life in pictures # 16 ~ redeux / RAW vs JPEG
Wednesday, May 25, 2011 at 10:46AM 
Chanel / Rouge COCO shine ~ 1st & E4th - NYC, NY • click to embiggen
Chanel / Rouge COCO shine / JPEG ® v RAW (l) ~ 1st & E4th - NYC, NY • click to embiggenAs you might recall, while I was in NYC / NJ, I was making and posting work-in-progress pictures. They were labeled as work-in-progress because I was processing the pictures using some "antiquated" equipment and outdated software - a 10 year old MacBook, OS v10.2, PS v7.1, and long-gone ImageReady (save for web) v7.0 - with which I was certain to obtain good but not best results. Although, I figured the results would be good enough, and they were, to post as on-the-road, work-in-progress / awaiting "high-end wringer" processing pictures.
In addition to the equipment / software "handicap", there was also the issue of having to picture in JPEG format - the MacBook had no RAW converter, without which there was no opening RAW files in PS 7.1. Not wanting to end up with only JPEGs, I set my cameras to record RAW + JPEG. FYI, I was also using ISO bracketing, so each release of the shutter created 6 files on my memory card - I was eating up memory space at a prodigious pace.
In any event, at the time, there was a request from John Linn:
I think it might be an interesting exercise for you to post a few of your "work-in-process" results along side your "high-end wringer" results and let us guess which is which.
So, here you have it. Although, I think a guessing game would kinda be a waste of time inasmuch as the "high-end wringer" version should be quite obvious.
That said, I would like to state that, despite the equipment / software handicap, I was quite pleasantly surprised by the work-in-progress results. There was very little I couldn't accomplish, re: results from my "high-end wringer" wise, with the use of some workarounds and various tricks of the way-back-then, state-of-the-art trade.
That is not to state that there are no differences between Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Indeed, there obviously are - over all color balance being the most obvious/critical - but none of the differences are such that the intent of my life in pictures picture making is seriously impeded, comprised, or negated. Technical virtuosity differences aside, IMO, they are both in the same aesthetic ballpark.
All of which brings me to the RAW vs JPEG thing.
I make all of my pictures in RAW. While RAW files contain more information than JPEGs, the primary reason for picturing in RAW is because I don't like machines to make decisions for me. Any machines. Any decisions.
That is not to state that some machines make some good decisions. For instance, I tend to trust the ABS / EBD / ESC system in our cars - although never as a substitute for attentive driving. However, when it comes to all things aesthetic, I want to be the decider. I am not interested in accepting what a software engineer believes is an acceptable-to-the-most-people aesthetic average regarding color, saturation, white balance, or contrast, just to name a few decisions that a picture making machine (camera + software) makes for you when you go the JPEG route.
Sure, you can set some in-camera JPEG parameters but those are sledge hammer tools relative to the surgeon's scalpel tools at your disposal in the RAW converter / PS virtual darkroom. The skillful and considered use of those virtual darkroom tools - in my case, with the goal of achieving the most natural, un-effected /affected, and accurate to the real pictures the medium and its apparatus allows - can raise your pictures to the "next level". Or, at the very least, to a level which meets your own personal aesthetic desires.
HOWEVER, as my recent dip into JPEG waters has demonstrated, there is still quite a bit of meat left on the JPEG bone after in-camera JPEG processing. IMO, more than enough to satisfy even the most observant and critical viewers of fine art pictures. That is, more than enough if one is inclined to do some judicious after-the-picture-making fact processing.
As mentioned, I used ISO bracketing during my recent experiment. That allowed me, without over-processing problems, to do (if neeed) some highlight / shadow exposure blending. Subtle WB, color/saturation corrections, sharpening - all localized, if desired - were also possible. The key to successful JPEG picture processing is to: 1) set the camera parameters to produce a result as close to your aesthetic intentions as is possible, and 2) keep your post picturing processing to a minimum using as light a touch as possible to get where you want to go.
IMO, whichever route, RAW vs JPEG, you choose to go, careful attention to in-camera JPEG parameters with some light post picturing processing or the skillful mastery of the full monty RAW converter / PS virtual darkroom, the resultant prints are bound to be of exceptionally high quality. That is to say, the technical quality of those prints will never be a hindrance in the expressing your aesthetic vision.
Does that mean that I am going to be making in-camera JPEGs?
ABSOLUTELY NOT. Other than for making and posting on-the-go / work-in-progress pictures, it just ain't gonna happen.
BTW & FYI, coincidentally, over on TOP today, there is an entry, Virtuous Techniques? which addresses the same topic. A coincidence which, as the entry author, Ctein, states is "perhaps just another example of great minds lying in the same gutter.
Reader Comments (5)
On the web image, there's not a lot between the two renditions but the colour correction is a biggie.
I've been using RAW for 6 or so months and really apprecipate the cleaner image and the fact it is more malleable in the editor. And now that you've got me paying more attention to accurate colour my images have -- in a technical sense -- gone up a level.
Another area is contrast. JPEGs tend to ramp it up a bit so I like to tone it down, at least in the initial editing phase.
If I have this right the RAW is on the left. Is it final? To me it seems to have a green cast in the glass of the shelter.
Dennis, I think that the RAW is on the right, as per the wording...
In addition to the slight color modification there is an optical correction on the blue panel to straighten up the line. Of course that could have been done to the jpeg too if desired.
I like the modified shade of blue on that panal but the slightly warmer tone of the advertisement panal looks better to my eyes in the jpeg.
NEF is a raw image format used by Nikon digital cameras, it contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of a Nikon digital camera. Raw files are so named because they are not yet processed. NEF image can be converted by a ReaConverter in single or batch mode to a regular file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation.