JPEG or RAW

[N*A*M]

i'm with mongo and swifty...

used to shoot raw format, but back to JPG 90% of the time, unless i can't nail WB or exposure on site.

now that i have set up the picture controls the way i like in camera, the SOOC jpgs are generally better than i can push/pull the raw file - as long as i have exposed adequately. nikon engineers spent lots of effort developing the JPG engine in the camera. might as well make use of it.

i'm time poor so spending hours in front of the computer doing PP on raw is not why i took up photography.

i also have an old laptop with an uncalibrated screen so it's not an ideal PP environment.

my PP workflow is mainly cataloging, slight crop/rotate and a little bit of levels. i just try hard to get it right at the time of shooting.

[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.

[Shane.R]

I'm at the conclusion that RAW is overated. Learn to read your histogram first, then nail the shot. All else is 2nd - many "awesome" photo's from around the world are shot in Jpeg, if you have the time, the patience and/or a fast computer, then go RAW.

You can also adjust WB in jpeg, worried about shadows? Then do it right the first time.

I shoot both when I feel the need.

[farmer_rob]

RAW all the way for me. ViewNX for Nikon gives a fast, bulk JPEG conversion for RAW files to give the same result as OOC JPEGs if necessary. I like to get the shot right so PP is low, but if I don't (e.g. WB) RAW PP gives me much more flexibility.

[Shane.R]

^ Ken Rockwall shoots with a Nikon D40 - you shouldn't feel the need to use RAW.


..who is Ken any way? Is he famous?

[Xenedis]

I'm at the conclusion that RAW is overated. Learn to read your histogram first, then nail the shot.

Reading the histogram and achieving a correct exposure has nothing to do with shooting in RAW mode.

RAW mode gives you at least six more bits of data per pixel, which makes recovery of shadow details much easier if you need to do that.

You can also adjust WB in jpeg

Re-saving JPGs degrades image quality.

[Shane.R]

Does recovering the shadow alter the pixels (degrade them in anyway)..?

[Xenedis]

Does recovering the shadow alter the pixels (degrade them in anyway)..?

With RAW images?

Certainly with RAW images you don't experience the sort of degradation you'd encounter with JPG. The more you push the shadow tones, the more noise you introduce; and with JPG's very limited bit depth, there are not a lot of tonal variations at the dark end of the spectrum, compared to the lighter end. The compressed tonal variation at the dark end of the spectrum limits your recovery options.

[bigdazzler]

For me its simple. Studio portrait session (maybe less than 100 frames) = RAW or JPG, depending on the lights and what I plan to do with the pictures. Landscapes (less than 100 frames and tricky dynamic range) = RAW. Sport or happy snapping (heaps and heaps of frames) = JPG.

As someone else mentioned a lot of wedding photographers shoot most of their stuff in JPG and shoot RAW+JPG for the critical must get shots as insurance. The thing with shooting in JPG is to know what you are doing, once youve got that down and the need for intense PP lessens, JPG is great.

[Shane.R]

Thanks for that Xenedis^

[jrdnc09]

WOW!!! So much to learn and so much to understand - hopefully soon I will be able to shape an opinion about a technique or equipment etc - but for now I think I will remain in jpeg until I am confident my shots are how I want them to be before going up the next level.
I have no issue with the conversion area and can understand the differences better now between personal opinion, equipment used etc.
One point noted the space taken up very quickly on mem card using RAW. as a newbie I am taking endless amounts of snaps, filling card very quickly and i noticed the battery appeared to run out quicker - could be my imagination!!

Thanks for the info - very much appreciated.

cheers
Jo

[Shane.R]

Nope, not your imagination. RAW will take longer to process to your memory card. Unless you paid $80 or so for a 64mb/sec flash card.

..anyway, you can set your camera for delete 'RAW' only - that's if your shooting setting is set to raw + jpeg.

Don't be fooled into thinking you have to shoot in RAW to be a better photographer, it doesn't work that way.

[jev]

Nope, not your imagination. RAW will take longer to process to your memory card. Unless you paid $80 or so for a 64mb/sec flash card.

But compressing to JPEG and applying in-camera postprocessing also takes a lot of power. I think the difference in power consumption is close to zero when compared to other causes. Perhaps you are chimping more, tend to use longer exposure times or do whatever else different that makes a lot more impact.

Don't be fooled into thinking you have to shoot in RAW to be a better photographer, it doesn't work that way.

That's a truth nobody can deny.

[Analog6]

As your camera will shoot RAW + jpeg, buy some large cards and do that for a while and decide for yourself. I always shoot RAW, for the extra depth of everything you get, and the processing latitude, but you must make up your own mind. Jpeg can limit your processing options severely.

[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

[campo]

nice post Wazza - great explanation

[swifty]

Agree, great post wazza. The truth is that when u pp, a raw file will always be superior to a jpeg. The caveat is can you notice the difference for your given output. Trained eyes will see much more and just because u can't see a difference it doesn't mean it's not there. Differences become more obvious the more you 'push' the pixels of course. So decide what this difference is worth to u.

[rellik666]

Just my two cents as a relative newbie, I have just moved to RAW only. I only have 4GB cards and can use a CF and SD at the same time only giving me 400 shots max, but as I am inexpereinced I like to be able to manipulate my images and it helps me to learn what I did wrong.

If I could take the shot right every time I don't think I would need RAW as much...I have lots of memory cards and a large external hard drive...so space doesn't matter so much, also PP doesn't take that long and I only convert the images I want, you don't have to do all of them!

Roo

[keith-killer]

A lot has been said on this topic. I think I read it all, so forgive me if this has been said.

I say RAW because the software to process RAW is getting better all the time. Photos I took in RAW in 2005 I can now look so much better with CS4 than I could with the comparable software of the time. (My skill has since improved since then I hope too). The JPEGS I have, they can also be improved more now than in 2005, but not as much choice. Lightroom does wonders on some old JPGs I took on holidays with .3 megapixel camera (made in circa 1998) back in 2001.

The same goes with Panoramas in regards to software getting better. I have been re-doing a lot of panoramas I took over the last ten years. I keep EVERY photo I ever took, so I have quite a few attmpted panorams that the software, or myself doing manually could not stitch. Now, with CS4, I am getting some awesome panoramas. I am very happy.

Add to that the current processing ability of CS4 and/or Canon's latest RAW software and the photos are getting better.

These days, I do everything in RAW + JPG. In ten years of digital photos, and DSLR since 2005, and my photos don't take up 1 TB yet... I think. Hard drives are very cheap these days, so storage is not a problem (I am no millionaire) I have 2 external drives (1 as back up) and keep the current year's photos on the PC Hard drive. Also burn two copies of a DVD full of photos, one gets sent to my parents.

[jrdnc09]

Thanks for the info.

I went out last night and took some shots of the sunset in RAW(the format not me) sorry still learning lingo) and then processed using the Canon conversion software and post processing program ---- AMAZING!!! I like the Canon software.

I had in the past always used Picasa, Jalbum with p/s pics to manipulate and upload - Canon software is easy to use and is appropriate for what I need - for now!!

Cheers
Jo