RAW vs JPEG

[Donald Duck888]

I have a question about the file type to use when taking my pics on my upcoming vacation. I have heard several peope sing the praises of shooting in RAW but I am curious what the benefits are. Also are there drawbacks?

Thanks for any input.

 

[ukcatfan]

The drawback is that they take up more space, require post processing, and without knowledge on what to do with them you could end up with worse results. If you have time to mess around with it before your vacation, then I say consider it. If not, then stick with JPG or at least RAW+JPG.

 

[TannerO]

If you aren't going to edit/correct them on the computer, you'll want to shoot JPEG.

RAW stores a lot more data than JPEG, hence the large file size. The benefits of RAW over JPEG are:

*change the white balance after you shoot (non-destructively)
*get more lost details in the shadows (darkest areas) and highlights (lightest areas)
*larger colorspace (and higher bit rate), won't get color banding when editing
*uncompressed format (with a JPEG save, you always lose data)

JPEG is still good, but cards are cheap, and Lightroom is fairly cheap (RAW processing software). The only reason I personally do not shoot RAW is if I need a faster burst rate (my camera can't keep up with continuous RAW shooting for very long), but I very much enjoy editing on the back end.

 

[boBQuincy]

http://luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml

 

[rotlex]

Good responses and links in this thread, but, I wanted to add, as a Dad, and as at times paid photographer, my quick thoughts.

I shot RAW exclusively for the past 8 or so years. I have no qualms with post processing, as if your using Aperture, Mac, or Lightroom, Mac or Windows, for organization anyway, it's really no more work than a jpeg. I never understood the post processing argument against RAW, as I can't believe that everyone doesn't "touch" their photo's in some way shape or form anyway.

My thinking on using RAW all the time was I wanted the best quality possible, and the most room to manipulate the photo later down the road. Well, long story short, as time went on, and camera manufacturers insisted on raising megapixels to ridiculous, unnecessary heights, I started rethinking this. Yes, I know storage is cheap, but my latest DSLR, Canon 60D, produces RAW files larger than 20MB each. That is far too large, IMO at least, for someone that shoots thousands of photos, usually 10's of thousands per year to store long term.

Long story short. I started shooting JPEG quite a while back, and frankly, am quite happy with it. I set the camera up to produce neutral colors, little to no sharpening out of the gate, and basically apply as little in camera processing as possible. I still use Aperture for organization and post processing, and as neither it nor Lightroom change your master files, I am quite happy with the results.

Bottom line for me? JPEG is just easier, quicker, takes up FAR less storage on camera and computer, and the results I'm getting, to be frank, are just as good, to my eye, as the RAW I had shot for years.

 

[Bstanley]

I figure 2 TB covers about twice the number of shutter actuations that a 60D is rated for - and having just purchased 4 TeraBytes of external USB storage (2 x 2 TB external drives) for $80 each - I'm good with a 25MB file that has multiple times worth of data - it allows me to make up for my exposure/white balance 'experiments'

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[klmall]

There is a steep learning curve for some in processing RAW photos initially. I had none since I was already using PSE for my JPEGs when I switched to shooting RAW. Then I went to Lightroom and had a learning curve but I am almost to the top of that hill.

I read several photo forums almost daily and I think it's somewhat unusual to go from shooting in RAW back to only JPEG; nothing wrong with that but to me it indicates a higher level of skill as a photographer than I have achieved at least. I shoot in RAW for two reasons: ability to correct mistakes made at my current level, adjust picture settings infinitely, and to allow for future software development and my own ability to use such software etc. I have gone back and reworked photos taken four years ago in RAW and been amazed at what newer software and improvements in my skill can do!

In my situation I have found that while I would have 'lost' very few pics without RAW I am able to tweak them more to my liking in RAW but like TannerO I also happen to be someone who loves post-processing even with jpegs. I even bring some of my jpegs from my G12 basic modes into LR for processing with good results.

Probably a third or more of my current shots look perfectly fine as is and might only need cropping if anything at all but unless I am short on memory card space I will continue to shoot in RAW.

 

[SrisonS]

One advantage to shooting RAW is better flexibility in processing, when the shot doesn't initially look too great.

I started a thread just has some quick examples on how to 'save' a shot.

The Raw vs. JPEG Debate

 

[rotlex]

I figure 2 TB covers about twice the number of shutter actuations that a 60D is rated for - and having just purchased 4 TeraBytes of external USB storage (2 x 2 TB external drives) for $80 each - I'm good with a 25MB file that has multiple times worth of data - it allows me to make up for my exposure/white balance 'experiments'

Different strokes for different folks.

This is true, on storage being cheap, but, that 2TB, in my workflow, needs to be duplicated at least 2 times. One, it has to be backed up locally, and again, for offsite storage.

Not looking to debate at ALL , but just saying, that after shooting RAW only for years, I'm really starting to wonder why I did. The JPEG images produced from my 60D, and even previous 40D, are quite good; and with non destructive software such as Aperture or Lightroom, I'm still never touching the originals.

 

[photo_chick]

There's a lot of debate both ways. I'm going to skip over the whole this is what RAW is and this is what jpeg is. They're both files. They both have the same range of color values and the same number of pixels. But here's the thing most people will argue with me on, there is nothing you can do with a RAW file that you can't do with a jpeg. But it's true, you can change pixels to whatever you want. It just takes a whole lot more work to get there with the jpeg. And it's more difficult to make certain changes with a jpeg an have it look good. And sometimes with a jpeg you'll have to go in and work on a pixel at a time. In the end it really comes down to what you want to do processing wise.

I shoot RAW only, and have since 2005, because I don't have the photoshop skills like my husband has and I can't make drastic changes to a jpeg and have it look good. Nor do I have the time or patience to go in and work in detail on those jpegs. I like quick, easy changes. RAW works for my workflow.

 

[zackiedawg]

I fit into the category of JPG shooters who either did or do occasionally use RAW, but prefer JPG. I fully agree with and endorese all of the advantages mentioned for RAW - it indeed stores much more data, has much more headroom for altering or processing a shot, and can really help for those who need to rescue a mistake shot. And it's just much more data-intensive for those who thoroughly enjoy post processing.

JPG does have convenience - because there really are people who do no post processing at all, and a JPG is already done right inside the camera. Also, JPG doesn't really lose anything if you get the shot right to begin with - a person shooting RAW, processing or altering, then saving to store, post, or print is eventually going to the JPG format for the final result - so if you can get a 'final result' out of the JPG to begin with that makes you happy or achieves your goal, then you saved yourself the time of having to create the JPG from the RAW. Those who shoot RAW + JPG have a good workaround for that, as they can pick the JPG if it's good, or the RAW if it needs work.

When I do still use RAW is when I'm not shooting for pleasure or enjoyment. Because post processing is something I dislike doing - I just get no pleasure out of it at all. So if I'm doing photography that is already a job, a slog, and something I'm not doing purely for personal pleasure or pursuit, then I might as well shoot it RAW too and pour more pain on pain. Actually, the RAW format is something I use when shooting hired shoots or live events - something where someone else is relying on the end result, and it therefore HAS to be right. I can't risk a rare or occasional mistake causing me to miss a crucial shot, so I shoot RAW + JPG so I can recover from a whoops. But most of my photography is for me - wildlife, travel, architecture, night shots - stuff I just enjoy doing. For those, I shoot JPG, so I can spend maximum time doing what I love (shooting) and minimum time doing what I don't (processing). I've got confidence in what I shoot, and how I shoot it, and work hard to get the settings right, and tuned my camera settings to deliver JPGs that look the way I want them to, so I'm still controlling the final product...I'm just doing it in camera while shooting rather than later. If I do make a rare mistake, it only affects me, and gives me incentive to not make such mistakes again. I still often sell or publish my pleasure shots - but unlike a hired shoot, I shoot them for myself and if someone else decides they like it too, they buy it.

Neither format is wrong or right - it's just what YOU want to use. There are definite advantages for each - and RAW is clearly the better format for those who want to or need to process.

 

[Bstanley]

Not looking to debate at ALL

Yes you are!



You'll get my RAW files when you pry them out of my virtual fingers!!

 

[Marlton Mom]

I shoot and save both the raw and the jpeg.

I have the Jpeg for when I don't need to do any post processing and I have the raw for when I do.

I like having the choice. That is the key for me.

For the most part I am shooting so that I get that "golden" shot and I'm always going to want to manipulate that with post processing (PP). Then there are shots that I just need to take so that I have them, like the Laundry room shot at the Beach Club hotel. I used the Jpeg from this to post and share with the people that needed it.

I guess the bottom line is that your storage method needs to meet the needs of your 'use'. If you are not going to want to fine tune an exposure to the 'nth' degree, Jpegs are probably fine as you can manipulate them some with PP.

If you are looking for that "golden shot" and you are willing to learn how to Post Process an image using software then I'd say shoot in both... Jpeg and Raw.

Then there is the whole argument of people liking to have their old pictures in a Raw format so that they can go back once they have the PP knowledge and tweak them. That's why I'm glad storage is now cheap. I have the files and as I gain the knowledge I can go back and fix pictures that are important to me with my new found knowledge and skills.

I'd say listen to that little voice in your head. If it's telling you that you would like to learn how to PP your images then start shooting in raw and then start to learn the software (Lightroom, Photoshop etc). If you are not leaning in this direction then stick with Jpegs and you'll be fine.

I hope that helps.

Good luck!
Marlton Mom

 

[rotlex]

Yes you are!



You'll get my RAW files when you pry them out of my virtual fingers!!

I'll get them! I'll get them I tell you!!!!!!!

Really though, trust me, I do see all the advantages, and yeah, I DO still use it.....especially when I know I may not get the shot, 100% the way I want it!!!!

 

[WDWFigment]

I actually shoot all of my images in this crazy format called .NEF. I have no clue what it does, but from the best I can tell, it's this space-age format exclusive to Nikon shooters that makes my photos super-rad.

 

[Marlton Mom]

I actually shoot all of my images in this crazy format called .NEF. I have no clue what it does, but from the best I can tell, it's this space-age format exclusive to Nikon shooters that makes my photos super-rad.

Sarah! Sarah!! Come get your husband! He's a Little dizzy from all the work and he needs an Egg McMuffin or something.....

~MM

 

[klmall]

Well, to be honest, I actually shoot in CR.2

Any more confessions here?

(sound of curtain moving smilie)

 

[webshark3]

The trouble with not shooting RAW is that it's not available after the fact. JPG always is. So while I may only treat 1 in 100 RAW photos, I lose that 1 photo if I didn't have the RAW option. I really like my new Canon s95. It's not a debate anymore. I just shoot RAW+JPG. A 32GB card holds over 3000 photos (that RAW and JPG).

 

[webshark3]

Not looking to debate at ALL , but just saying, that after shooting RAW only for years, I'm really starting to wonder why I did. The JPEG images produced from my 60D, and even previous 40D, are quite good; and with non destructive software such as Aperture or Lightroom, I'm still never touching the originals.

I found it's usually camera specific. Canon's done a great job catering from amateur to pro in their Dxxx and Dxx series. I find a camera processed JPG from my D450 (XTi) can usually match or look better than anything I try to do with the RAW for snapshots. But if it's a critical shot, I want control over the RAW.

I also shoot Sigma, where JPG is a no-no. RAW is the only way to go.

 

[Marlton Mom]

Sigh.... Darn Camera NERDS!

Filename extension

.3fr (Hasselblad)
.ari (ARRIFLEX)
.arw .srf .sr2
(Sony)
.bay (Casio)
.crw .cr2 (Canon)
.cap .iiq .eip
(Phase_One)
.dcs .dcr .drf .k25 .kdc (Kodak)
.dng (Adobe)
.erf (Epson)
.fff (Imacon)
.mef (Mamiya)
.mos (Leaf)
.mrw (Minolta)
.nef .nrw (Nikon)
.orf (Olympus)
.pef .ptx (Pentax)
.pxn (Logitech)
.R3D (RED)
.raf (Fuji)
.raw .rw2 (Panasonic)
.raw .rwl .dng (Leica)
.rwz (Rawzor)
.srw (Samsung)
.x3f (Sigma)


~MM (stolen from her auxiliary brain AKA Wikipedia)