Photoshop ACR vs 12MP JPEG

[ballroom_boy]

Hi there,

OK, I may start a major debate with this (or maybe not).

I have been playing with my newly installed copy of PS CS... I am having a blast. I really like the ACR (RAW converter) - so fast and easy to use.

I know when shooting RAW, one has much more control over the final image (even though it may slow down workflow signifcantly) - there are so many settings that can be modified after the fact.

I am curious though - is the image quality better with RAW vs. shooting a properly exposed JPEG at 12MP fine?

[HulaMike]

Can you shoot a 12 MP jpeg? RAW is 12MP, Tiff is 35MP.

But to answer your question, yes. A RAW file will produce a 12 bit / 12 MP image much deeper in both highlight and shadow detail than a jpeg. Jpeg starts out being compressed, RAW doesn't.

[ballroom_boy]

Hi Mike,

I was referring to the 12MP (4256) interpolated file that the S2 produces...

Thanks for your answer.

[Tom V]

The data that comes off the sensor is the RAW data.

You can opt to have the camera throw out over half the data (16 bit to 8 bit), apply sharpening (without much control), wack the color around (to various pre-sets), and then crunch the data down with JPG compression (the image is broken into 8x8 pixel tiles, and replaced by patterns from the JPG library). You end up with a file that looks pretty good for most things, depending on your standards and needs.

Or

You can opt to have the camera save the RAW data for you to work on in Photoshop CS. You can virtually control the ISO, adjust the highlights, the shadows, the contrast, the saturation, the tone, aspherical aberations, sharpening, all the bits (16 bits per pixel per channel), and even interperlate much larger files, or crunch down JPGs with a preview of what you're doing. With this control, you can make images much better than the camera can. You can also go back to the original RAW file (you saved it right?), and re-work it if you want.

There is no way a JPG or TIF from the camera can be better than the source data (RAW) with some minimal adjustments, and there are plenty of ways the source data (RAW) can be made much better than the JPG or TIF the camera makes.

There is also no way a JPG from the camera can be made to look sharper than if you use the RAW data and sharpen it yourself (with a little bit of skill).

Once the camera applies its work to the RAW data in making JPG or TIF files, data is lost, which limits your ability to make optimum images. Only working with the RAW files gives you all your options, and has all the potential to make the greatest image possible.

:beerchug:

[sandman]

Yep i can see Roel has started the debate on RAW again :D
Only this time i can answer it with the benifit of that hindsite i was talking about.
Tom is right , there is no way a jpg image will match a well converted RAW image . but i depends on your and your clients needs .
Now i've got the EX converter i've played around with it , and can say this , for the amateur who just views them on his H/D or prints out the odd one , fine 6m jpg is fine . but for wedding photographers , commercial artists, and graphic designers, people like Tom, Rocky, and most of the top end pro's , they must use RAW, simply because theirwork and their clients demand it.
I take most of my shots in 6m fine jpeg it works OK. but for the odd 'iffy' situation (shooting swams in bright light) i will select RAW knowing i can experiment later. using a 1gig m/drive or a 512 C/F helps.
My only reason i don't use RAW on more shots is simply TIME .
on average i shoot 50-80 pics in a mornings work. if i had to convert them all , then save them to H/D then to disc . then transfer a smaller jpeg to my lap top. i'd be all day and most of the evening.
So i use both depending on the situation. but i'm an amateur who only does the odd wedding (no comment on syntex Swampy).
This was something i would not have said 6 months ago , i would have defended JPG a lot more .. as i said . the value of hindsight .

Brian

[ballroom_boy]

Tom & Brian,

Thank you for your posts. I can see the flexibility in shooting RAW. And as Brian stated, RAW is great if you have the time and need top quality results.

I have been lurking a lot on Gary Fong's site... he claims that RAW is not necessary if you can properly expose a JPEG. The S2 is good at nailing white balance and the Nikon matrix metering is pretty accurate. I have seen his book of 8"x10" prints at the various camera settings (he sells a book of prints with all of the possible S2 settings)... and I could not tell the difference between a RAW print and a 3MP JPEG print. I suspect if the photos were larger, then I could start seeing some major differences though...

Anyway, it is nice to know that I don't have to buy the EX converter and that PS CS has ACR in it. For critical shots (i.e. that ones that will make me $$$) I shall be shooting RAW from now on...

Thanks!

[HulaMike]

Gary Fong is a wedding shooter primarily who needs a fast turn around on hundreds of pics at a time. He thinks, and has stated publiclaly on his forum, that shooting "hard sharpened jpegs" in camera produces the best image. Hogwash! He's the only one on the planet who thinks so. You shoot RAW in any digital camera when you want optimum quality.

[Linda G]

I work with other's digital images day in and day out. There is a difference.

I tell them (portrait/wedding photographers), "You are a professional. As such, you have medium or large format cameras for the best quality negs. Why, now that you are using digital, will you shoot less than the best quality?

I know some who use RAW for the wedding and set up shots that may be printed bigger and switch to jpg for the reception where the largest may be a 5 x 7.

I used to always use RAW when I had Canon and the BreezeBrowser conversion program but find the Fuji too messy and unpredictable...am saving pennies for CS.

[bjnicholls]

Gary Fong has a good answer for Gary Fong.

An 8x10 is a small print for me. I shoot raw files for both the highest image quality potential and the flexibility.

Jpegs are like shooting slides, only even more touchy to correct exposure. And the S2 has only 1/2 stop exposure resolution, so it's not really adequate for precise exposures. Shooting raw allows you to compensate for everyday imprecision as well as work with out-and-out wrong settings for white balance, saturation, tone and sharpening, not to mention a bad underexposure of an unrepeatable image. Make one global adjustment to your jpeg and you'll be accumulating jpeg compression errors (unless you save to a lossless file type). You never get the benefit of 12-bit color depth or the extra gamut that Adobe RGB 1998 offers (sRGB is definitely not the gamut of the S2 sensor).

I have no problem with the idea that jpeg workflow can be a lot more productive, just be aware of the tradeoffs and never delude yourself that jpeg shooting doesn't involve compromise.

[Sleeping Bear]

Gary Fong is in the business of Gary Fong. As he has stated, he is not the best photographer, but is a great marketer. I would love to compare Tom's work with Fong's and see the diff raw makes.

[Steve P]

I still use either Jpeg or Tiff. Iv'e played about with the software that came with the S2 but in all honesty I don't think it's very good.

Perhaps someone could tell me if it's worth buying the upgraded version..

Steve:voegeli:

[ballroom_boy]

Personally, I wouldn't buy the Fuji EX converter... I would just upgrade to Photoshop CS as it includes the ACR and does a nice job on FUJI .RAF (RAW) files. And it is so easy to use.

ACR was well worth the cost of upgrading PS - not to forget all of the other new cool features.

[ianmcc]

this RAW conversation comes up a bit mmore frequently these days, seems more and more people are realizing the advantages. The converter in PS CS makes using RAW a no-brainer.

If you want an old school metaphor. Jpegs are machine prints, RAW's are hand made custom 8X10's.

Sure you can get a great result if conditions are right with the Jpeg, but if you're not in a hurry and want TOTAL control of exposure, colour temp, contrast, sharpening, etc. RAW is the only solution.

PERSONALLY, I don't want to shoot a job, make judgements by that LCD, and get back to the studio and cringe at my results. I can tweak afterwards with RAW

[Andre]

If you want to shoot high-ISO, then you'll definitely want to use RAW. JPG makes the noise more noisy.