to be the case in the initial post. (That's OK of course.) )

 

Side Note:  You can upload a raw file here, but it will not appear as a photo - only as a downloadable file. I enabled this so that members could share the occasional raw files with one another. 

[Andrea B.]

Here is a quick example. I applied the same white balance and edits to a raw file and then to its extracted Jpg. Remember that a Nikon DSLR or Z cannot attain a good false color white balance in-camera. (Seems to lack a wide enough temperature range, it has been speculated.) So when working in UV or IR with a Nik, it is always necessary to WB the (raw) files. ((And as I have observed more times than I care to remember, even those cams which can make a false color WB in-camera do not always do so accurately.))

 

Here is the photo as shot.

This is the JPG shown on the LCD which is "extracted" from the raw Nikon NEF file. I actually like these colors. If I had not been going to put this photo into the botanical section (where WB is required), I might enjoy this as it is.

 

 

 

Here is the photo after raw processing in Photo Ninja.

White balance was applied to a certain spot on the rock so that I could repeat that WB action easily for the next example. A minor adjustment was made to the highlights. Color was set to Photo Ninja's "Plain". Profiling was set to Photo Ninja's "Daylight". SRGB was applied when the NEF was saved as a JPG. Cropping and labeling were done in Photo Mechanic.

 

 

 

Here are the same edits repeated on the extracted Jpg.

Obviously there are differences in white balance, hue, color saturation and dynamic range. And note the mint green areas which represent failed recovery of some red which had hit the right wall as a blown channel in the raw file.

You could argue that these differences could be further corrected. I agree. However, you would have to know what you were "supposed" to get which can only happen if you make the edits on the raw NEF.

 

 

 

---

 

Let's end this example by repeating that you should process your photo as you like.

Make it into something that pleases you first!  

But remember that it is generally agreed that working on the raw file gets better results.

 

---

 

 

 

[Fedia]

Thanks for your exemple Andrea. The benefit of raw are indeed very obvious here and I never intended to contest those. What I meant is that, maybe, sometimes the RAW software failed to properly interpretthe the RAW file. I came accross a another striking exemple just today :

 

So that's me trying out a digital aerochrome technique (550nm + DB850) on my canon 1200D. I decided to Shoot RAW+ jpeg this time because I knew I would have to do a channel swap, which is very destructive on Jpegs.

 

And here's what happens :

 

The jpeg :

 

The RAW in lightroom :

 

There is this ugly clipping in the dark parts of the tree that no slider can change. This file is not usable (In this particular software).

 

On 7/9/2023 at 1:39 AM, Andrea B. said:

even those cams which can make a false color WB in-camera

I have one of those camera. I couldn't do anything in Jpegs if it wasn't able to white balance in any situations.

 

My idea about this is that this is somewhat due to the white balance Kelvin slider which is cranked to the left. It seems Lightroom doesn't handle extreme white balances as well as the internal software of my camera does.

 

 

 

 

 

[dabateman]

Yes lightroom and Adobe can't handle out of visible white balance situations. 

But photoninja can, as well as other software packages. 

Don't restrict your self just because of Adobe.  I would look at alternative software for your files. 

[Andrea B.]

I never intended to contest those. What I meant is that, maybe, sometimes the RAW software failed to properly interpret the the RAW file. 

 

Ah, yes, I understand. We all got a little bit off-track with emphasizing RAW over JPG.

 

And you are entirely correct that some foto apps cannot handle UV files. And yes, that is probably because of the Kelvin settings not having a wide enough range. The Adobe apps are somewhat notorious for not being able to handle UV files and some mixed alternate light files. For the record, DxO Photo Lab also has this problem.

 

There are a couple of free software apps which might be useful for dealing with the raw files - Darktable or Raw Photo Processor. Also try whatever software comes with the Canon you are using.

 

Many of us here use Photo Ninja for initial conversion of the RAW, save it as a TIF and then finish the TIF elsewhere (because Photo Ninja has only global edits). Photo Ninja is not currently up-to-date with the latest camera models, so check that first if you ever consider purchasing it.

 

[Andrea B.]

P.S.

Here is a trick which might work in Lightroom to handle those blocked areas. It works in other apps I use.

 

Turn the color off, that is, temporarily convert the image to black & white.

Set the exposure, highlight and shadow sliders as needed to ensure the B&W histogram is not hitting the wall on either side. 

Turn the color back on.

Often, the problem has now disappeared.

 

However, if one of the RGB channels is still hitting the wall on either side,

try selectively lightening/darkening that channel.

Also try slightly desaturating the problem channel.

 

Another perhaps useful thought is that the in-camera saturation setting should be set to low. It is usually much easier to increase saturation without artifacts, than it is to decrease saturation.

 

Let me know if any of this is useful!

[Andy Perrin]

I have become a fan of RAW Photo Processor, especially for its batch capabilities and how precisely it lets you control all the parameters. 

[Fedia]

Thanks Andrea, this was usefull !

 

I tried using darktable to work on the RAW file. It worked well, the colors aren't the same as the jpegs (the reds are definetly more orange) but the pinks come out nicely so i'm happy.

 

 

 

[Andrea B.]

If you are happy, I'm happy! 

 

We always stand ready to help out if we can.

 

It is not difficult to push that red a bit in the direction you want it to go. Just a matter of finding the best tool.