JPEG or RAW

[jrdnc09]

I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??

Thanks
JO

[linuxgear]

If you after quality of your images and you know how to edit- proccess your images then
full steam ahead for RAW
it will take more -Gb- of your HDD space but I think its worth doing
ask around for more good reasons to do so ...

regards

[bobt]

I am a newbie and wondering what format to shoot in - JPEG or RAW??
Thanks
JO

First you need to be able to define which is better - Holden or Ford, Collingwood or Richmond or any of the other issues that people take sides on! RAW and JPEG have devotees on both sides, so there's no "right" or "wrong" - just differing viewpoints.

However, that said let me say that RAW gives you the best potential to produce the best image but it has a bigger learning curve and requires more knowledge.

Some cameras shoot both at once, and that's what I do, but it uses up a lot of storage.

Maybe until you can say you're no longer a newbie, you should stick with JPEG, and then work up to RAW once you have your head around the whole photography thing a bit more. Do some reading about RAW and see what that brings you. RAW files are very big and not all software can process them, but that's just part of the RAW learning curve.

Think of it like your camera - when you're new you put it on manual - then after a while you work up to the various dials and settings - using RAW is similar, so it's better to walk with JPEG before trying to run too quickly.

[HansPeter]

G’Day. I’M A NOT A GOOD Photographer, I’m a beginner however I been shooting film in the 1970s the cost factor stop me.
Now I’m back to photography thanks to the digital-age“. Digital it is a lot cheaper” when you got your gear together.
I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, ho swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or Raw. I started shooting Raw not long ago and I found there is a difference, I would not go back to JPG.
I discovered a instant comparable difference…so I’m sorry Mr Rockwell on this one you are wrong.
And for all you photographers thinking Raw or JPG.. tray Raw you’ll properly surprise your selves, what have you got to lose?
Cheers Hans…

[Kym]

I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, who swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or Raw. I started shooting Raw not long ago and I found there is a difference, I would not go back to JPG.
I discovered a instant comparable difference…so I’m sorry Mr Rockwell on this one you are wrong.

Hans! You have proven the well known axiom - If KR says A instead of B then B is correct (most of the time)

Remember:

• Ken Rockwell's camera has similar settings to ours, except his are: P[erfect] Av[Awesome Priority Tv[Totally Awesome Priority] M[ajestic]
• Ken Rockwell doesn't color correct. He adjusts your world to match his.
• Ken Rockwell doesn't adjust his DOF, he changes space-time.
• Circle of confusion? You might be confused. Ken Rockwell never is.
• Ken Rockwell doesn't wait for the light when he shoots a landscape - the light waits for him.
• Ken Rockwell never flips his camera in portrait position, he flips the earth
• Ken Rockwell is the only person to have photographed Jesus; unfortunately he ran out of film and had to use a piece of cloth instead.•
• Before Nikon or Canon releases a camera they go to Ken and they ask him to test them, the best cameras get a Nikon sticker and the less good get a Canon sticker
• Rockwellian policy isn't doublethink - Ken doesn't even need to think once
• Ken Rockwell doesn't use flash ever since the Nagasaki incident.
• Only Ken Rockwell can take pictures of Ken Rockwell; everyone else would just get their film overexposed by the light of his genius
• Ken Rockwell wanted something to distract the lesser photographers, and lo, there were ducks.
• Ken Rockwell is the only one who can take self-portraits of you
• Ken Rockwell's nudes were fully clothed at the time of exposure
• Ken Rockwell once designed a zoom lens. You know it as the Hubble SpaceTelescope.
• When Ken unpacks his CF card, it already has masterpieces on it.
• Rockwell portraits are so lifelike, they have to pay taxes
• Ken Rockwell spells point-and-shoot "h-a-s-s-e-l-b-l-a-d"
• Ken Rockwell's digital files consist of 0's, 1's AND 2's.
• Ken Rockwell never focus, everything moves into his DoF
• Ken Rockwell's shots are so perfect, Adobe redesigned photoshop for him: all it consists of is a close button.
• The term tripod was coined after Ken Rockwell's silhouette
• Ken Rockwell never produces awful work, only work too advanced for the viewer
• A certain brand of high-end cameras was named after people noticed the quality was a lot "like a" Rockwell
• Ken Rockwell isn't the Chuck Norris of photography; Chuck Norris is the Ken Rockwell of martial arts.
• Ken Rockwell never starts, he continues.

(Its a joke)

[campo]

I read articles of many pros opinions, one is Ken Rockwell, ho swears he only shoots JPG. And there in no difference by shooting JPG or Raw.

Warning always take what KR says with grain of salt...

That said, I tend to agree that there comes a point where shooting RAW is overkill. I'm not there yet personally and I still like the extra latitude RAW provides in hard lighting conditions at fast pace events (eg. weddings) but one day I can see myself switching back to JPG.

Quite a few wedding pros shoot jpg...why? because they're good at what they do and get the shot right the first time and apply minimal effort after that. It's all about spending time wisely and taking a bit more care when shooting to minimise time in front of the computer.

[pollen]

When I first started photography I only captured in JPG mode. I really regret not having RAWs of those early shots nowadays

imo go RAW+JPG

[arthurking83]

.... I really regret not having RAWs of those early shots nowadays

imo go RAW+JPG

RAW+Jpg is a waste(for most people)... but, for the reason pollen stated(regret not using raw in those early days) is why I always recommend (especially!!) newbies to use raw from day one

The biggest drawback with jpgs is the fact that you can't make a raw image out of one... but you can always make a jpg image out of a raw file.
Which mode makes best sense to you?

If you were shooting hundreds(or more) images per day and needed speedy turnaround of images, shooting raw may end up slowing you down relative to shooting in jpg mode.

[Helen S]

[QUOTE=arthurking83;482642]The biggest drawback with jpgs is the fact that you can't make a raw image out of one...QUOTE]

Not entirely the case, because with Photoshop, you can use the Open As... command and open a JPG as a Camera Raw file, but of course it'll never be the same as starting with a true RAW file from the beginning.

I'm with the others though and would advise on shooting in Camera Raw unless, as Kiwi says, you're shooting "disposable or bulk images."

[Wazza]

Hi Friends

This discussion has been interesting and it so far has been in the realm of experience and opinion. I'd like to support those who say that for quality we should shoot in RAW, with a little data to back up this view. I took an image, any image will give the same results, and compared 8-bit (i.e. JPEG) PP with 16-bit (i.e. RAW) PP...

My attached histograms (numbered in order) show:

1. As-shot in RAW, 16-bit

2. 16-bit after Levels and Colour Balance Adjustment in CS4

3. Converted to 8-bit (i.e. equivalent to JPEG) then Levels and Colour Balance Adjustment in CS4 (Note spikes in histogram, indicating pixel destruction)

4. 16-bit after Levels and Colour Balance Adjustment in CS4, then converted to 8-bit (note no perceptable data loss, indicating non-destructive editing)

I could continue and what we see is that if we do even simple PP in 8-bit mode (i.e. JPEG) we are destroying image detail. The worst result, after extensive PP can be image banding.

A preferable workflow is to shoot in RAW, develop in LR or ACR etc, which gives you a 16-bit TIFF, edit, and then do your conversion to 8-bit or whatever for printing or for web display. So, as many people here have already said, we pay big bucks for a great camera, why not get the most from it.

If quality isn't a concern then forget the above.

I hope this helps the discussion and apologies for boring the experts.

Cheers
Wazza

[jev]

Horses for courses. Sometimes RAW is better, sometimes JPEG is the preferable choice. In general: if you've got the time shoot RAW - if nothing else, you always can create the exact same JPEG from the RAW as when you shot JPEG directly.

[Bax155]

you always can create the exact same JPEG from the RAW as when you shot JPEG directly.

My thoughts exactly, I was told also to convert to TIFF not JPEG, as magazines and what not will not take JPEG, is this true?

[jev]

My thoughts exactly, I was told also to convert to TIFF not JPEG, as magazines and what not will not take JPEG, is this true?

Depends on the magazine I guess. I shoot for a couple of local magazines and one actually requires sRGB JPEG. A high glossy cover might set other requirements than a quarter column image somewhere burried deeply in the second half of a cheap magazine.

[kiwi]

I have a rule - if the shot might matter later I shoot raw, if it's something that's disposable or for quick bulk processing, like sport, I'll shoot jpeg

[Clubmanmc]

I have a rule - if the shot might matter later I shoot raw, if it's something that's disposable or for quick bulk processing, like sport, I'll shoot jpeg

agree... but i shoot raw and jpg... when it counts... makes processing easier, if the jpg is ok i dont need to process, other wise i tweak the raw...

as for the comment its useless... my camera wont shoot any faster in just RAW, so i may as well get a free jpg...

M

[jrdnc09]

Thanks for the info.
I have software to convert RAW files, should I adjust any of my images before conversion??
Jo

[pollen]

The idea of a RAW file is that there is extra data to allow more scope in adjustment before posterisation occurs. If you are just converting RAW images without adjusting...then it's no different from JPGs...except you are just wasting time and computer power

[Wazza]

Hi
I always shoot in RAW. The reason is that there is more bit depth in the RAW format, so there is significantly more exposure latitude. If you use LightRoom to develop your RAW files then it's very straight forward. It is a simple matter to recover lost detail in highlights and shadows. The main reasons to shoot in JPEG would be if you're shooting lots of frames and you have a small memory card or if you're not worried about quality and just want to bang out a few quick prints.
Hope this helps
Wazza

[coolie21]

Raw all the way. I'm not good enough to get it right in jpg

[Tony B]

Raw. I too saw the light .