JPEG or RAW

[Xenedis]

Remember that a raw file will often not have the POP of a jpg etc, and it adds to your workflow.

Also remember that the preview image on the chimp screen is a JPG, not the RAW file itself, so it cannot be used to accurately assess sharpness, colour or exposure.

[fairy bombs]

Robt has some good advice,its a very,very step learning curve,I am only now just starting to understand a little bit,and take photos in RAW,after 2 years of stumbling around trying to learn stuff.

I did'nt mimd starting my journey just in JPEG,and still only use it on many occasions.only when I am shooting a subject that I really want a good pic out off will I use RAW.

Once you have gained some understanding and experience you will use RAW as well.

hope this helps FB

[FeedMeTrance]

i prefer raw, a lot more control over files. but depends what im shooting, if its a simple happy snap then jpg, but if its for a client or paying customer, then raw, or portfolio

[arnica]

Shoot RAW .. definitely more flexible when it comes to PP.

[soulman]

its a very,very step learning curve

Perhaps worth noting that the hassle factor in using RAW is very software dependent - modern photographer's tools like Lightroom and Aperture make processing RAW much more like other file formats. Once you have adopted RAW processing, it makes other workflows seem cumbersome by comparison I think. For example, you can forget about having to strategically save copies of your JPEGs at various points in the editing process and avoid all the attendant file management issues that go along with that.

[andrask]

... For example, you can forget about having to strategically save copies of your JPEGs at various points in the editing process and avoid all the attendant file management issues that go along with that.

I think it depends on the actual RAW image one processes - for some, the initial RAW processing from e.g. Lightroom would be the first step in many steps to follow in more specialised editing in Photoshop as in many of the images I do.

I started my digital photography with just jpegs, progressed to RAW + jpegs, and now only RAW for the mostly non-dateline critical shooting I do.

I would not agree that there is no difference between jpegs and RAW for final photo quality except in the case of the superbly talented natural shooter who gets it all perfect in every shot.

[soulman]

for some, the initial RAW processing from e.g. Lightroom would be the first step in many steps to follow in more specialised editing in Photoshop as in many of the images I do.

Sure. I was speaking primarily to the idea that learning to edit RAW is inherently difficult or requiring a lot of learning.

I would not agree that there is no difference between jpegs and RAW for final photo quality except in the case of the superbly talented natural shooter who gets it all perfect in every shot.

Even then, there is no getting around JPEG bit depth. 16.7 million colours may be enough if one's images only ever get displayed on monitors, but I just don't think 8 bit is enough for printing stuff with subtle tonal gradations.

[aycee]

Somewhere somebody including myself is lost in all this..it really is down to two things ...the two Qs...Quality vs Quantity..Raw retains the quality and JPEGs retain the abiltiy to have more photos on your card and take up less disc space and to me that is quantity....if you have plenty of quantity go for quality every time..Alan!

Raw is the brand name and Jpeg is the black and gold brand

[GerryK]

Fantastic thread.
I was doing jpeg, but now doing raw. Only today I had a relook at some shots I did in raw+ (raw & jpeg concurrently) The raw has so much more detail and can be worked. Even with the Pentax supplied raw processor software (laboratory) the base image can be really well lifted and then moved to photoshop for finessing (finishing).

[GlennSan]

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.

All the absolute truth! I have been reading Ken's messages from the mountain for years.

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

I can't believe you don't wake up every day with a feeling of warmth and security, knowing that Ken is with us on this planet...

i'm with mongo and swifty...
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.

+1 to all the comments above.

But I do have serious doubts about my workflow regarding the best was to use RAW at this stage of my conversion to digital. I need to do a lot more reading before I can decide for myself. For now I'm shooting RAW as "insurance" but may go back to JPEG if I decide I don't have the time/knowledge to do RAW images full justice.

[Brian500au]

I always shoot raw but spend the same amount of time setting up my camera and shot as if I was shooting JPEG. I suppose I look at it as I can always convert to JPEG but I can never convert to raw. There have been times when shooting raw has saved the shot for one reason or another. I only time i shoot both is when i travel and i shoot raw and a small jpeg in case i want to download and email or show somebody on a computer screen, otherwise i just shoot raw. I spend very little time on processing but in truth even if it was a jpeg file I would spend the same amount of time (cropping, adjusting WB, colours etc).

As many have said horses for courses - I am a hobby photog - might be different if I was shooting high voloume stuff.

[cafezeenuts]

I'm new to photography but coming from Hi-Fi Audio background i always shoot in raw because i want the best possible digital data available. Just like in a studio recording all pros record in raw wav files and they can process them and convert to which ever format they wish later..

[chrisprendergast]

im another for raw but depends on ur situation, and use after you shot the image i guess.

[ricktas]

Ultimately, as long as your understand both formats, know what they do and how they do it, it is your choice as to which you use. But to say JPG for me, without even attempting to find out and test out RAW, or using RAW and debunking JPG without any experience in using it, in camera, would be to sell yourself short. Learn both, and make your own informed decision.

[Ray Heath]

G'day all

An interesting thread and probably one that many will never concede.

In my experience shooting in RAW is problematic, a waste of time and unnecessary for my purposes.

Yes RAW is "better", but the post processing is a chore that delivers little gain.

Ray

[Xenedis]

Yes RAW is "better", but the post processing is a chore that delivers little gain.

I gather you do no post-processing at all.

The act of converting from RAW, dropping the image into Photoshop and saving as a JPG is really quite trivial.

[Ray Heath]

Hi Xenedis

I do very little post-processing. Rarely anything more than Levels and Unsharp Mask in Photoshop.

I believe a good image starts with good camera technique; interesting subject, fill the frame, strong composition, consider movement and depth of field, get the exposure right. That doesn't leave much to post-process.

Ray

[Xenedis]

I believe a good image starts with good camera technique; interesting subject, fill the frame, strong composition, consider movement and depth of field, get the exposure right. That doesn't leave much to post-process.

I agree with you on what constitutes a good image, but what you're overlooking is that digital cameras (DSLR cameras in particular) don't produce publication- or print-ready images.

Sure, cameras can (and do) apply white balance, sharpening, contrast and colour adjustments to images they subsequently save as JPG, but I would rather be the decision-maker when it comes to what's done to my image.

RAW has the added benefit that white balance is not written to the image, unlike JPG. What you set (or what the camera chooses) is what you get in the end. With RAW, white balance can be whatever I want, whenever I want.

On the issue of processing, it is also worth remembering that even film gets processed.

There are also some lighting conditions that a camera cannot handle in a single-exposure. Try shooting seascape/landscape images at dawn when facing the eastern sky and you'll see how much variation in light levels there is between foreground and sky.

The ability to blend different exposures of the same thing allows an image to be seen in a way your human eye can see a scene, but which no camera can see.

[Ray Heath]

G'day Jude

I'm not exactly new to digital imaging, I've shot all kinds of images Fine Art, Weddings, Portraits, Photojournalism, and I cannot see any great advantage to using RAW.

This question has long been debated on other sites I frequent and no-one yet has been able to offer visual examples that prove the worth of RAW capture.

[Sheila Smart]

There is always a debate about RAW vs Jpegs, Nikon vs Canon etc etc. I shoot RAW plus a small Jpeg - only because that Windows Explorer cannot see my .CR2 files from my 5DII. In the past, shooting RAW was only used by folk with a lot of room on their hard drives but these days, external drives are getting cheap as chips as are CF cards. I started shooting RAW in 2004 but when I have to find an image prior to that and find that its only in Jpeg, its a tad disappointing as I know I have little or no room to play with. Conversion is simple. Just open Adobe Bridge and send to CS4 (or whatever). Or use Canon's software (which I don't) which came with the camera. I am sure Nikon has similar - but I don't want to go there

Sheila