Raw? JPEG?

[hopefull]

Thanks Arthurking83, Appreciate your input. Yes photography is a hobby for my own pleasure - well currently it is fun and sooooo frustrating trying to put into practice all that I have read. Most of my images don't turn out how I thought they would! But I have learnt so much through my errors!
Thanks again to all

[rodw]

I made this file for people still wondering why shooting raw is better. I've just applied different levels of jpeg compression to the three panels.

This does not prove anything except that the file you created is way outside of what JPEG is designed to be used for. It is a known fact in the printing industry that files with large areas of the same colour, like screen dumps should never be Handled as JPEG. Files like this should be handled as TIFF with LZW lossless compression. JPEG was designed To deal with compression of more random patterns of colour as you expect to find in photographs.

I'm not going to buy into the RAW v's JPEG discussion as I am still grappling with that myself. Part of me says that as we move forward in technology, that the need for RAW diminishes as the algorithims for processing become more sophisticated and the technology can generally do better than I can but I keep,a foot in both camps.

[Epoc]

I shoot RAW and jpg. Mainly as I like to preview my shots on my iPad before doing the PP thing on my computer. iPads are great for in the field previews. You cannot import RAWs on an iPad.

[jupiter618]

I just don't understand why you'd choose to throw out image data, unless it was to conserve memory. Jpeg contains less information than a raw file, therefor it's poorer quality. That's the end of the discussion, right?

[William]

Yep !! No probs with me , RAW Rules

[arthurking83]

..... Jpeg contains less information than a raw file, therefor it's poorer quality. That's the end of the discussion, right?

Not exactly!
So to answer the question, .. "end of discussion, right?" .. the answer is definitely: no!

There are uses for shooting jpg(see above) and another situation that immediately springs to mind, is say one of the 'photojournalist', which encompasses many offshoot genres.

The photo journalist that immediately comes to mind, is say a sports shooter who covers news items in sport.
They need to meet deadlines, and those deadlines can be as short as a few minutes ago!!!

Shoot jpg, transfer files directly from camera to a device with the ability to upload to the news desk, and the moment the image is shot, the news editorial staff have the images they need to get the paper to press a few minutes or seconds after the right shot is uploaded.

Doing this in the raw format is creating another step in the process, that requires some time to process. If the deadline was yesterday, doing it all in raw can be the difference between meeting a deadline or not.

For the majority of folks RAW is best, but again, even if you print, a jpg file will give you the same quality print in 99% of print instances.

Only if the print needs to be of an exceptionally high standard in terms of image quality(as opposed to artistic quality!!) is where you will find a difference between having shot raw or jpg.

So even a slightly badly captured jpg image can still be printed to a standard that 99% of the population is happy with.
if this was not the case, then 99.999% of camera sales would never have happened, and will not ever happen .. and everyone would be using high end DSLRs with higher end lenses.

If you need to push the processing of the image to any major extent or want to print extremely large print sizes, may there be differences between having shot raw of jpg.
Reason is the tiff format, not really the raw file itself.
You can't actually print raw files directly (that I know of) even if your software has you believe that you can.
I use Nikon's CaptureNX2, and even tho I can print the raw file I'm currently working on, there is still an intermediary stage where CNX2 creates a temporary tiff file to send to the printer to have printed.

So it's the tiff file that will contain this extra data that jpg files end up losing.

Similar situation exist for just pure processing ability too tho.
push processing a raw file will always give you a higher quality final file, than you will achieve using the same push processing on a jpg file.

I see raw as 'an insurance policy' and that's about it!
it allows me to extract higher quality from the file if I ever need it, and possibly achieve a higher quality printable file, if the request to do so ever reaches me.

Otherwise, my use of the raw file format is basically wasted(in that in close to 200K images, I've only ever printed one large image).

Also, that I'm aware of, I thought the iPad has a few apps that allow for viewing raw files.
I'm sure I've found a few to do this on Android now.

[Maezyra]

I resisted RAW for a long time, but then I gave it a try. I was using PSE8 at that point and found that shooting in RAW actually improved my editing time. ACR was so easy to use, choose the best results from this drop down box, move this slider, move that slider until I was happy with the results. I wondered why I didn't make the shift earlier. I then upgraded my camera to a Nikon D7000 and suddenly, my RAW files didn't work anymore as ACR on PSE8 didn't support the D7000 NEF files (Nikon's RAW files). In order to keep working on my RAW files, I had to download a DNG convertor, which converted my NEF files to a DNG (Adobe's RAW format) file. This meant I had two very large files (NEF and RAW) for every photo, as well as a fine JPEG (as I like to shoot in FINE JPEG + RAW for days where I want to upload before I can be bothered PPing them), which gobbled up the memory, on my card, on my computer, everywhere. I then upgraded to CS5 as my skill increased and I was able to resume using the NEF without the DNGs.

I love RAW for the flexibility it gives me. This is perfect for people who don't get it right in the camera every time, because there is the chance to rectify this, as the cost of increased memory consumption. I love JPEG as I don't have to make any conversions if I don't want to edit the photo, but want to use it straight away - It's just there, ready to go. It is important to remember that a RAW files is NOT a picture file - It is effectively a data file, containing (LOTS of) information ABOUT a photo. If you want to use it as a picture (say to print it or to post it online), you have to convert it to another file type (JPEG, TIFF, etc). I now only keep a copy of my RAW files (once I have finished editing an album) on a very large external hard drive and then keep the JPEGs on my computer. That's my experience, if it helps at all.

Something handy with ACR is that I will save the Settings as a "preset" this allows me to re-apply the same settings again in the future. Which means I can often process a whole wedding of 1,000 images in a couple of hours, because I will generally apply the same preset to most images and then just work on maybe only a small % - thus speeding up my timelines. I recently processed a wedding shoot in little over 4 hours work (spread over a few nights because sadly I have a boring day job!). So RAW doesn't add too much time to my processing.

I did not know that... That could be very handy!! I'll have to check that out! Thanks, RMPhoto!!

[Epicaricacy]

Raw.

That's what I think ....

because I prefer it for my post processing

[jupiter618]

I shot hundreds of jpegs on my recent trip to the gold coast hinterland, because i looked at the size of my mem ory cards and the rate at which they were filling up and realised I was going to run out of space. The jpegs are fine for printing, but I'm more limited in what I can do with them creatively than I am with the raws. Never mind, it was the right decision. Jpegs or no photos at all, I choose jpegs - no brainer.

[Mark L]

^ buy more memory cards!

[gordoj035]

Just read all the threads, thanks all, I am also a novice and our local photography groups challenge for July is black & white and I am about to try this using RAW for the first time.

[Snpsht]

Yes, thanks to all those who posted such excellent informed info and debate on this thread - it definitely provides food for thought and yes, I'm going to try shooting in both for a while and compare the results!

[Brigitte]

Let me begin by saying that I only took up photography and Photoshop just before I retired a few years ago. All I can say is take the plunge with regards to Photoshop especially if you can get a discount. It is not an easy road but every time I master something new I get a buzz. Mind you there is also a lot of frustration. There is plenty of information that is excellent on the internet. I began using jpg but got a decent SLR a while ago and now only work in RAW. I think it is actually easier then working with jpgs especially since my photographic skills are still at the novice level and my photos at times need a little more tweaking. Personally I find it a great hobby that challenges me at every step but when it all comes together wow!

[Just Taken]

only just started using RAW for my main shots and creative/fun photo's

but i mainly shoot Jpeg for the space saving for it

[kidazzle]

I use a Nikon and have recently purchased the Capture NX 2 software to do further editing. Any thoughts on the best software combinations for working with RAW images which are called NEF in Capture NX2? Would I be better getting Photoshop Elements (easier to use) or Photoshop CS6 to compliment the work I do with Capture. I've also heard that The Efex Pro software from Nikon is quite good for HDR work. I'm just wondering where best to start?

[I @ M]

I use a Nikon and have recently purchased the Capture NX 2 software to do further editing. Any thoughts on the best software combinations for working with RAW images which are called NEF in Capture NX2? Would I be better getting Photoshop Elements (easier to use) or Photoshop CS6 to compliment the work I do with Capture. I've also heard that The Efex Pro software from Nikon is quite good for HDR work. I'm just wondering where best to start?

Sorry to answer your question with a question but --

What do you wish to do with your images post camera?

If you want to develop the raw ( NEF ) files to a point where you can print them with varying levels of enhancement then I personally don't see the need for any other software. The Colour Efex Pro filters from Nik software was originally developed jointly between Nik and Nikon and the plug in range for Capture NX2 has some very handy filters.

If you are after images with much more elaborate manipulations applied then the Adobe range is very much the preferred weapon of choice for such tasks and also can incorporate the Nik software filters including a few that are unavailable for Capture NX2.

I only use Capture NX2 for image editing in conjunction with Neat Image for noise removal ( gets less and less use as cameras get better ) and firmly beleive that Capture NX2 has been designed from the start to manage images to the point of print and not so much for web presentation or with massive levels of manipulation.

Everybody has different needs and to choose software for your use will depend very much on what you want to do with your images.

[arthurking83]

..... Would I be better getting Photoshop Elements (easier to use) or Photoshop CS6 to compliment the work I do with Capture. I've also heard that The Efex Pro software from Nikon is quite good for HDR work. I'm just wondering where best to start?

I'd say just to begin with, stick with the one editor.
Capture NX2 doesn't do HDR, and it's not really supposed too, as it's a simple photo editor, not an 'image editor'(or graphics manipulation software)!!

What I have done for HDR is to start off developing the raw files in CNX2, make sure I have the correct raw files set WB to the same level for each HDR(or panorama too if you needed too) tweak a bit here and there, but not too much .. don't over use sharpening either!!
Something to note with Nikon NEFs when using Nikon software: your cameras settings are used in rendering the file.
So if you have any sharpening set in camera, Nikon software(both CaptureNX2 and ViewNX2) will use that sharpness setting.
This can be a good thing, but is usually a bad thing on the resultant image, especially if more processing is to come of it.
In the Develop section of CNX2, there is the Picture Control adjustment section. If you expand it, you will see the options to adjust the various parameters in there. I zero everything out.
For sharpness, USM and or High Pass works out better using CNX2 than in camera sharpening... and also better than ViewXN2's sharpness settings.
The ultimate quality of the image is slightly better using USM or high pass from within CNX2 than from sharpness set in either camera, or ViewNX2.

From that finished point in CNX2, I save the image as (uncompressed) TIFF file, and then use those saved TIFFs for any HDR or panorama I may do.

Note tho, I haven't done HDR for a long time(not a really big fan), but I do try a pano every now and then.

For HDR, I use Photomatix .. ... and for panos I use PTGui.

[kidazzle]

Thanks for all of this. I obviously have a lot to learn. I would like to try some panoramas and some HDR but I think I'll just have to learn how to use Capture Software properly first. I find it interesting that you take all of the develop settings back to 0. I might try this next time I'm doing some editing. Once again thanks.

[arthurking83]

..... I would like to try some panoramas and some HDR but I think I'll just have to learn how to use Capture Software properly first. I find it interesting that you take all of the develop settings back to 0. I might try this next time I'm doing some editing. Once again thanks.

Without getting too far off the original topic!
Yep all camera settings zeroed out(in camera!!) That is, I have all settings for all Picture Controls set to zero.

Because you shoot in raw(NEF), you can set all the Picture Controls for each image later on, on the PC via Nikon's software(either CaptureNX2 or ViewNX2 .. I use both).
The camera is not a particularly smart device, and is a lot less smart than a properly written PC program.

The real problem is with all in camera sharpening, if there is any amount of non detailed sections within the image(eg, defocus blur, or lot so of featureless blue sky), the camera just sharpens it all up.
In doing this, in induces a level of graininess that simply isn't there otherwise.
USM and high pass(from using CaptureNX2) doesn't cause this, and if it did produce any graininess on parts of the image, you can selectively remove it.

FWIW: I only use ViewNX2 and CaptureNX2 on my images.. only using Photomatix and PTGui for stitching and HDR. All shots are captured as NEF(raw) files.

[Alpacamike]

Raw is the only way to go as long as all the camera manufactures use the same raw file system. I store all my photos in RAW and edit copies and then convert to jpeg for web and printing.
Alpacamike