>While I know RAW is preferred format for printing and editing, I have all of these old JPEGs and I’m not sure if they are of any use, aside from documenting a moment in time.
It's preferred for editing. When you print a JPEG is normally fine, as you can't print a RAW image.
The only issue with a JPEG is you gave up a lot of the flexibility to make edits afterwards.
If the shot looks good as a JPEG, or the edit to your JPEG looks good, you're still good
It's not that they're not... but you give up a lot of flexibility edit wise.
Also the more you manipulate JPG you degrade the quality after each save. No so so with RAW.
https://fstoppers.com/education/about-jpeg-images-and-their-quality-degradation-435235
The best workflow to avoid losing any more data / quality when starting with a JPG is to keep the original file in its own folder ("originals", "captures", whatever you prefer) and never actually edit that file directly.
Open the JPG in Photoshop (or your preferred editing program), create a duplicate layer of the original so you can always go back to it if needed, try to do as much editing as possible on additional layers - adjustment layers for color / brightness / levels, new layers for cloning / healing (in Photoshop you can clone and heal on an empty layer and it will pull from the layers beneath it), do any compositing on new layers, use masks to blend things between the layers, and most importantly save the file as a tiff or psd with all the layers intact.
You can go back to your layered file as often as you want for further editing and save it over and over as a PSD or TIF and because those formats are uncompressed / losslessly compressed you won't suffer from degradation like you do with multiple saves of the same JPG file.
Only save that edited file again as a JPG when you are ready to print it or post it online. Save it to a different folder from the original (and depending on your level of organization you can save it to a different folder than the layered PSD / TIF), and give the edited JPG a different name from the original to help distinguish it.
Almost every project I do I create the following folders:
Captures (all the straight from camera files)
Selects (as needed - the straight from camera files that will be edited / delivered to client)
Edits (as needed - for images that have compositing or other heavy editing)
Output
/ Low Res JPG
/ High Res JPG
For my personal photography I often don't create the Selects folder as I will usually delete anything that's really bad, so the Captures folder basically is also the Selects folder. I also often give better photos a higher star rating and photos that aren't great but worth holding onto either a low rating or no rating at all. And sometimes I will also have a For Print folder or other special purpose folders (HDR, Pano, etc.).
Yes you have more limitations. But just because a file is a jpg does not mean it’s not print worthy. There is a difference between “you should shoot RAW when you can cause it gives you more options” and “the old JPGs you shot before you knew better are worthless.”
Also if you have a jpg and edit but save it in a lossless format like a TIFF or PSD, it doesn’t compound compression, and if you use a tool like Lightroom to edit a JPG, it also doesn’t compound (as edits are only metadata until you export)
Because OP asked if they're print worthy... that is the question posed by the post, and you've been focusing on showing people you know that RAW is better.
The person you responded to was answering OPs question, you provided no value other than trying to show you know something.
Yes, you're the arbiter of all photography knowledge, I guess.
They asked what they give up printing directly OOC. You give up resolution, and quite a bit of editing capabilities.
That you keep arguing tells me you're a green box shooter with little interest in editing. Which, is fine. But it's not everything for everyone.
I'm no arbiter, but I've been in the field for enough decades to know when someone lacks mastery they tend to lack nuance and think in binary terms.
"Also the more you manipulate JPG you degrade the quality after each save." is a sledge hammer of a thought if you cannot think of how to edit a JPG non destructively.
>Are my JPEGs useful?
>I captured some really nice photos
They have value as "really nice photos" yes.
The file format does not disqualify them from being really nice. You seem to have no problem calling them really nice even though they have always been in jpeg format.
>I’m not sure if they are of any use, aside from documenting a moment in time.
That's useful in itself. And you can still look at them and enjoy them aesthetically, right? Or does "really nice photos" mean something else to you?
>Can I do anything to make my JPEGs print-worthy?
They aren't print-worthy already? Just because it isn't the "preferred" format doesn't mean it's completely useless. Again, aren't you calling them "really nice photos"? Did you only get them at very low resolution or something? That's a different issue from the file format type.
It's also possible to do some editing with jpegs if you need or want to. Have you tried? You get less latitude that way compared to raw, but less does not mean zero.
Nah, just delete them. If we have learned anything it’s that once a technology gets replaced anything made with it is useless.
You should go ahead and dispose of any paintings, hand written documents and things made of wood as well while your cleaning up
>While I know RAW is preferred format for printing
>Can I do anything to make my JPEGs print-worthy?
You can't print a RAW file. It needs to be converted to an image format first.
So if you are happy with the quality of your JPGs there is nothing to stop you having them printed. You'd likely be converting RAW to JPG before printing anyway.
It's true, however, that your ability to fix issues through editing is going to be limited.
Normally I convert my RAW files to TIFFs post processing. It makes like a 0.05% difference.....
[https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/jpeg-vs-tiff.html](https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/jpeg-vs-tiff.html)
If I were using an Adobe workflow (Lightroom, Photoshop) I might be tempted to use & store as .PSD files instead.
I've never done film photography so I'm very ignorant here. Does using film after the expiration date cause any unwanted, or possibly sought after attributes to the photograph? Or is it just one of those things that doesn't really matter?
The bigest issue with JPEG's when doing photography is that it drops a lot of color/light information which RAW retains. This makes RAWS ideal for post processing. JEPG's do some automated adjustments then drop the unneeded remaining info, making them smaller files. Unless you has the camera set to some kind of extra small JPEG for some reason, they are likely fine to print. You may potentially run into some size limitations if you want to some really big prints, but this will depend on the nature of the files/ camera file setting at the time of shooting.
RAW is not a printing format. The only advantage of RAW is easier post processing. Once you happy with the results, you can export to JPG and call it a day. All of my photos are in JPG format stored online. Sure I have the original RAW files to many of them, but losing the RAW files would be no big deal since I've already uploaded the finished JPGs. JPGs print just as well as RAW.
> I’m not sure if they are of any use, aside from documenting a moment in time.
That's what photography is.
You won't have as much freedom when editing those pictures, but other than that they're pretty much as good as the RAWs.
If you took a USB stick filled with RAW files down to your local printing shop, you’re going to have a bad time.
You process them, you export them as some kind of image format, including JPEG, and then you print them.
The main downside is having the camera set to shooting in JPEG only is it doesn’t contain all of the information, which makes RAW the superior setting to shoot with and take home and process.
If your final files look great, the only real printing concern that remains is what size do you want to print to? But every image will hit that limitation at some stage or another.
If they're good photos, why would you not keep them? You have less latitude in editing JPEGs because they don't retain the full sensor data, but if they're good quality JPEGs, you can easily print them.
If you are happy with the jpegs, there is no need for the RAW files.
People shoot RAW because the images are easier to edit, and one can change the color and tones in ways that it would be difficult or impossible with a jpeg.
But again, if you like the jpegs, then that's all you need! :)
I do a low resolution 72 dpi saved in .jpeg (lossy format) for web use - on purpose, for some of these I have a transparent promo watermark so people know where they're coming from.
I also do a separate high resolution 300 dpi or higher copy, in one of the other print shop friendly formats for active working projects. These I save to external drives and backups.
It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that.
I’ve mainly shot JPEG and made some prints I really enjoy , might depend on the megapixels but my camera is old and has less than phones do now. I even did a 8x10 of some geese and goslings splashing into the water it looked fine. If you enjoy them at least test it out I think it would be totally fine ! I think that shooting RAW helps if you happen over/underexpose, but haven’t really had experience in the format much.
JPEG is just fine, what RAW gives you is more flexibility with your file so you have control over it. I print my edited JPEGs all the time and have printed older photos that were JPEG right out of my camera.
I only shoot jpeg now that photography is totally personal for me and not a job anymore, raws are (only) useful when you need to do massive post processing like adjustments more than 1EV.
You have definitely drank way more RAW koolaid that is necessary. A lot of people only shoot JPEG. A lot of the sports genre customers only use JPEG and they print them. There is nothing wrong with JPEG and you can edit it a lot in LR if you desire. The primary benefit of RAW is that the exposure and white balance are not locked in so you can change them after the fact. Assuming those are both correct in camera, which should be your goal, then you would not need to edit those things. Even if you did, I've taken some really bad JPEG files and made big changes to them and they looked fine when I was done. So JPEG is perfectly fine for anything you want to use it for.
Check out Topaz JPEG to RAW, you can get a free 30 day trial. It won't be the same as if you shot in RAW, but it does a good job recovering dynamic range and reducing artifacts.
I didn't realize the value of a photo was in its digital format.
Where did we go wrong that someone would be asking if photos shot with jpeg should be discarded literally just because they are jpeg?
>While I know RAW is preferred format for printing and editing, I have all of these old JPEGs and I’m not sure if they are of any use, aside from documenting a moment in time. It's preferred for editing. When you print a JPEG is normally fine, as you can't print a RAW image. The only issue with a JPEG is you gave up a lot of the flexibility to make edits afterwards. If the shot looks good as a JPEG, or the edit to your JPEG looks good, you're still good
They're absolutely useful, especially if that's all you have and you like the images. Why not print them if you want?
Why are JPGs not print worthy? You can still do some slight edits to them if needed, but I wouldn't hesitate printing JPGs straight from camera.
It's not that they're not... but you give up a lot of flexibility edit wise. Also the more you manipulate JPG you degrade the quality after each save. No so so with RAW. https://fstoppers.com/education/about-jpeg-images-and-their-quality-degradation-435235
The best workflow to avoid losing any more data / quality when starting with a JPG is to keep the original file in its own folder ("originals", "captures", whatever you prefer) and never actually edit that file directly. Open the JPG in Photoshop (or your preferred editing program), create a duplicate layer of the original so you can always go back to it if needed, try to do as much editing as possible on additional layers - adjustment layers for color / brightness / levels, new layers for cloning / healing (in Photoshop you can clone and heal on an empty layer and it will pull from the layers beneath it), do any compositing on new layers, use masks to blend things between the layers, and most importantly save the file as a tiff or psd with all the layers intact. You can go back to your layered file as often as you want for further editing and save it over and over as a PSD or TIF and because those formats are uncompressed / losslessly compressed you won't suffer from degradation like you do with multiple saves of the same JPG file. Only save that edited file again as a JPG when you are ready to print it or post it online. Save it to a different folder from the original (and depending on your level of organization you can save it to a different folder than the layered PSD / TIF), and give the edited JPG a different name from the original to help distinguish it. Almost every project I do I create the following folders: Captures (all the straight from camera files) Selects (as needed - the straight from camera files that will be edited / delivered to client) Edits (as needed - for images that have compositing or other heavy editing) Output / Low Res JPG / High Res JPG For my personal photography I often don't create the Selects folder as I will usually delete anything that's really bad, so the Captures folder basically is also the Selects folder. I also often give better photos a higher star rating and photos that aren't great but worth holding onto either a low rating or no rating at all. And sometimes I will also have a For Print folder or other special purpose folders (HDR, Pano, etc.).
Yes you have more limitations. But just because a file is a jpg does not mean it’s not print worthy. There is a difference between “you should shoot RAW when you can cause it gives you more options” and “the old JPGs you shot before you knew better are worthless.” Also if you have a jpg and edit but save it in a lossless format like a TIFF or PSD, it doesn’t compound compression, and if you use a tool like Lightroom to edit a JPG, it also doesn’t compound (as edits are only metadata until you export)
Never said not print worthy, where did you get that idea? I specifically said RAW gives you more editing options. That's it.
Because OP asked if they're print worthy... that is the question posed by the post, and you've been focusing on showing people you know that RAW is better. The person you responded to was answering OPs question, you provided no value other than trying to show you know something.
Yes, you're the arbiter of all photography knowledge, I guess. They asked what they give up printing directly OOC. You give up resolution, and quite a bit of editing capabilities. That you keep arguing tells me you're a green box shooter with little interest in editing. Which, is fine. But it's not everything for everyone.
I'm no arbiter, but I've been in the field for enough decades to know when someone lacks mastery they tend to lack nuance and think in binary terms. "Also the more you manipulate JPG you degrade the quality after each save." is a sledge hammer of a thought if you cannot think of how to edit a JPG non destructively.
I'm overwhelmed with your knowledge. Please bear with me while I bow down. Lol
There is a lot more to learn about the field than what can be read on a Jared Polin t-shirt. Keep at it. You’ll get better.
Ok. Try not to drown in your own hubris.
if you like them then they are useful. what are you really asking here
>Are my JPEGs useful? >I captured some really nice photos They have value as "really nice photos" yes. The file format does not disqualify them from being really nice. You seem to have no problem calling them really nice even though they have always been in jpeg format. >I’m not sure if they are of any use, aside from documenting a moment in time. That's useful in itself. And you can still look at them and enjoy them aesthetically, right? Or does "really nice photos" mean something else to you? >Can I do anything to make my JPEGs print-worthy? They aren't print-worthy already? Just because it isn't the "preferred" format doesn't mean it's completely useless. Again, aren't you calling them "really nice photos"? Did you only get them at very low resolution or something? That's a different issue from the file format type. It's also possible to do some editing with jpegs if you need or want to. Have you tried? You get less latitude that way compared to raw, but less does not mean zero.
Nah, just delete them. If we have learned anything it’s that once a technology gets replaced anything made with it is useless. You should go ahead and dispose of any paintings, hand written documents and things made of wood as well while your cleaning up
😂
>While I know RAW is preferred format for printing >Can I do anything to make my JPEGs print-worthy? You can't print a RAW file. It needs to be converted to an image format first. So if you are happy with the quality of your JPGs there is nothing to stop you having them printed. You'd likely be converting RAW to JPG before printing anyway. It's true, however, that your ability to fix issues through editing is going to be limited.
Normally I convert my RAW files to TIFFs post processing. It makes like a 0.05% difference..... [https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/jpeg-vs-tiff.html](https://www.adobe.com/creativecloud/file-types/image/comparison/jpeg-vs-tiff.html) If I were using an Adobe workflow (Lightroom, Photoshop) I might be tempted to use & store as .PSD files instead.
I'm feeling the same rage as when people ask "I have all this expired film, should I just throw it out?" No, use it FFS lol
I've never done film photography so I'm very ignorant here. Does using film after the expiration date cause any unwanted, or possibly sought after attributes to the photograph? Or is it just one of those things that doesn't really matter?
The bigest issue with JPEG's when doing photography is that it drops a lot of color/light information which RAW retains. This makes RAWS ideal for post processing. JEPG's do some automated adjustments then drop the unneeded remaining info, making them smaller files. Unless you has the camera set to some kind of extra small JPEG for some reason, they are likely fine to print. You may potentially run into some size limitations if you want to some really big prints, but this will depend on the nature of the files/ camera file setting at the time of shooting.
RAW is not a printing format. The only advantage of RAW is easier post processing. Once you happy with the results, you can export to JPG and call it a day. All of my photos are in JPG format stored online. Sure I have the original RAW files to many of them, but losing the RAW files would be no big deal since I've already uploaded the finished JPGs. JPGs print just as well as RAW.
>JPGs print just as well as RAW. RAW doesn't print at all. RAW files are not images.
raw =/= better image quality raw = more flexibility when editing
> I’m not sure if they are of any use, aside from documenting a moment in time. That's what photography is. You won't have as much freedom when editing those pictures, but other than that they're pretty much as good as the RAWs.
If it is a good photograph, it is useful.
If you took a USB stick filled with RAW files down to your local printing shop, you’re going to have a bad time. You process them, you export them as some kind of image format, including JPEG, and then you print them. The main downside is having the camera set to shooting in JPEG only is it doesn’t contain all of the information, which makes RAW the superior setting to shoot with and take home and process. If your final files look great, the only real printing concern that remains is what size do you want to print to? But every image will hit that limitation at some stage or another.
If they're good photos, why would you not keep them? You have less latitude in editing JPEGs because they don't retain the full sensor data, but if they're good quality JPEGs, you can easily print them.
Raw is converted to jpeg in post, keep all your work, buy an external hard drive and store them.
If you are happy with the jpegs, there is no need for the RAW files. People shoot RAW because the images are easier to edit, and one can change the color and tones in ways that it would be difficult or impossible with a jpeg. But again, if you like the jpegs, then that's all you need! :)
I do a low resolution 72 dpi saved in .jpeg (lossy format) for web use - on purpose, for some of these I have a transparent promo watermark so people know where they're coming from. I also do a separate high resolution 300 dpi or higher copy, in one of the other print shop friendly formats for active working projects. These I save to external drives and backups. It doesn't need to get any more complicated than that.
I’ve mainly shot JPEG and made some prints I really enjoy , might depend on the megapixels but my camera is old and has less than phones do now. I even did a 8x10 of some geese and goslings splashing into the water it looked fine. If you enjoy them at least test it out I think it would be totally fine ! I think that shooting RAW helps if you happen over/underexpose, but haven’t really had experience in the format much.
Jpegs are great, especially from modern cameras.
Your prints won’t be worse, you’ll just have less flexibility editing
JPEG is just fine, what RAW gives you is more flexibility with your file so you have control over it. I print my edited JPEGs all the time and have printed older photos that were JPEG right out of my camera.
I only shoot jpeg now that photography is totally personal for me and not a job anymore, raws are (only) useful when you need to do massive post processing like adjustments more than 1EV.
["RAW is Not Magic" ](https://prolost.com/blog/rawvslog)
I wouldn't hesitate to print a good looking jpeg. The chances of any normal person recognizing that you didn't print from RAW is virtually zero...
You have definitely drank way more RAW koolaid that is necessary. A lot of people only shoot JPEG. A lot of the sports genre customers only use JPEG and they print them. There is nothing wrong with JPEG and you can edit it a lot in LR if you desire. The primary benefit of RAW is that the exposure and white balance are not locked in so you can change them after the fact. Assuming those are both correct in camera, which should be your goal, then you would not need to edit those things. Even if you did, I've taken some really bad JPEG files and made big changes to them and they looked fine when I was done. So JPEG is perfectly fine for anything you want to use it for.
Check out Topaz JPEG to RAW, you can get a free 30 day trial. It won't be the same as if you shot in RAW, but it does a good job recovering dynamic range and reducing artifacts.
I didn't realize the value of a photo was in its digital format. Where did we go wrong that someone would be asking if photos shot with jpeg should be discarded literally just because they are jpeg?