# Editing jpegs



## acjones (Mar 27, 2013)

I am relatively new to RAW photos and I just learned about editing them in Lightroom, but does anyone have any suggestions on how to go about editing jpegs in Lightroom quickly and efficiently?


----------



## Light Guru (Mar 27, 2013)

The actual editing process is the same.  The difference is in how much a jpeg will let you do and still give you good results.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 27, 2013)

It's the same for both.  Just with raw files (raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym) you have more latitude when editing.


----------



## Greiver (Mar 27, 2013)

Same process, raw files just give you more flexibility, options and better results.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 27, 2013)

but RAW  sounds way cooler than raw


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 27, 2013)

Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.

It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera.


----------



## KmH (Mar 27, 2013)

A lot of Raw files are indeed compressed. There are over 100 Raw file types. Tons of data is lost between the image sensor and the Raw data file that gets recorded on the memory card, mostly in the pixel voltage analog-to-digital conversion.

Nikon entry-level, compact DSLR Raw files are 12-bit, lossless *compressed* files. (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200)

The D7000/D7100/D600 offers:
&#8226; lossless *compressed
*&#8226; lossy *compressed
*&#8226; 12-bit depth
&#8226; 14-bit depth (Page 87 - D7000 user's manual - NEF (Raw) Recording > Type. D7100 - page 67. D600 - page 94)
But, the D7000, D7100, D600 has no uncompressed option, which is just 1 part of what makes them entry-level grade DSLRs.

Prosumer and pro grade Nikon DSLR's add the option of *uncompressed* Raw files.

A Raw file after conversion isn't anything like what the image sensor saw. That's why the files have to be processed in a Raw converter before they can be seen as a photograph.
Different Raw converters render Raw files with a slightly different look because they all use slightly different algorithms to process the Raw image data files.
That's why all Adobe software that can edit Raw files (Elements, Lightroom, Photoshop) uses the same Raw converter - ACR - so they are all consistent with each other.

Image sensors are linear devices and have a gamma of 1.0. The analog image sensors in digital cameras also cannot record color.

The gamma of the Raw file image data has to be changed to a non-linear gamma of between 1.8 and 2.2 or so, which is what human eyes see.
Color is interpolated (demosaicing) in most DSLR's from the layout of a Bayer Array that is in front on the image sensor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demosaicing
Tone mapping is done. Some Raw converters also do some sharpening and noise reduction.

This isn't dated so....http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 27, 2013)

KmH said:


> A lot of Raw files are indeed compressed. There are over 100 Raw file types. Tons of data is lost between the image sensor and the Raw data file that gets recorded on the memory card, mostly in the pixel voltage analog-to-digital conversion.
> 
> Nikon entry-level, compact DSLR Raw files are 12-bit, lossless *compressed* files. (D40, D40x, D60, D3000, D3100, D3200, D5000, D5100, D5200)
> 
> ...



Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It's what the sensor saw. You can spit about algorithms that the firmware uses to convert the data from linear to non linear gamma all day long, it doesn't matter. A non compressed RAW image contains the data nearest to the point of how it came directly from the sensor. The need to explain the technicality of that point is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.

Also, the fact that an image sensor is a linear device has nothing to do with anything. The gamma range may be changed to MIMIC what the human eye sees. However, let us first remember that linear devices are only capable of depicting a linear result. Hence the fact that a photograph or image is only two dimensional, which is also a linear object. The eye interprets depth, where as a camera mimics it. A camera cannot see in the third dimension, the human eye can.

As said before, all of this is pointless conversation.

My original point still stands. RAW has more editing options because most of the data is still there, and it doesn't matter which mode you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera.


Sometimes I think the members of this forum like to respond to stuff simply to see themselves type.


----------



## peter27 (Mar 28, 2013)

I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 28, 2013)

Shooting and editing with JPGs is somewhat different than shooting and editing raw as the JPGs have already been pre-processed by the in-camera firmware that made various decisions on how to handle noise, shadows, highlights, and color renditions such as white balance, how 'red' is red, etc. While post processing can be significantly shorter using JPGs, the capabilities of what can be done with JPGs is limited. For those times when I know my photographs don't have to be as perfect as I can make them (personal shots, for example), I shoot JPG and don't do much in post other than to correct my sometimes tilted camera, tweak the exposure, and crop to fit specific print sizes.

Shooting JPGs generally requires that the white balance be properly set _in the camera_ before taking pictures in that lighting situation. While most cameras have fairly 'smart' auto white balance capabilities (AWB setting), there are times when the AWB gets completely fooled and pictures come out greenish, redish, purplish, any color of the rainbow. Even my Canon 5D3 produces oddball AWB results every now and then. While WB can be adjusted in post from JPG files, there isn't the 'full range' of colors to work with in a JPG image as, for example, color 123 and 125 on adjacent raw pixels were combined into 124 on the representative 1 JPG pixel. JPGs are like a small 'starter' box of Crayola Crayons with only 12 colors where raw corresponds to the 'super size' Crayola box with 100 colors (or whatever it is these days). JPGs have lots more than 12 colors available, but raw has a far larger number of colors it can represent.

The difficulty of setting specific, custom white balance is that each lighting situation must be individually identified and a grey card WB shot taken under those conditions. Although preset WB choices such as 'daylight' or 'incandescent' could be used, there's many situations where 'mixed' lighting is encountered which would make those settings be slightly wrong. Maybe the slight color shift wouldn't be noticable. Maybe it will. It's up to you to determine what is 'right' in post processing.

About a year ago, I shot a 20 person birthday party in a small banquet room that had a brick wall on one side, all glass windows to an adjoining room on side #2, large windows to the outside on wall #3, and a brick wall with one small window on wall #4. So I took 4 WB shots of my grey card, one from each wall. The 'trick' then became to re-set custom WB to one of the 4 shots - the correct one! - each time I changed directions when shooting. This required clicking 'forward' to frame 1,2,3,or 4 in the camera to select the correct image to set CWB with. A real pain in the butt. I finally gave up and figured I'd fix it in post...that's one of the advantages of shooting raw...more flexibility in post. Alternatively, taking a grey card shot, setting the CWB, then 2-10 shots or so in that direction, and repeating the process would probably save time, but asking someone to hold the grey card over and over has its limitations as well.

That said, I should note that I shot JPG exclusively until a little more than a year ago, as I didn't understand white balance yet. Once I learned that lesson the hard way (at my ex-stepdaughters wedding as guest/shooter), I've shot JPG + raw ever since and fix WB in post...frame by frame, if needed.

Bottom line, JPG works fine MOST of the time. So does AWB. But for those times it doesn't work, having the raw files to work from can literally 'save the day'.


----------



## 2WheelPhoto (Mar 28, 2013)

peter27 said:


> I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.



^^^if the most you want is snapshots and phone cam quality picss with very limited post flexibility.  "Rush job"


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

peter27 said:


> I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.




That's just ONE advantage of JPEGs.  Another is the universally acceptance of them..... they're ready to upload, email, share, print, etc. with the rest of the world.  Raw files (with the exception of Adobe's .DNG format, which still isn't as universal as they'd like) are pretty much proprietary.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

peter27 said:


> I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.



That depends really on who you are, what you're experience is with, etc. Not to mention, RAW photos really don't take that long to edit, especially in LightRoom. However, they are so large in file size, it's harder on your computer hardware. So, it's not really the editing part that takes longer, just the loading part. The other thing about Jpeg, is that you don't have to load it into photoshop to preview the image. You can simply open the Jpeg files in a generic photo viewer to sort through the keepers vs non keepers. 

Choosing which one is right for you is going to depend on experience. If your experience is in batch editing through a camera raw client, then shooting in RAW is probably going to be the fastest workflow environment. I come from graphic design background, and most of the time, I prefer to shoot in Jpeg, so that I can use pixel to pixel editing techniques instead of batch editing. 

I still shoot in raw sometimes... but there are also times that I just refuse to shoot it. Shooting sports or a wedding is one of those things. You've never seen a headache until you take the time out to make a computer load 500 raw files from a wedding. Talk about a buzz kill.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 28, 2013)

2WheelPhoto said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.
> ...



So basically what you're saying is that if you shoot jpegs the quality you can expect is similar to having snapshots from a cell phone?  The only reason someone would shoot jpegs is because they want to rush the job and quality isn't important?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

imagemaker46 said:


> 2WheelPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > peter27 said:
> ...




I can see you're leading right up to your canned, "I'm a perfect photographer and I get it right every time because I'm that damned good" spiel.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 28, 2013)

480sparky said:


> imagemaker46 said:
> 
> 
> > 2WheelPhoto said:
> ...



Why you have to come off sounding like a total dick.  So I shouldn't make a comment on this forum?  I asked 2WheelPhoto a question that in no way had anything to do with you.


----------



## KmH (Mar 28, 2013)

I believe people are better served by trying to give them accurate information.
Dumbed down explanations are to often so dumbed down they are inaccurate, counterproductive, and do way more harm than good.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

KmH said:


> I believe people are better served by trying to give them accurate information.
> Dumbed down explanations are to often so dumbed down they are inaccurate, counterproductive, and do way more harm than good.



_*"If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself."*_ - Albert Einstein.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

Editing jpegs is really the same as editing raw files once you open them in lightroom. you still go through all the editing motions, you still export the file, nothing really changes. if you are editing in lightroom anyway, you might as well shoot raw and get the extra data wiggle room. timewise though, there really isnt any difference between editing a jpeg compared to a raw file. plenty of people shoot jpeg, edit in lightroom or photoshop (or whatever program they use) and turn out a great picture. the advantage to the extra data in a raw file however, is that you have a better chance of salvaging a photo taken with less than ideal camera settings. I shoot raw because like my golf game...I need the handicap.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> peter27 said:
> 
> 
> > I thought the point of shooting jpg was to avoid the time spent editing later. That's not to suggest that jpg is inferior to raw, just that the advantage is the lack of editing and pp, which is part and parcel of shooting raw.
> ...



So, let me ge this straight... the reason to shoot jpeg or raw depends on who I am?
Also, raw files are hard on my computer hardware, but jpegs aren't?

Are you sticking to those statments as well?


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > peter27 said:
> ...




Yes, you have obviously never tried to load a RAW file on a P4 Machine with 1GB of RAM and a 256mb graphics card, verus a Jpeg. I'm a computer WIZ! I build them, take them apart, tweak them, water cool them, overclock them, game on them, etc. 



But hell, what would I know 



Secondly, yes, it does matter who you are. Because if you've never used photoshop or lightroom a day in your life, or use it very little, you're not going to "save any time" editing jpeg over Raw, or vice versa.

If you've got more photoshop experience, non-photographic (such as myself) you can edit jpegs much faster than you can RAW, because you know where all of the tools are, how they work etc.

So, yes, I will very PROUDLY stand by all of that that I said... and you may stick your foot in your mouth.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 28, 2013)

It has nothing to do with "who you are". 


If you care about your photos, you shoot RAW. And if you're running 1gb ram and 256gb graphics card in 2013, you have bigger problems.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> It has nothing to do with "who you are".
> 
> If you care about your photos, you shoot RAW. And if you're running 1gb ram and 256gb graphics card in 2013, you have bigger problems.



1. That's a hugely biased opinion. Really the truth of the matter is that RAW allows for a larger margin of error. The quality difference isn't strong enough to tell by the eye on a standard sized print. So, that's simply matter of preference. I actually prefer most of the time to shoot in Jpeg, because I have e VERY extensive knowledge base of Adobe Photoshop. I can edit white balance in photoshop using hue/saturation, and color temperature pallets just as easily as you can in LightRoom or ACR with a white balance slider. 

2. I'm not running that. I'm running an AMD 4.0 ghz 8 core with 32GB 1600 ripjaws and twin 7850's in crossfire, giving me a total of 4gb gddr5 dedicated video memory.  I also have a 2.9 i5 quad core 27" imac with 8gb 1333, and a 1gb geforce gpu upgrade. I was simply saying its rather ignorant to think that a raw file doesn't stress hardware more than a jpeg. After all, that's why compressed files exist in the first place, to make things faster, easier, and less stressful on the machinery.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 28, 2013)

I shoot jpegs because it is my choice and because of the type of work I do. I don't always have time, and I don't need to tweek every single pixel out of an image. I have never had any problems shooting jpegs.  If people want to shoot raw because they feel it is the best for them, terrific, if they are planning on hanging poster size images on their walls and need every little detail, then shoot raw.  Does it matter to me what any other photographer does with his camera, not in the slightest, it has no affect on the images I need to do my job.  It has everything to do with the photographer that is shooting and what his or her requirements are.  

Shoot raw or jpeg, both work, there is no right or wrong to this discussion.


----------



## TCampbell (Mar 28, 2013)

Fundamentally you cannot have more stops of dynamic range per channel than the bit depth per channel.  So an 8 bit per channel JPEG has 8 stops of dynamic range.

If we pick on, say, just the green channel, then the following is true:

0000 0000 - value 0:  that's black (no green light whatsoever)

0000 0001 - value 1:  that's a very dark green - near black.  There is no variability within that level.

0000 0010 - value 2:  that's still a dark green but it is technically "twice" as bright.  There is minimal variability.  
0000 0011 - that's not a doubling ... that's a half-tone brighter than the above.

0000 0100 - value 4:  that's actually twice as bright (finally) as the "0010" color.  Since there are two more bits... you can have quarter tones within this "stop" of light.
0000 0101 \
0000 0110 ->  these are quarter tones within this stop
0000 0111 /

0000 1000 - value 8:  this is now twice as bright as the "0100" color.  Since three bits trail, you technically get 1/8th tones within this "stop" of light.
0000 1001 \
0000 1010  \
0000 1100   \
0000 1101   /
0000 1110  /
0000 1111 /

0001 0000 - value 16: this is now twice as bright as the "1000" color.  Since 4 bits trail, you get 16 levels of variability within this stop.
0001 0001 \
0001 0010  \
0001 0011   \
0001 0100    \
0001 0101     \
0001 0110      \
0001 0111       \
0001 1000        >  
0001 1001       / 
0001 1010      /
0001 1011     /
0001 1100    /
0001 1101   /
0001 1110  /
0001 1111 /

By now you should be noticing the pattern... you get 1 stop per bit... 8 bits = 8 stops.  The difference is the trailing bits behind the significant bit allows for sub-levels within that stop.  Remember a stop is a "doubling" of the light level... its not linear system... it log base2 system.  I wont continue to detail out the stops because each time I do, I'll need twice as many rows and this will be a very long post.

But because the trailing bits create some variability of range within a stop, really only about the top 5 stops have latitude and the lower 3 stops have no latitude, half-tone latitude or quarter-tone.  This is why dark areas in a JPEG often look a bit "blotchy" with digital artifacts.  

I think of JPEG as having about 5 "useful" stops of dynamic range and I suppose one could debate whether a generous person would be willing to give it 6 stops of dynamic range.

Meanwhile... raw usually has 14 bits per channel.  So even if you strip away 3 stops because the level of granularity within that "stop" isn't good enough, you STILL have 11 stops left over!  The latitude in raw files is amazing.  This, btw, is one of the key reasons why, over and over, you'll see comments about by landscape photographers that you should be shooting raw for landscapes.  It's because you'll almost certainly need more than 5 stops of dynamic range and JPEG wont do very well with that.

BTW, this has nothing to do with getting the image right in the camera vs. post adjustment.  This assumes that both the raw and jpeg photographer got it "right" in the camera... the raw simply has better dynamic range for those images that require it.

If you shoot in JPEG then your camera is performing adjustments to your image (in the camera) even before you unload.  The camera always actually records a raw image.  The question is... does it save the raw data to the memory card or does it process it, convert it to a jpeg, and THEN save it to the memory card.  JPEGs almost always have (at a minimum) white balance, sharpening, and de-noising... and may have additional processing as well (lens de-vignetting, etc.).  A raw has no 'destructive' processing performed (nothing that would result in a loss of data).  That means when you import a raw into a computer and look at it next to a jpeg, the jpeg may actually look "smoother" and "sharper" because it's had some processing performed.  Many raw workflow tools automatically perform commonly required raw processing merely because the image was imported into the computer -- making it just as easy to work with raw as with jpeg (you don't have to know the "standard" things... the software does it all for you automatically.)  The difference is, in jpeg, an arbitrary adjustment was performed by the camera and the original data was tossed away.  In raw, an arbitrary adjustment was made by software but the original data was NOT discarded and you can override those default adjustments.  Basically you have control.

The downside of raw?  I can think of two.  (1) it occupies more disk space and (2) you can't necessarily just send someone a raw file and expect that they can view it.  Raw isn't a "standard" format... it's a concept for a format.  Each camera has a slightly different raw format but they all follow the same rules (if they don't then they aren't technically 'raw'.)  A recipient would need to have a raw viewer/importer/converter for your specific model camera.

It's not so much that it's 'wrong' to use JPEG.  Lots of people shoot in JPEG.  Even many top pros use JPEG.  Just be aware of the difference.  There are many situations for which JPEG is not only "fine" -- it's preferred.  But if you need the latitude for higher dynamic range, the ability to preserve detail... particularly near the limits of the dynamic range (in the whites & blacks... HINT:  wedding dresses are usually "white" and tuxes are usually "black") then probably your situation is a very strong candidate for shooting in raw.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.
> 
> It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera.



This is wrong. It really can matter quite a lot regardless of any settings that may be available in your camera and how you use them.

However, before providing a clear example of why this is wrong I want to stress another point. I noticed that Scott posted in this thread and I know he shoots camera JPEGs. I would do the same if I were in his business. There are many appropriate reasons to make the best possible JPEG and I can't think of a more appropriate one than shooting sports journalism when you're working under deadlines so extreme that some photos get web published before the event is over -- not a lot of time there for raw processing. Take a look at the photos on Scott's website and be properly humbled about your own skill using a camera.

I just bought a camera that is wi-fi capable so that I can take a photo and upload it directly from the camera before taking a step away from where I was standing; that's if I upload the JPEG, not the raw file. We have all seen how this capability in cell phone cameras has literally changed our world. Nobody's going to be uploading raw files anytime soon.

With the above said; there are circumstances where a raw file skillfully processed is the only way to get the shot and that no matter what you set on the camera JPEG engine that software will crash and burn and leave you with nothing but cr*p that you won't be able to salvage by editing. Camera JPEG engines work reasonably well when they're not stressed by challenging lighting conditions. Even so, they are engineered to produce mediocrity as their target -- that's what the word automatic means.

An example: Over Spring Break I took a short drive down to Big Oak Tree State Park and I took this photo:






That scene has just begun to become backlit. Backlighting is challenging lighting. You can use ADL on your Nikon or HTP on your Canon or any combination of camera contrast, backlight and exposure settings till your blue in the face and no camera JPEG engine will give you the photo I produced from the raw file. AND no matter what you do you will not be able to salvage the camera JPEG in editing to produce the photo I got from the raw file. This is a backlit landscape. If I'm shooting camera JPEGs I should have fixed the lighting right? Yeah right. I should have come back after the sky went fully overcast an hour latter? I should have waited until it wasn't backlit or arranged to take the photo a couple months later when the sun wouldn't be so far into the southern sky? Yeah right. I don't have to be limited by the restrictive capabilities of my camera's rather crude processing software.

I wanted the backlight and I knew how to handle it with a raw capture and post processing. Most critically I didn't want an exposure that would clip the highlights in the clouds and I wanted as much color in that hazy sky as I could get. I took the photo with a -1 exp. comp. Here's that camera JPEG unedited:






There's nothing that you could set on the camera that would have coaxed it to take my version of this photo. The shadows in the JPEG are blocked up and you can't recover them now in editing. Of course the shadows are blocked up, I set a -1 exp. comp. what do you expect. But if I hadn't set that -1 exp. comp. the camera would have clipped the highlights -- this is a case of pick your favorite mistake. And you can't edit the JPEG now to salvage the photo. The data isn't there any more. If you don't believe that here's a higher-res version of the JPEG; go ahead and try: http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/087/3/7/untitled_by_skoparon-d5zk2rj.jpg

If you shoot JPEGs you can get some good photos and they can be tweaked within rather constrictive limits to be made better. Photographer's who can do that and do it well -- Scott for example -- have a very respectable (and profitable) skill. It is a different skill than mine. Different is good. What we need to do is recognize when and why different is good and put things appropriately in their place. You can't tell me it doesn't matter that I shoot raw and that if I set the camera right I can get the same result shooting JPEG -- that's total nonsense. It's likewise nonsense to tell Scott the next time he photographs a sporting event where he's expected to deliver results 30 minutes after the event ends that he should be taking all his photos in raw.

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> This is wrong. It really can matter quite a lot regardless of any settings that may be available in your camera and how you use them.
> 
> However, before providing a clear example of why this is wrong I want to stress another point. I noticed that Scott posted in this thread and I know he shoots camera JPEGs. I would do the same if I were in his business. There are many appropriate reasons to make the best possible JPEG and I can't think of a more appropriate one than shooting sports journalism when you're working under deadlines so extreme that some photos get web published before the event is over -- not a lot of time there for raw processing. Take a look at the photos on Scott's website and be properly humbled about your own skill using a camera.
> 
> ...




Well, that being the case, I don't shoot in those types of environments. I specialize in portraiture, with manipulated lighting. I can't tell the difference between a RAW or Jpeg in my field of interest. That is all.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Well, that being the case, I don't shoot in those types of environments. I specialize in portraiture, with manipulated lighting. I can't tell the difference between a RAW or Jpeg in my field of interest. That is all.



Thanks, that's much better. I agree that when you can manipulate the lighting the advantages of raw capture are substantially obviated.

Joe


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 28, 2013)

TCampbell said:


> Fundamentally you cannot have more stops of dynamic range per channel than the bit depth per channel.  So an 8 bit per channel JPEG has 8 stops of dynamic range.
> 
> If we pick on, say, just the green channel, then the following is true:
> 
> ...



I was lost at "Fundamentally"


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...



By your own comment, it has NOTHING to do with WHO YOU ARE, rather what your experience is.

Though the pictures of your Super Dooper computer demonstrate that you can build a computer with pretty neon lights and water cooled processor with all the bells and whistles, it means nothing in reference to your statement that raw file are larger and harmful to computer hardware. I have been in the IT field since 1985 and managing truly talented IT people for over half that time, so a self-proclaimed computer &#8220;Wiz&#8221; impresses me none.

Both of your statements are wrong, so I wont be sticking my foot anywhere.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> By your own comment, it has NOTHING to do with WHO YOU ARE, rather what your experience is.
> 
> Though the pictures of your Super Dooper computer demonstrate that you can build a computer with pretty neon lights and water cooled processor with all the bells and whistles, it means nothing in reference to your statement that raw file are larger and harmful to computer hardware. I have been in the IT field since 1985 and managing truly talented IT people for over half that time, so a self-proclaimed computer &ldquo;Wiz&rdquo; impresses me none.
> 
> Both of your statements are wrong, so I wont be sticking my foot anywhere.



That's such a broad term, IT. IT doesn't mean you know squat about computers, unless that's the portion of IT you're working in. I also worked in IT for about 6 years as a network provisioner for a telephone company. Which encompassed nothing of cracking a computer open at all. 

I never said it damages hardware. Stop reading what you want to read an instead read what I said. The processor is only capable of processing, reading and caching so much data in a specified rate of time. The memory works the same way. Hard disks have specific read and write speeds. All of this is in direct proportion to the topic, because the more data there is in a specified type of file, the more work ALL of these components have to do to process the data. Therefore, a 14MB RAW file IS MUCH MORE STRESSFUL on your hardware than a 4MB jpeg file. Hence the reason it takes longer to load.

That's not even getting into the fact that the GPU has limitations on pixel texture and fill rates. The more gpu memory, the faster your hardware is capable of processing this data.

Ill say this much, with all due respect, if you're in the hardware portion of IT, and you don't know this much, you are by far the least educated IT personnel I have ever seen in my life.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

I think things have gotten just a little off topic here. 
lets all just take a breather and either get back on track away from the personal disputes, or out taking some pictures.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

As an electrician, I use a Rycom 8879 underground utility locator. It is part of my tool arsenal.  Some days I use it, some days I don't.  And not every electrician owns one.  Those who never need one will most likely never buy one.

If you're an electrician, I won't think any less of you or your abilities just because you don't have a locator.


By the same token, _raw is just another tool in a photographers' arsenal_.  Not everyone needs or wants to use it.  I am no better an electrician by owning a locator than I am a better photographer by shooting raw.


----------



## pjwarneka (Mar 28, 2013)

Comments like this should get you banned.    This is no place for a logical answers and saying there are many ways to "right"   sheesh.... 






480sparky said:


> As an electrician, I use a Rycom 8879 underground utility locator. It is part of my tool arsenal.  Some days I use it, some days I don't.  And not every electrician owns one.  Those who never need one will most likely never buy one.
> 
> If you're an electrician, I won't think any less of you or your abilities just because you don't have a locator.
> 
> ...


----------



## Patrice (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. It's what the sensor saw. You can spit about algorithms that the firmware uses to convert the data from linear to non linear gamma all day long, it doesn't matter. A non compressed RAW image contains the data nearest to the point of how it came directly from the sensor. The need to explain the technicality of that point is completely irrelevant, and unnecessary.
> 
> Also, the fact that an image sensor is a linear device has nothing to do with anything. The gamma range may be changed to MIMIC what the human eye sees. However, let us first remember that linear devices are only capable of depicting a linear result. Hence the fact that a photograph or image is only two dimensional, which is also a linear object. The eye interprets depth, where as a camera mimics it. A camera cannot see in the third dimension, the human eye can.
> 
> ...



A bit like yourself.

You made your point in your first post so why repeat it and why belittle someone else's post in the process?  Have you considered that maybe some members appreciate the technicalities?

Pat


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Patrice said:


> A bit like yourself.
> 
> You made your point in your first post so why repeat it and why belittle someone else's post in the process?  Have you considered that maybe some members appreciate the technicalities?
> 
> Pat



Then the additional point should have been made  without using my post as a lab rat insinuating that what I posted was incorrect information, when it wasn't. It was simplified information. 

You cannot harp on me for defending my statement and ground. My reply was not an unprovoked attack, it came with strong provocation.

Maybe you should analyze further before using your hypothetical cattle prod.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Patrice said:
> 
> 
> > A bit like yourself.
> ...



The information you posted was incorrect, not just simplified. You said this:

"Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw  photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get  into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of  data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will  always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that  none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.

It really doesn't matter which one you shoot in, as long as you get the settings right in camera."

That's not just a simplification, that's incorrect. This is a public forum where the participants can't read your mind and it can't be assumed that they're all familiar with your working methods.

It really does matter which one you shoot in regardless of your camera settings, unless you're in a studio with complete control of the lighting in which case it doesn't matter as much. A simplification would have been to say, it doesn't matter to me.

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> The information you posted was incorrect, not just simplified. You said this:
> 
> "Raw is an uncompressed file source. What you get when shooting a raw  photograph is an interpretation of exactly the sensor saw. When you get  into Jpeg, you start losing some of the quality in detail because of  data compression. You edit them the same. However, raw images will  always give you a higher range of alteration, because of the fact that  none of the data was lost from the sensor to the file.
> 
> ...



That doesn't make the information incorrect, joe. It makes it irrational for your set of circumstances. See that's the problem with the board members here. If it doesn't meet the criteria to match the way YOU shoot or your experiences, all the sudden the information wrong. 

You all need to go back to school and sit through  a few comprehension courses, on a very serious note.

The information I gave was 150% correct in the circumstances that I shoot.

There are two types of information. Static information and dynamic information. Static information is information set factual by a very strict set of guidelines. They do not change no matter what else happens in the surrounding environment. Examples of this are shutter speed and dynamic range capability. No matter what you do, what environment your in, and the circumstances of the shoot, these things will never change. You camera is only capable of capturing so much dynamic range, and your shutter speed is only capable of going so slow, or so fast.

Dynamic information is information that changes depending on changing variables. Examples of dynamic information are info referring to ISO performance (Which I just recently learned was dynamic via Mach0), Depth of field, aperture size (differs depending on lens used), and this instance, which is RAW versus Jpeg. In dynamic information, any and all factual information can be subject to a specific set of conditions or circumstances. An example of this is as I have posted above. I don't have much experience editing photos using the shooting circumstances in which you posted, Joe.

What I posted is Known Dynamic Information. It is based on facts, that I have accumulated through various experience in the type of photography that I DO.

What you imposed after that, is UN-known dynamic information. It is factual information that I did not know, that are circumstantially different to the experiences that I have been through. Going back to my original post here... that doesn't make my information incorrect. It simply makes it incomplete.


----------



## Benco (Mar 28, 2013)




----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > The information you posted was incorrect, not just simplified. You said this:
> ...



You made an unqualified declarative statement that is wrong. You did not reference your statement to your circumstance nor to any other circumstance. Your statement without qualification is incorrect. You can't come back after the fact and say, "Oh, I really meant that's for me and for how I work and so I was right."

You didn't say that raw or JPEG doesn't matter to you because of your circumstances. I would have never objected if you had. You also can't assume that information if not presented.

As for being irrational, I'd love to hear your explanation for how something can be more than 100% correct.

Joe

Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.



Be sure to stop by and see the American Literature professor while you're there.


----------



## pixmedic (Mar 28, 2013)

seriously people? no wonder so many threads get locked. everyone feels like they just HAVE to have the  last word. apparently "winning" an internet argument with anonymous  people us more important than maintaining civility and keeping threads open for discussion.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Oh yeah, I almost forgot; I'm in school right now actually waiting for class to start and I'm the teacher.
> ...



Don't you mean the philosophy professor? Literature doesn't deal with what constitutes a fact or what is rational. Now you've got the wrong department as well.

Hey Pixmedic, I'm being civil.

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > Ysarex said:
> ...



No, I mean literature, so that you can learn how to read and comprehend. This last post of yours verifies my direct point in that, since you are under the _comprehension_ that I meant the philosophy instructor. I couldn't care less what your personal paradigm on rationality is. It's obviously way off in the first place.

PS, I'm being civil as well.


----------



## DGMPhotography (Mar 28, 2013)

I almost decided to read this thread.... But then I didn't. My comment on jpegs... Sometimes you can get almost similar results to the raw files, and sometimes raw files are harder to get to that right adjustment than jpeg files, but in the end, raw offers much more potential when it comes to editing and post production. My 2 cents!


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...



Under the comprehension?? And you even underlined and italicized it. I do rest my case. When most people have their foot in their mouth they take it out rather than start chewing.

Pixmedic forgive me.

Joe


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Under the comprehension?? And you even underlined and italicized it. I do rest my case. When most people have their foot in their mouth they take it out rather than start chewing.
> 
> Pixmedic forgive me.
> 
> Joe



com·pre·hen·sion  
/&#716;kämpri&#712;henCH&#601;n/
Noun
_*The action*_ or capability of understanding something.
_*Synonyms*_
*understanding* - *grasp* - apprehension - realization


You really do need some schooling; much worse than I had originally thought.

I love that you're letting the southern boy from Tennessee absolutely school you in context of the English language. That must feel great, considering I use words like "y'all" and "ain't."

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

So, are you planning to stop chewing on that foot of yours anytime soon?


----------



## Benco (Mar 28, 2013)

Someone's going to be sent to the naughty corner soon.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> That doesn't make the information incorrect, joe. It makes it irrational for your set of circumstances. See that's the problem with the board members here. If it doesn't meet the criteria to match the way YOU shoot or your experiences, all the sudden the information wrong.
> 
> You all need to go back to school and sit through  a few comprehension courses, on a very serious note.
> 
> ...



That's a long-winded way to say you don't know what you're talking about. 

Add all the buzz words and twist it all you want. You've had professionals on both sides of the argument weigh in. Whatever floats your boat. What is clear is you still don't have a coherent understanding of both formats and their uses, or as you would put "factual information that I did not know".


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Well, that being the case, I don't shoot in those types of environments. I specialize in portraiture, with manipulated lighting. I can't tell the difference between a RAW or Jpeg in my field of interest. That is all.





Ysarex said:


> Thanks, that's much better. _*I agree that when you can manipulate the lighting the advantages of raw capture are substantially obviated.*_
> 
> Joe





Rotanimod said:


> That's a long-winded way to say you don't know what you're talking about.
> 
> Add all the buzz words and twist it all you want. You've had professionals on both sides of the argument weigh in. Whatever floats your boat. What is clear is you still don't have a coherent understanding of both formats and their uses, or as you would put "factual information that I did not know".





I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...


You seem to have never received that memo...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...
> 
> You seem to have never received that memo...



I didn't receive memos as a child. 

Your aggressive and stubborn conduct in this thread has been entertaining to watch. 

My favorite part is where you say a bunch of stuff that contradicts the stuff you say later!


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...
> ...



LOL Backpedal much?

 Rotanimod: "I just got made a fool of by my own words, so I'm going to slam on the brakes and say a bunch of crap about a different subject to save face."


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 28, 2013)

Rotanimod said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > I suggest you read the entire thread before you start yapping your mouth, smart one. I learned at a very young age to only pick fights I know I can win...
> ...



You can never win an argument with a "Computer Wiz". Even when you're right.


----------



## weepete (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > A lot of Raw files are indeed compressed. There are over 100 Raw file types. Tons of data is lost between the image sensor and the Raw data file that gets recorded on the memory card, mostly in the pixel voltage analog-to-digital conversion.
> ...



You shouldn't be so dismissive mate, some of us like to know about the tech stuff. Just because you've heard it before or know about it doesn't mean we all have.

I do think a lot of the time too much is made of raw and sure jpegs have their advantages, but with modern pp programs especially making it really easy to pp with raw combined with pretty quick computers raw has the edge for most of us on here. Of course if you don't like or don't want to edit much then yeah shoot in jpeg. Ultimatley you have to decide what is best for you though, and the more inforrmation new guys like me can get the better. 

Ultimatley though I allways try and get things right in camera, I don't allways suceed but I'll try.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> Rotanimod said:
> 
> 
> > AaronLLockhart said:
> ...



Says the undereducated IT pro that seriously thinks that file size has no relation to Hardware stress and specs


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 28, 2013)

480sparky said:


> (raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym)



Tell that to the camera manufacturers.  The manuals to my cameras call it "RAW".


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > (raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym)
> ...



Be prepared to be told you're wrong by six people that pretend to be smart.


----------



## HughGuessWho (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> HughGuessWho said:
> 
> 
> > Rotanimod said:
> ...



Yeah, you're right. What a fool I am. I work for a major worldwide corporation as an IT Manager responsible for a team of well qualified people who provide support for everything from desktop support to network infrastructure, yet I am being schooled by a self-proclaimed computer wiz. Thanks for the education.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 28, 2013)

HughGuessWho said:


> AaronLLockhart said:
> 
> 
> > HughGuessWho said:
> ...



You're welcome. If you need anything else, send me a PM. You seriously make me laugh. Why the hell do you think that we need quad core CPU's, more RAM, and more GPU memory?!?! Hmmm, because file sizes are larger and there is more data to process... you are the smartest dumb person I've ever met.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > (raw, not RAW, it's not an acronym)
> ...



What do they know?  They're just interpreting Japanese.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 28, 2013)

If the people who write the manual don't even know, then how do _you_ know that it isn't actually an acronym?    Maybe they just didn't bother to explain what it means.

"RAW" makes as much sense as "raw".


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> If the people who write the manual don't even know, then how do _you_ know that it isn't actually an acronym?    Maybe they just didn't bother to explain what it means.
> 
> "RAW" makes as much sense as "raw".



If it IS an acronym, then what's it stand for?

(And make sure nasa, cia, fbi, kgb, and mi-5 knows about this.)


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 28, 2013)

480sparky said:


> O|||||||O said:
> 
> 
> > If the people who write the manual don't even know, then how do _you_ know that it isn't actually an acronym?    Maybe they just didn't bother to explain what it means.
> ...


I don't know, lol, that's why I said they must not have explained it.  

What does IS stand for?

:lmao:

Call it whatever you want.  I'll call it what the manual to the camera calls it.

edit
BTW, CIA often is lowercase.  Some Directors of Central Intelligence (a position which no longer exists) even preferred it that way.  central intelligence agency.
(Schlesinger, for one.  Maybe he was the only one, I don't remember now.  Anyway, it's not uncommon to see cia lowercase.)


----------



## imagemaker46 (Mar 28, 2013)

So how many people have been burning up Google looking for what raw really stands for. I always thought it had something to to do with fixing Really Awful Work.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> I don't know, lol, that's why I said they must not have explained it.
> 
> What does IS stand for?



Image Stabilization.



O|||||||O said:


> .........
> BTW, CIA often is lowercase.  Some Directors of Central Intelligence (a  position which no longer exists) even preferred it that way.  central  intelligence agency.
> (Schlesinger, for one.  Maybe he was the only one, I don't remember now.   Anyway, it's not uncommon to see cia lowercase.)




Not according to the CIA website.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 28, 2013)

Nevermind...  I was talking about the "IS" in your post.


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 28, 2013)

O|||||||O said:


> Nevermind...  I was talking about the "IS" in your post.



Emphasis.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 28, 2013)

480sparky said:


> Not according to the CIA website.



Right, because the CIA is well known for not lying to the American public.  Or reading your mail (that's one of the "most illegal" things that they actually admitted to doing).  Or any number of other laws they broke.  Obviously everything on their website is the whole truth - no omissions.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 28, 2013)

This thread is pretty raw bros.


----------



## Josh66 (Mar 28, 2013)

BTW, if you're interested in further reading on the CIA, I suggest Legacy of Ashes, by Tim Weiner - very eye opening book.  I've read a lot of books on the subject, but that is probably the most complete.  (That's where I remembered the bit about Schlesinger from, for example.)


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> LOL Backpedal much?
> 
> Rotanimod: "I just got made a fool of by my own words, so I'm going to slam on the brakes and say a bunch of crap about a different subject to save face."



[insert facepalm meme here] 

Where did I back pedal? I stated the fact that you are self-contradicting, and that I've been/ continue to be entertained by you crashing and burning in this thread.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 28, 2013)

Boom!Boom! Out Go The Lights, by Pat Travers Band.


----------



## Ysarex (Mar 28, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> > Under the comprehension?? And you even underlined and italicized it. I do rest my case. When most people have their foot in their mouth they take it out rather than start chewing.
> ...



Sorry I was away for a few hours, I had to go to class.

Oh dear Lord. I know what comprehension means. You tried to use an idiom that begins with "under the." In using that phrase you were trying to point out that I was in error thinking you meant the philosophy instructor. You used the wrong word in that phrase. Common forms of that idiomatic phrase are under the impression or under a misconception or under an assumption. To say "under the comprehension" especially in the context of your sentence is nonsensical. It is incorrect English usage. You're failing in the very thing you're trying to accuse me of and you don't know it even after I pointed it out. That by the way is called irony.

Then you hand me Tennessee on a silver platter, but I will resist.

Go do a Google search on these phrases:

under the impression
under the misconception
under an assumption
under the comprehension

You really need to quit before you dig your hole any deeper.

Joe


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 29, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> Sorry I was away for a few hours, I had to go to class.
> 
> Oh dear Lord. I know what comprehension means. You tried to use an idiom that begins with "under the." In using that phrase you were trying to point out that I was in error thinking you meant the philosophy instructor. You used the wrong word in that phrase. Common forms of that idiomatic phrase are under the impression or under a misconception or under an assumption. To say "under the comprehension" especially in the context of your sentence is nonsensical. It is incorrect English usage. You're failing in the very thing you're trying to accuse me of and you don't know it even after I pointed it out. That by the way is called irony.
> 
> ...



I think that hole is so deep already that he's made it to the center of the earth. That's why we haven't heard from him. No Internet coverage down there. 

Him and Brendan Frasier are probably having some laughs over tea and crumpets right now. Hopefully if they encounter any T-Rex's he might be able to grab a picture for us, assuming he has his camera. 

But the dynamic range at the center of the earth is pretty crazy. Since he shoots JPEG only, he'll probably blow the hell out the highlights on T-rex and we wont be able to see his infamous short forearms. Thanks for ruining history!


----------



## bratkinson (Mar 29, 2013)

Well, I'm glad that all I need is a raincoat to read this thread with the multiple pissing contests going on.

Beats needing waders and a gas mask...


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Mar 29, 2013)

bratkinson said:


> Well, I'm glad that all I need is a raincoat to read this thread with the multiple pissing contests going on.
> 
> Beats needing waders and a gas mask...



My waders have a hole in them right now. It's like driving a car without wheels.


----------



## AaronLLockhart (Mar 29, 2013)

My formal apologies everyone.

Sometimes I have to digress and reanalyze, before I realize that I went off on a completely unnecessary route.

Rotanimod, Ysarex, and Hughguesswho(I think that's his screen name, I have a terrible short term memory), Sorry about the things I've said to you in the past day or so. I'm sure all of you are great guys and didn't deserve any of it.

Rotanimod, I do understand the difference in capabilities between RAW and Jpeg. I guess I was unwilling to accept the fact that in some instances, RAW is better for some people. It just doesn't really make a difference in my line of work, since I can manipulate my light source how ever I please.

Hughguesswho, I'm in no place to make a judgment about your professional life, or your intelligence. I don't know you. I apologize. However, please realize you do not know me either, and I am not your typical "wanna-be" computer guru. I've been building them for 15 years now. I know a ton about them. However, that still puts me in no situation to say what I've said about you.

Ysarex, that's pretty cool you're a college professor (I'm assuming that is what you are. So, if I'm wrong, please feel free to correct me.) I'm in no place to tell you to go back to school. After all, I'm sure you have plenty of education.

However, this can be an eye opener for everyone involved. It has definitely taught me that "my" way is not the only way, and just because I have experienced it my way doesn't mean that your experiences are wrong. However, in the same sense, I guess it can be eye opening to all parties in that everyone has separate experiences. 


Anyway, I'm rambling. Once again, my apologies.

More importantly, sorry to the OP for dragging this thread into the "wild blue yonder."


----------



## HughGuessWho (Apr 4, 2013)

AaronLLockhart said:


> My formal apologies everyone.
> 
> Sometimes I have to digress and reanalyze, before I realize that I went off on a completely unnecessary route.
> 
> ...



I saw the title of this thread in the Active Topics list and immediately thought, Oh No, not THAT thread again. But, like a train wreck, I had to look. Man was I surprised.

@ AaronLLockhart - What great comments. I must say, I was thinking that you HAD to be the biggest d1ck on this forum, but not, my opinion has turned 180.

I must say, I was a bit over the top as well. I tend to take comments to seriously sometimes and let it get the best of me.

Your apology is accepted. I hope you will accept mine.


----------

