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.

[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

[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.

[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

[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

[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.

[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 .

[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."

[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…

[Robjess]

I shoot RAW but I think its horses for courses.. I shoot RAW because I do alot of post processing.. if you dont do post processing and are happy with minor adjustments out of the camera then continue to shoot JPG. When you start getting more into post processing then change over to RAW. The down side to RAW is that the files are MUCH bigger.. so be prepared for the amount of space your images will start to take up on your hard drive.. I started to shoot RAW around the time I moved out of the Green/Auto mode on my camera.. having said that, there is nothing wrong with shooting auto/green and there is nothing wrong with shooting in JPG.

[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)

[mongo]

OK Kym , we all know how much you disapprove of Ken.

Raw is a lot more mucking about and does not necessarily give a measurably /noticeably better image. Nearly all of the images Mongo has posted on AP have been from Jpeg originals and doubts they would have looked any different if they had statred off as RAW

Mongo used to shoot raw most of the time but more recently he has found it makes so little difference that he mostly shoots Jpeg now unless it is something really important.

[Xenedis]

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

If you're shooting in a time-critical scenario (ie, you're a photojournalist and need to get images back to the office quickly), shoot JPG.

Otherwise, shoot RAW.

The benefits of RAW are significant.

Firstly, RAW images are essentially untouched, and the least-processed image your camera can create. It's literally the raw data captured by the camera. White balance information is not written to RAW images, so you can apply whatever WB you like. With a JPG, the camera permanently writes WB information to the image, based on whatever WB you've chosen prior to exposure, or whatever the camera decides if you're using auto-WB.

RAW images contain a much greater bit depth (minimum of 12 bits) than JPG. With a 12-bit image, you have 4,096 brightness levels, as opposed to 256 with JPG. This means you have finer gradation and much more latitude for recovering detail from under-exposed images. Some cameras have a higher bit depth when shooting RAW.

Think of RAW files as digital negatives. These are as pure as you can get.

What scares a lot of people is the concept of having to process the image. In practicality, there's only one extra step, and that is conversion from RAW to JPG (or PSD, TIFF et al.). It takes a whole 30 seconds to do it, and it isn't complicated at all.

The advice I always give people is to capture the highest quality image with the camera, as you can never add what wasn't there, and you never know what your future requirements may be. You may only be uploading small JPGs to a Web site now, but in the future you may need much higher resolution and depending on your image, you may need to recover shadow detail that would be heavily compressed and perhaps unrecoverable if you're working with an 8-bit JPG.

The other concern people have with RAW is the file size. With the current generation of DSLRs with pixel counts pushing into medium-format territory, the images are rather large. My advice still stands: Do not compromise image quality unnecessarily. Flash cards and hard disks are very inexpensive these days, so storage should never be a reason for throwing away previous detail in your images.

[Dylfish]

I like my Photos like my sushi... Raw

[swifty]

For all of the reason everyone else has said, shoot RAW.
But I must confess, when shooting digital I'm about 90% jpeg, 10% raw. I may regret this later but IMO much of what it comes down to is output. Where are your images destined?
Shooting raw only for facebook and I think it's overkill, but jpegs for exhibition prints and you might be handicapping yourself.
Having said that, workflow is important when shooting raw and it's not necessary any more troublesome to deal with the file sizes, conversions etc. But it is a good habit to get into establishing good work flow.
Now my reason for shooting jpeg most the time:
-slow raw shooting speed on my camera (S5 - quite ancient by today's standard)
-bad workflow (too lazy)
-computer not fast enough (too poor)
-raw files are massive on a S5 (25mb) for a 6mp output
-Output are generally web, maybe 10% print.
In an ideal world, I would like all my files to have a raw back-up but I live.