I’m reading another Bryan Peterson book. This one is entitled Understanding Digital Photography
I like Bryan’s books as a general rule. He has reasons for the positions he takes and shows photos to back up his ideas. In this book one of the very first subjects he tackles is one about which I have also written here. Bryan discusses the relative merits of three image file formats that digital cameras can produce; JPEG, TIFF, and Raw.
Mr. Peterson correctly points out that JPEG is an acronym for Joint Photographic Experts Group, and TIFF for Tagged Image Format File–though he prefers to render it “This Is Final Forever”–and that Raw is not an acronym at all.
In giving an overview of the formats, he discusses their various sizes and points out that TIFF is larger than Raw. This is seen as a benefit by the author, but I am left puzzled by the idea that a file format can add anything of real value to image quality to the complete and unprocessed information straight off the sensor. If the claim was made that TIFF grew in size as changes were made in post-processing, I could understand it, but Raw is everything the camera captured, so before processing I am dubious about the value being added by those bytes. I would sooner chalk the increase in size up to inefficiency in the file format. If you have an opinion or information on this topic, I’d love to read it.
He also states that it isn’t possible to fix white balance in a JPEG. I agree that Photoshop’s very cool white-balance preset control won’t have its usual wonderful effect, but Paint Shop Pro has a simple color balance tool that does an adequate job in most circumstances.
That said, Raw does allow complete control of this after the fact, whereas JPEG allows only partial control. I just take issue with the statement that white balance fixes are unavailable in JPEG.
He also makes much of JPEGs “lossy” compression, but errs in indicating that JPEG files degrade each time they are opened and closed. It’s a small distinction to be sure, but one I think is critical to the analysis, to make it clear that it is only saving the file that results in degradation. Files may be opened for viewing with safety; it’s the changes about which one must be concerned.
In the end, Mr. Peterson, like my very advanced amateur friend at work, prefers Raw. I am finding that as I gain experience with my photo processing software (I use Paint Shop Pro XI) I am more confident in my ability to fix images after shooting. Even so, I agree with Bryan that it is better to get images right in the camera, and I strive to do that. Additionally, I simply do not have the time to process every image I make. Even the ones I post in my gallery or print to fulfill orders are generally processed very little. If a client wants certain changes in color or desires retouching, I take pains to do that, but my style is more about a natural look in general.
For me then, the bottom line is that I continue to shoot JPEG Fine, archive the originals and manipulate only copies, and reap the benefits of speed in my workflow. Bryan shoots different things for different reasons than I do, so I am not knocking his approach for his own use, but I don’ think it’s necessarily right for all photographers–I’m sure it’s not right for me. I’d like to see him take a more complete look at the topic and treat it in greater detail in a revision of this book if he has an opportunity to do one.
–Larry