JPG or RAW

[MarkBarbieri]

How do you usually shoot?

 

[Furgus]

I shoot everything in RAW now. I used to use RAW+Basic, but after getting Lightroom and being able to quickly export RAW to jpegs to post on the web or email, I stopped and turned completely to the dark side

 

[KrazyPete]

The two situations where I use JPG are when I'm in doing a lot of shooting continuous mode or I'm concerned about running out of memory. Otherwise, I'm shooting all RAW all the time.

 

[Zeagle]

Mainly RAW format for me, unless I have to worry about the buffer filling up quickly then I switch to JPG.

 

[mhm]

I've been using jpeg, but just took a few RAW with my Olympus C5060 a couple of weeks ago. The lag time was too long between shots. My Rebel XTi just arrived yesterday, so I will probably try RAW again and see.

 

[ukcatfan]

The two situations where I use JPG are when I'm in doing a lot of shooting continuous mode or I'm concerned about running out of memory. Otherwise, I'm shooting all RAW all the time.

Ditto

 

[Ratpack]

I shoot RAW and JPEG Basic at the same time. The RAW image is for me and the jpeg is for DW so she can use them in emails. I used to just convert to jpeg with Capture, but it is still too large to really use in emails.

 

[Groucho]

I think perhaps the question should be prefixed by "If you have a choice..."

Since the vast majority of cameras out there still don't provide a RAW image, so if those are added to the mix, it will skew the results... not that they'll be extremely scientific anyway.

RAW all the way, baby!

 

[DueyDooDah]

Real Authentic Work!

 

[jann1033]

raw for me as well. although i can see the benefit of raw/jpg i never really needed the jpg so i stopped wasting ( for me) the space. i'd rather have the pp latitude than more room on the card.

 

[cpbjgc]

And now I need more storage!

The funny thing is my first digicam was a JVC 3QX, a 3 mp beauty (with a battery life of 15 pics with display on, 30 with display off ) actually had the option of shooting RAW or jpg. At the time my only thought was card storage "why would I use RAW when I can shoot 10x more pictures in jpg?". I just didn't understand the editing versatility and the ability to save some shots from the bit bucket .

Now that I'm further into the hobby, have the ability to shoot RAW again, and memory is waaay cheaper than 5 years ago, I can't see any reason to go back to JPG.

 

[boBQuincy]

Adobe's latest RAW converter includes smart sharpening, defringing, and a host of other features that were not even thought of when I started using a dSLR in late 2001.
The point is, even older RAW files can be improved with the latest converters. Shoot RAW (plus JPG) even if you don't plan to use them today, as the converters continue to get better so will your images when you convert them using the latest software. A JPG will always be just what it is, but a RAW will continue to get better as the software improves.

Along with that, a RAW file contains 16x as much information as a JPG. It only makes sense to use what you have and not toss away information. Anyone who tells you otherwise probably does not understand RAW files. I have read and heard many arguments for not using RAW and none of them make sense, except for perhaps a need for very rapid shooting or you just don't have the memory card space.

I currently use RAW + JPG so I have something to share or email right away.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

a RAW file contains 16x as much information as a JPG.

Let me elaborate on what Bob is referring to. In a JPG, there are 256 possible values for each color (red, green, and blue). In a RAW file for most DSLRs, there are 4096 possible values for each color. They both cover the same range from white to black, but the RAW file covers the range with smaller steps.

Because monitors and printers generally can't distinguish between more than 256 different shades of red, green, and blue, a few people feel that the smaller steps are wasted. That's pretty much the case when you don't make any adjustments to a picture. However, if you need to make adjustments to things like the exposure or the color saturation, sometimes the values you recorded get stretched out. Whereas you might have started with 48 different shades of blue covering the sky from it's lightest to darkest point, after the adjustments, that might have been reduced to 8 different shades. When that happens, sometimes the steps between colors aren't small enough and you get noticable jumps in the brightness between each of those 8 colors. If you'd shot that sky with RAW, you'd have had 16 times as many steps (768 to start with, 128 after the adjustments) so you wouldn't have had any problems.

So you don't get sixteen the resolution. You get pretty much the same resolution either way. You get sixteen times as many different shades covering the same color range. If you liked coloring with the box with 8crayons, stick with JPG. If you always wanted to use the jumbo box with 128 colors, shoot RAW.

 

[boBQuincy]

So you don't get sixteen the resolution. You get pretty much the same resolution either way. You get sixteen times as many different shades covering the same color range. If you liked coloring with the box with 8crayons, stick with JPG. If you always wanted to use the jumbo box with 128 colors, shoot RAW.

Now there's a good analogy: do you want the 256 crayon box, or the 4096 crayon box? Or is it more like the same size box, but 16x as many (but smaller) crayons inside?

Me, I really dislike banding in the sky so I go for more crayons.

 

[Groucho]

Part of my brain always refuses to handle this information, as I remember the earlier days of video cards, when it was a big deal to have 24-bit color in 1024x768 resolution (This took 2 megs of video memory, IIRC - maybe 4.) 24-bit (which is the same as 8-bit jpg - 8-bits for each color channel times three channels = 24) works out to 16.7 million colors, which we were always told was more than the eye could see.

Now, the cheapest video cards can do 32-bit color in most any resolution and this isn't an issue any more. But part of my brain still says, "jpg is 24-bit color - that's enough to show any color in the rainbow - so what's the problem?"

The problem is exposure and dynamic range, not so much that jpg is a terrible way to view things. The best HDR photos are still generally going to look the same in an 8-bit JPG as they might in the 32-bit original. When you need the extra bits is in the editing, the exposure correction, the capturing of more dynamic range, etc... Because of that, I don't think that the crayon analogy is a good one - it reminds me too much of early computer debates. (ST with 256 colors, Amiga with 4,096 colors, etc.) It's more like, do you want 16,777,216 crayons, or 68,719,476,736 crayons? Let's not slap down poor JPGs too much! It's perfectly good as a final format.

At least, that's the way I'm understanding such things at the moment.

 

[handicap18]

Here is my problem with RAW: Cost. Ok ok I can hear everyone laughing and rolling their eyes. Here is the thing. The Nikon D50 did not come with any RAW software. You have to pay $100 extra for it. At the time (and even now) that was a bit much to add just for RAW, especially when the camera takes perfectly fine JPEG's.

Photo software I have right now is the Nikon capture (I think that's what it is, which ever is the one that doesn't support RAW), Picture IT! (old version, no RAW support) and PhotoShop Elements 4. Now PSE4 will read Nikon .nef files. So I tried a few yestureday. A little bit extra work, but the biggest problem is that there is no option (at least that I can find and I looked a lot of places) to transfer to JPEG. It will transfer to .tif, but it is uncompressed and the final file size is well over 30MB

I looked at Lightroom, but that's $200. Even with DW's educators discount its $100. DW doesn't go back to work till Sept '08. We did well with taxes and that is paying for our WDW trip in Nov, but if I go to DW (aka CFO) to get $100 to process pictures she'll laugh at me.

That all being said, is there a decent software application that will read and convert Nikon .nef files to .jpg files? Oh yeah and it has to be $25 or under, preferably free.

I can certainly see the benefits of using RAW. But for now .jpg is more that fine. I'm not against RAW by any stretch of the imagination. I'm sure I'll make the move one day.

Oh yeah I also need to find a way to get myself a new $400 lens by Thanksgiving. I really want that Sigma 30mm f/1.4 more than I want RAW software.

 

[Groucho]

This site still has RAWShooter Essential 2006 for a free download. This was the last version before Adobe bought the company. It's worth a shot if you want a taste of a more or less full-featured RAW converter for free.

 

[handicap18]

This site still has RAWShooter Essential 2006 for a free download. This was the last version before Adobe bought the company. It's worth a shot if you want a taste of a more or less full-featured RAW converter for free.

Thanks Groucho. I'll give that one a shot.

 

[Lachesis00]

Both. I shoot JPG SMALL + RAW.