RAW vs. JPEG: Why I prefer JPEG
I’ve been shooting digital since 1996 when I acquired a Canon
EOS DCS 3 that sported a whopping 1.3 megapixels. It was a top of the
line Canon EOS body with a very heavy Kodak digital back attached to it.
I’m not sure, but I think it weighed about nine pounds with a lens.
What a beast!
Prior to that, and for most of my career, I primarily shot 35mm Kodachrome for color, and 6×7 Tri-X for black and white.
Kodachrome was considered the most desirable transparency film for publication because of its extremely fine grain and intense color saturation. It had a subtractive color process that added the color during the process, rather than having the color in the film itself. It was extremely fine grain, very color saturated, and it had more contrast than other color films—art directors, editors, publishers, and clients loved it.
When working with Kodachrome, you had to be absolutely dead on with your lighting and exposure, as there was almost no room for error. After many years of working with Kodachrome, I became accustomed to dealing with exposure tolerances that were very narrow, and therefore I’d light my subjects accordingly. Making the switch to Digital JPEG was not really a challenge, as JPEG is actually much more forgiving than Kodachrome ever was.
Transparency films were pretty much reserved for the realm of professionals that were providing images to clients where the final outcome was for publication.
On the other hand, color negative films were mostly for amateurs and those few professionals that needed prints as the final product. Those negative films provided much wider latitude and were used regularly in event photography, like conventions, parties, and especially weddings.
Wide latitude negative films were very forgiving and could handle wide differences in contrast and exposure. Some films could be underexposed or overexposed by several stops and still render acceptable images.
There were some emulsions that had extremely low contrast and gamma ratios, and were ideal for high contrast situations, such as in wedding photography where a bride’s dress in direct sunlight still needed to render detail, and at the same time you had to retain detail in the darkest shadows of the groom’s black tux.
You almost couldn’t make a mistake with those films—very much like shooting RAW in digital today.
What does this have to do with digital, and why do I prefer working with JPEG? Well, JPEG is like Kodachrome in many ways and RAW is a little more like wedding film.
I approach my work using the Zone System and practicing pre-visualization. I decide before I pick up my camera what I want my results to look like. I light and expose for the contrast range that I want and expect my digital images to provide those results without having to do a lot of manipulation in post-production.
I endorse the concept of “pre-touch,” rather than “retouch.” That’s not to say that I don’t re-touch something if the need arises, but I try to get everything right at the moment of exposure so it’s not necessary to make big corrections.
My experience with RAW
A few years ago, when Penthouse magazine switched from film to digital, I was asked to shoot RAW files and send those to their editors. I wasn’t too pleased at the prospect, but did as my client asked.
When the results were published, I was horrified. The printed images were flat, low-contrast, unsaturated, dull and very unexciting—not what I intended at all.
So, for my next assignment, I decided to provide them with some finalized high-quality JPGs that were corrected, retouched and contrast controlled in addition to the RAW files they requested. These were images that I felt were up to my standards and reflected the quality that the magazine used to (and still should have) exhibit.
Here are some of the tests results that I sent to the editors to illustrate what they are getting with RAW and what they could be getting with JPEGs:
The editors refused to believe their own eyes over the advice of some newly hired techno-geek who told them that RAW has the “best quality” and they needed to use that exclusively. So, none of the JPEGs were ever published.
It was very disappointing to see that they chose inferior, low-contrast, dull, and uninspired images over the hi-quality finalized images I provided. Their choice was made solely on the fact that my finals were not RAW.
So, what could I do? I did what my client asked, tried not to look at the published results and shook my head all the way to the bank!
Over the next three years, I shot about two dozen centerfolds, covers and features for Penthouse in RAW. During that same time, I shot JPEGs for my personal work. It was interesting to occasionally compare the two mediums, but I had no motivation to shoot RAW for myself.
My other magazines clients had and still have no issue with my JPEGs. I shoot in JPEG and generally provide them with a final cropped and retouched image of 7.3 x 11 inches @ 300 dpi.
Frankly, on the printed page, I don’t see any difference between what I shoot on JPEG and what I used to do with Kodachrome. I’ve also made some wonderful prints including 40 x 60 exhibition prints for galleries and museum shows.
A few more reasons why I prefer JPEG over RAW
A number of my photographer and techno-geek friends like to tout the difference in bit depth (16 vs. 8). However, I have yet to see any difference in a final printed image. Most printers work in 8-bit anyway, so where is the advantage of a 16-bit file?
I have heard the arguments that RAW captures much more information than JPEG. That may be true, but from what I have read, most of that information is invisible to the naked eye, so what’s the point? The additional visual information is often perceived as lack of contrast and that doesn’t appeal to me at all.
Then there’s the topic of storage, not that it’s as much of an issue these days with hard drive prices being as low as they are, but it is still something to consider. A RAW file is approximately twice the size of a JPEG at full quality. If I do a project where I produce 5GB of images, it takes up 10GB of drive space and adds to the time it takes to do my post-production editing, retouching, and finishing.
And, as someone recently pointed out to me, the majority of photographers will probably never be published, probably never have prints displayed in an art gallery, so they’ll have nothing to gain by shooting RAW.
For many photographers RAW is a great crutch; it’s wonderful to use if you are learning and don’t yet have control over your techniques.
Like any other creative tool, there is a time and place to use RAW.
If I was a wedding photographer working at venues with ever-changing contrast situations and unpredictable lighting, I’d probably shoot RAW. But, the majority of my work is in the studio, therefore my personal preference is to shoot JPEG.
It’s not for everybody, but I like the results, and so do my clients.
Prior to that, and for most of my career, I primarily shot 35mm Kodachrome for color, and 6×7 Tri-X for black and white.
Kodachrome was considered the most desirable transparency film for publication because of its extremely fine grain and intense color saturation. It had a subtractive color process that added the color during the process, rather than having the color in the film itself. It was extremely fine grain, very color saturated, and it had more contrast than other color films—art directors, editors, publishers, and clients loved it.
When working with Kodachrome, you had to be absolutely dead on with your lighting and exposure, as there was almost no room for error. After many years of working with Kodachrome, I became accustomed to dealing with exposure tolerances that were very narrow, and therefore I’d light my subjects accordingly. Making the switch to Digital JPEG was not really a challenge, as JPEG is actually much more forgiving than Kodachrome ever was.
Transparency films were pretty much reserved for the realm of professionals that were providing images to clients where the final outcome was for publication.
On the other hand, color negative films were mostly for amateurs and those few professionals that needed prints as the final product. Those negative films provided much wider latitude and were used regularly in event photography, like conventions, parties, and especially weddings.
Wide latitude negative films were very forgiving and could handle wide differences in contrast and exposure. Some films could be underexposed or overexposed by several stops and still render acceptable images.
There were some emulsions that had extremely low contrast and gamma ratios, and were ideal for high contrast situations, such as in wedding photography where a bride’s dress in direct sunlight still needed to render detail, and at the same time you had to retain detail in the darkest shadows of the groom’s black tux.
You almost couldn’t make a mistake with those films—very much like shooting RAW in digital today.
What does this have to do with digital, and why do I prefer working with JPEG? Well, JPEG is like Kodachrome in many ways and RAW is a little more like wedding film.
I approach my work using the Zone System and practicing pre-visualization. I decide before I pick up my camera what I want my results to look like. I light and expose for the contrast range that I want and expect my digital images to provide those results without having to do a lot of manipulation in post-production.
I endorse the concept of “pre-touch,” rather than “retouch.” That’s not to say that I don’t re-touch something if the need arises, but I try to get everything right at the moment of exposure so it’s not necessary to make big corrections.
My experience with RAW
A few years ago, when Penthouse magazine switched from film to digital, I was asked to shoot RAW files and send those to their editors. I wasn’t too pleased at the prospect, but did as my client asked.
When the results were published, I was horrified. The printed images were flat, low-contrast, unsaturated, dull and very unexciting—not what I intended at all.
So, for my next assignment, I decided to provide them with some finalized high-quality JPGs that were corrected, retouched and contrast controlled in addition to the RAW files they requested. These were images that I felt were up to my standards and reflected the quality that the magazine used to (and still should have) exhibit.
Here are some of the tests results that I sent to the editors to illustrate what they are getting with RAW and what they could be getting with JPEGs:
The editors refused to believe their own eyes over the advice of some newly hired techno-geek who told them that RAW has the “best quality” and they needed to use that exclusively. So, none of the JPEGs were ever published.
It was very disappointing to see that they chose inferior, low-contrast, dull, and uninspired images over the hi-quality finalized images I provided. Their choice was made solely on the fact that my finals were not RAW.
So, what could I do? I did what my client asked, tried not to look at the published results and shook my head all the way to the bank!
Over the next three years, I shot about two dozen centerfolds, covers and features for Penthouse in RAW. During that same time, I shot JPEGs for my personal work. It was interesting to occasionally compare the two mediums, but I had no motivation to shoot RAW for myself.
My other magazines clients had and still have no issue with my JPEGs. I shoot in JPEG and generally provide them with a final cropped and retouched image of 7.3 x 11 inches @ 300 dpi.
Frankly, on the printed page, I don’t see any difference between what I shoot on JPEG and what I used to do with Kodachrome. I’ve also made some wonderful prints including 40 x 60 exhibition prints for galleries and museum shows.
A few more reasons why I prefer JPEG over RAW
A number of my photographer and techno-geek friends like to tout the difference in bit depth (16 vs. 8). However, I have yet to see any difference in a final printed image. Most printers work in 8-bit anyway, so where is the advantage of a 16-bit file?
I have heard the arguments that RAW captures much more information than JPEG. That may be true, but from what I have read, most of that information is invisible to the naked eye, so what’s the point? The additional visual information is often perceived as lack of contrast and that doesn’t appeal to me at all.
Then there’s the topic of storage, not that it’s as much of an issue these days with hard drive prices being as low as they are, but it is still something to consider. A RAW file is approximately twice the size of a JPEG at full quality. If I do a project where I produce 5GB of images, it takes up 10GB of drive space and adds to the time it takes to do my post-production editing, retouching, and finishing.
And, as someone recently pointed out to me, the majority of photographers will probably never be published, probably never have prints displayed in an art gallery, so they’ll have nothing to gain by shooting RAW.
For many photographers RAW is a great crutch; it’s wonderful to use if you are learning and don’t yet have control over your techniques.
Like any other creative tool, there is a time and place to use RAW.
If I was a wedding photographer working at venues with ever-changing contrast situations and unpredictable lighting, I’d probably shoot RAW. But, the majority of my work is in the studio, therefore my personal preference is to shoot JPEG.
It’s not for everybody, but I like the results, and so do my clients.
No comments:
Post a Comment