Why to shoot in Raw?
Ok this might seem like a dumb question, and honestly i feel dumb for asking it.
I have been using DSLRs for a couple of years now, and am wondering what are the differences between shooting jpg and shooting raw?
I do know that raw files take up more hard disk space.
What are the benefits of shooting raw compared to jpg?
What are the benefits of shooting jpg compared to raw?
basically what I am asking is, should I stop using jpg and start shooting raw?
Why shoot raw compared to shoot jpg that takes up less hard disk space?
Thanks
I have been using DSLRs for a couple of years now, and am wondering what are the differences between shooting jpg and shooting raw?
I do know that raw files take up more hard disk space.
What are the benefits of shooting raw compared to jpg?
What are the benefits of shooting jpg compared to raw?
basically what I am asking is, should I stop using jpg and start shooting raw?
Why shoot raw compared to shoot jpg that takes up less hard disk space?
Thanks
Nikon D3000
Nikkor 18-55mm Kit Lens
Nikkor 55-200mm VR Lens
Nikkor 18-105mm VR Lens
Nikkor 70-300mm VR Lens
Nikon SB-600 speedlight
Nikon EM Film SLR
50mm Lens
85mm Lens
Canon Powershot SX100IS
Nikkor 18-55mm Kit Lens
Nikkor 55-200mm VR Lens
Nikkor 18-105mm VR Lens
Nikkor 70-300mm VR Lens
Nikon SB-600 speedlight
Nikon EM Film SLR
50mm Lens
85mm Lens
Canon Powershot SX100IS
0
Comments
should you or should you not is a personal choice, however.
I know that once I used RAW, I have never came back to shooting jpeg.
My Site
My Facebook
What do you mean when you say "much more data is stored than a jpeg"? and What kind of freedom do i have more of working with RAW?
Basically im confused with what RAW files actually are, and what can be done with them i guess.... like i said i feel dumb asking this.
Nikkor 18-55mm Kit Lens
Nikkor 55-200mm VR Lens
Nikkor 18-105mm VR Lens
Nikkor 70-300mm VR Lens
Nikon SB-600 speedlight
Nikon EM Film SLR
50mm Lens
85mm Lens
Canon Powershot SX100IS
would be the best example, probably. you can see what you can do in pre-edits.
Many adjustments can be done in a way that they do not affect quality of the image as much. But I am sure that pro's will chime in as well
My Site
My Facebook
First, a JPG file is a compressed image, and what I mean by that is it has been digitally compressed. There is literally less data. This is why the file size is so much smaller. Worse it is what is called a "lossy" compression. This means when the file is uncompressed (so that it can be displayed, printed, etc.) what results is not what was started with. You have truly lost data.
Whether you can perceive this or not, whether this matters to you or not, is a different story. MP3's a lossy compressed audio files, and yet some people (strangely enough to my ears!) do not hear a difference and do not care.
Now, if you are happy with your JPG pictures that in an of itself makes one wonder if you should change or not.
A RAW image is, more or less, the data coming off the sensor. It is sometimes not compressed, or sometimes it is compressed. Canon, for example, compresses their RAW files. But the big difference is that it is a lossless compression. In other words, it is not compressed as much, and when decompressed you really do get back exactly what you started with. Zip files are an example of this, in that when you unzip you get back exactly what you started with. No data is thrown away.
Now, if you do a lot of post processing then data is king and you can never have enough data. Thus starting with a JPG is not as ideal.
Let me complicate matters just a wee bit more and propose that you, and everybody else, actually ARE shooting in RAW already. The only difference is where and how you are doing the post processing. If you are shooting a JPG then what you are really doing is having the camera do the post-processing for you, and you are guiding that processing by choosing the saturation level you want, the sharpening, etc. in the camera through the menu options. You are, in effect, post processing before you hit the shutter button, or "pre-processing" as it were. (I'm trademarking that, you heard it here first!
I shoot RAW all the time, but I have a RAW workflow nailed down so well that shooting JPG would save some disk space and some time in downloading cards but not much else. In all honesty, for the bulk of the shooting I do, amatuer auto racing and track days, most photographers doing this shoot in JPG mode and do minimal post-processing. Sometimes I'm not sure why I don't as well.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
you have no contol over the processing of the image....Raw files are akin to slide/negative film...yopu have to process the film to
see the developed image.
Now if you can get a dead on exposure every time you press the shutter release then there is no need to shoot RAW.....UNLESS
at some later date you want to make chages to that original file, by doing some crazy creative processing then the RAW file
is the one you want to work from................
No matter what the naysayers spew forth.......I'll estimate that over 90% of all professional photographers will be shooting in raw
99% of the time........Once I got a grasp of the difference...I have never shot anything but RAW or RAW+jpg...... Konica Minolta cameras
would not magnify the image on the lcd without shooting raw+jpg or just jpg...so I have gotten used to loosing a bit of memory card
space for the added jpg............for me it is also great for fast and dirty sorting with windows viewer...so the raw+jpg combo is good for me.....
but I also have an arensal of over 12 8gb cards for my cams.....................
Fogues, you do know that JPG's can be run through camera raw, and therefore the "pre-edits" can be changed without affecting the original, right?
Art, really, a Polaroid? That's like saying you can't do any edits after the shot is taken. It's a very poor example.
98olds, shoot in Raw+JPG for awhile and compare for yourself.
If you think that the extra data from the raw file has value to you, by all means, shoot in raw mode.
I've tried it a few different times, for what I shoot, and how I process, raw is a waste of disk space.
The biggest difference for me in the last few years, is when Adobe made it so you could run JPG's through camera raw.
This is a shot from a Dgrin shootout that I had processed with PS Elements. (I thought it looked pretty good at the time)
After I got CS3, I revisited that, and some of my other older shots.
This is the same image, run through camera raw, and who knows, maybe my skill using the program enters into it also,
but I feel that this had made the biggest impact on my shots. Maybe I should have been shooting in RAW early on,
but right now, I can do just about anything in post that the RAW shooters do.
So, to recap.
Shoot in Raw and JPG, run both shots through camera raw and see if the extra data is worth the extra storage.
Only you can decide what's right for you.
For me, it's not worth it.
Tip of the day for shooting JPGs:
Don't add any contrast or saturation in camera, in fact, go to -2 on contrast.
Contrast is about the easiest thing to add in post, and one of the hardest to get rid of in post from a JPG.
The theory is that by reducing the contrast, you get a greater range of color in a JPG, thus getting more data,
and as it was said, more data is better.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
I am trying to avoid spending big $$$ on photography editing programs.
My Gear
My Websites - Personal www.ericsmemories.com |"Professional" www.vividphotography.org
My Favorite Photos - Chicago, NYC, DC, London, Prague, Alaska, Yellowstone, Glacier NP, Vermont, Mt. Rushmore, Badlands NP, The Appalachian Trail
When a camera takes a photo, it absorbs raw light information, like film. When it is sent to the camera's processor, the next step is to process that raw data with the image compression options you've chosen:
With a RAW file, none of the data is thrown out and it is all written to the disk directly without being processed or enhanced in any way. It is like throwing a fixed film negative right into a sleeve. With JPEG, some information is processed, and the rest is thrown out depending on your compression. Each JPEG taken is like developing a silver print on an enlarger, with the same contrast/density, sharpness and color settings for the whole roll of film, no matter what the picture. (color does change with auto white balance though) Especially in high contrast images, this is where information is lost in film and digital alike if you don't take the time to manually extract the whole range out of each individual negative (dodge/burn.) In some cases the negative may never be fully represented on the silver print unless you manually pull it out yourself. This can take awhile on film to get it %100 perfect. In digital it can take just a few seconds.
In digital lingo:
RAW is either a 12 or 14 bit file depending on the abilities of your camera (right now higher end are 14 bit) and JPEG are 8 bit files. This enhances the total amount of information per pixel that a camera can describe with data.
8 bit vs 12/14 bit in everyday words:
Lets say you wanted to describe a convict to a sketch artist. In digital file terms, JPEG is only remembering 8 features per convict, RAW is 12 or 14. That will result in a much more accurate sketch, no? In a digital file, this results in more descriptors per pixel, resulting in more accurate color, sharpness, and allowing for better, richer tonal range without mucking up shadows or blowing out highlights as easily. Generally it adds 2-3 stops more data to recoverable highlights/shadows since the RAW is 12/14 descriptors vs. just 8 descriptors. Sometimes 8 is plenty for certain scenes but for others you could really benefit from more.
So to answer your question:
JPEGS: Mainly, it saves a lot of file space. The sacrifice is that it can be less accurate with colors, and loses detail depending on compression level. JPEG is a great option for things that don't need every drop of quality and detail out of something, especially things that aren't going to be printed very big. It is also good for a FINAL master file. Once you KNOW you're never going to re process an image, it can be good to save as a 10-12 quality jpeg for archiving and saving %50 or more space. For large events and non artsy stuff I will make final JPEGs at a 10 or 11 setting to save a few GB.
RAW: Lets you pick choose and control every aspect of the photograph from start to finish. Bad exposures are much more usable with these files as well, and art photographs will benefit from the tonal range and detail retaining qualities of a RAW photo. If you like high contrast images and end up doing that all the time to your photos, RAW will benefit you a lot.
I suppose this is a simplified version of that web link up above but its got the main points covered anyway.
I do a lot of art so I use Photoshop's Camera Raw editor since it has many more features and allows me to nit-pick pixel by pixel if I need it.
Otherwise for most other stuff, Adobe Lightroom is a very nicely laid out program designed for work flow with photographs. Because of that, you should be able to find your own style of work flow that fits you best fairly naturally. It's like a Bridge+Photoshop RAW hybrid. You can make albums/collections to easily categorize and archive your work, and also work on RAWs more quickly since it generates changes to your image via XML data instead of modifying the actual file.
I've never really kept (or remember names) of other raw editors since they never seem to have all the features I need, but Lightroom is a more budget friendly and generally quicker RAW editor than Photoshop Camera Raw is, with many many features on its own. I found just caving and spending $200-300 ended my search once and for all and never leaves me disappointed or trying to find a work around for a missing feature.
As to why i use that why I use that example......you shoot your jpg place on hdd....open in a processor...and save......opps that
original jpg no longer exists............or you save as and now you have both the orig. and new file.......oh darn I want to make different
change...open the orig..make changes...save as....do this scenario a few more times and when y0ou ope that original it will show
degradation to the original file....as a matter of fact just the opening and closing of jpgs causes them to degrade.....this never happens
TO A RAW FILE...........
Software..........as far as I know adobe has the only raw processor that will allow you to open and work on a jpg.......so if you do not
use adobe probucts you are S.O.L. ........so I still do not see that jpg are better or even equal to in the real working world..........
I do own both LR and Photoshop......my work flow:
1- shoot pix
2 - down load to harddrive
3- open all shots in Windows viewer......
4- run thru DNG converter and discard all raws - this step could be avoided if Nikon would just step up and allow DNG in camera like Leica..........
5 - View and delete all those than I want deleted
6 - process in LR3
7 - if I need other processing thaqt I cannot do in LR3 we are now in PS .. change dpi to get to 300dpi constraining proportions only, no resampling
8 - Genuine Fractal all my shots
9 - sharpen using unsharp mask in PS..."save as" #12 jpg
10 - upload to SM galleries
Art, you've got to be kidding.
How does my original file magically disappear?
Any changes made in camera raw can be changed. Have you ever loaded a JPG into it?
Try it once before handing out any more misinformation.
Every time I open and close a JPG it degrades?
Please, don't go to my website to view my shots, I'm afraid they'll disappear.
I'll give you the biggest advantage for using jpg.
Download the shots on any computer made in the last 10 years ... and you can see the images.
Without the proper software (i.e. photoshop or the camera software) the raw files can not be seen.
In this screen capture, you can see the right click options for this shot that went through camera raw.
As you can see, there are a few quick options like "Clear Settings" that will bring my shot right back to it's original state.
Or I could just reopen it in camera raw and move the sliders from where they were previously set.
BTW, the camera raw changes are only seen with an Adobe product. It must write a file or add something with the info about the changes.
Viewing it with any other viewer and it looks like it's the straight from the camera image.
Note the little slider icon indicating that this photo has been run through camera raw.
But, what's this, another file to the left of it, with the same file name. (almost)
Don't click save when you're finished processing, click save as.
So, about my workflow. It's the same as if I shot raw.
I load the shots onto my computer, run them through camera raw, open that in CS3, process, save as a new file.
Nothing bad happens to the original file. It didn't degrade because I opened it.
(and yes, it's a new puppy):D
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Nope Davev...I am not kidding........
To start with make sure you are citing me correctly......I said if you "save" the image it overwrites the original......I made this mistake a couple of times in years past and again just today, my clik finger got a little over zealous ......it over wrote the original........if you "save as" you have choices as to how, where and so on.....and can either overwrite the original or not.....if you want to place in same folder as original you must make the name ever so slightly different from the original.......just add a single letter or digit and it does not overwrite the original
As I stated before it is only adobe products that allow you this feature of using a raw converter to process jpegs with a raw converter.........so for any one that doesnot use an adobe processing software they are still SOL...even the PS Elements users are SOL from I have found out.........but a raw shooter can still use many other softwares to open view and process their images...and some of those are free nad work nearly as well as photoshop.......
It has been a problem of jpgs from the beginning that they degrade when repeatedly opened and closed that they degrade......I have also tried this and seen the effects of it......BTW what you get from a website is not the actual jpeg but a 72dpi copy of what you loaded on the sites servers........so you are not opening and closing the original...........I have checked all th research papers I could find to see if there was any change in the degradation problem inherent to all jpegs.....and here is one site that actually shows the degradation of jpeg over successive openings and saves...... and a second site just affirming my thoughts on jpeg degradation...........
http://www.cywarp.com/faq_jpg_degradation.htm
http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/formatsjpeg/a/jpegmythsfacts.htm
[ So it is not misinformation I have given at all............]
And as far as being able to view a jpg on any computer made in the last 10 years......well I was viewing jpgs a lot longer ago than that without any special software..............so back to my origianl comparison.....JPEG is akin to Polaroid.....instantly viewable nothing special really needed (aside from a compatible viewer: computer, digital keychain viewer or a digital picture frame)......Raws and Dngs are akin to negatives ......you need a converter to view and process raw's or DNG's and they do leave you more room and latitude for processing the way you want it processed from begin to end
I don't believe I misquoted you in the last post or this one.
You Wrote: "It has been a problem of jpgs from the beginning that they degrade when repeatedly opened and closed that they degrade."
When I wrote about the file magically disappearing, I was referring to "open and close" statement.
That's like saying if I open and close a text file, letters will start to disappear. It just doesn't happen.
It's just 1's and 0's. Nothing goes away because you opened it, then closed it.
Let's say you have a jpg on a non-rewritable CD.
Are you saying that somehow that file is being rewritten to lose info on that CD?
That is a neat trick, and one I want to see.
In the last part of your quote, you say "open and saves", this is true. The file will degrade if saving in PS.
But you can reopen the original file as many times as you want in camera raw, and it will not degrade.
As for the 72DPI, that only applies to printing, not what appears on the screen.
When I upload a shot to Smugmug that is 1200X800 pixels, when I view that file as "Original" all those pixels come through.
I think that Adobe started to allow us JPGers to open their shots in camera raw with CS3.
As for the 10 years ... it was a nice round number, and I didn't want to research it.
I can say that I bought an Epson PhotoPC camera in 1996 that shot jpgs, that I could view on any computer.
I just opened a few of them tonight to see if I could run these massive 640 X 480 shots through camera raw, and I can.
Of course I have three cameras, all Canon's, a 5DMKII, a 7D, and a G10, and I can't open a single raw shot
from any of these cameras with CS3. But hey, for what, about $500 I can.
Like I said, a person has to decide what's best for them. For me, it's JPG's.
A shot from 98 from the PhotoPC that I was able to run through camera raw.
This pup's name was Bailey.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
The results were a little different than I thought they'd be.
I started out with a JPG from a 7D camera.
The file is 7,470,747 bytes in size.
After the first save, at "10" in CS3, the file size became 3,864,134.
After 10 saves, (remember now opening the last saved file then saving that, repeatedly 10 times) the file size became 3,864,150.
It lost just about half the bytes on the first save, but gained 16 in 9 saves after that.
I thought for sure the file would lose another meg of size, but it didn't.
Take a look at the full sized versions, I think you'd be hard pressed to see the difference between the 2 shots.
One more note, no processing was done to these shots.
It was an Open in camera raw, Open in CS3, Save as, repeat with new file.
Maybe if a bunch of work was done to the photo you might see more of a difference
Here are some small versions from the full files on my site.
The "from the camera shot" (a link to the full sized shot LINK)
and the "after saving it 10 times" shot. (a link to the full sized shot. LINK)
I'd say other than file size, if these images were printed large, say 16 x 24, you'd be hard pressed to tell me which one was which.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Now one can argue about inconvenience, additional disk space required, and not being able to use 10 year old computers to process their images. I couldn't care less about any of that. The ONLY thing I'm interested in as a photographer is producing the best pictures I can, and that means not throwing away sensor data. Won't go there, won't do it. :nah
Link to my Smugmug site
degrads them.....i have seen nothing from Adobe or JPEG that states other wise...........I did find that starting with CS3 it will open a jpeg or tiff
file but nothing to support your claim that repeadly opening and saving in ACR does not degrade the file............
Every piece of evidence I can find still states you have more latitude using raw than jpeg's .........and I to have jpegs from my first digital cam...a HP C200 and yes I can view them on windows viewer ........
Not sure why you keep re-iterating that you can not view a raw or dng file with out a converter....I never said you could......both raw and dng are unprocessed files...AKIN to a film negative and must be processed to be useful....but it is that total control of every single nuance of the process taht makes the raw or dng better for most than jpeg's alone..........so yes....each person must decide for themselves what is best for them.....Especially if they are making money from there work.....exception being news shooters that are not allowed the luxury of processing to make the image..........for them jpeg is pretty much it........even tho I do know several that shoot the raw-jpeg combo so that the news editor gets the jpeg and they retain the raw for more creative works.................
Adobe gives you a simple and free converter to save people money that use several different cameras and may not keep the ACR up to date for all the camera revisions of raw types...It is the DNG converter and it is free and there are many many pros like myself that convert all our raw files to DNG so that we do not have to keep upgrading the raw converter in PS or LR............
The FUD about raw files not being openable in the future is just that, FUD. The DNG format that so many of us use is an open specification. If all the photo corporations in the world failed overnight, someone could still write a little program that would open our DNGs. The cost of converting to DNG is zero because the Adobe DNG converter is free. Using it, even CS3 could open all your raw files...
This entertaining discussion inspired me to go back and work on some photos I shot 5 years ago that have terrible noise because I shot them on an old point-and-shoot at ISO 400. I opened them in Lightroom 3 because they upgraded both the demosaicing and the noise reduction. What that means is that Lightroom literally rebuilt the images from the ground up with better detail and much less noise, because the raw data was there to be re-interpreted. And of course it did this with technology that was far newer and better than the cheap raw-to-JPEG converter inside the 5-year-old P&S. That would have been impossible with JPEG, since with a JPEG, you are stuck with the camera's version of raw processing, forever. Once that JPEG is saved, you can never undo the choices the in-camera converter made. Even if you can open the JPEG in Camera Raw, you already enter at a disadvantage, a starting point that is not as good. (Beyond the fact that you've limited yourself to an 8-bit image.)
When (not if) technology comes up with a better way to decode that raw data, you can develop the image better. It's like being able to go back and take the picture with a camera that did not exist back then. With JPEG you cannot go back and re-take the same pictures of your family how they were five years ago using the equivalent of a newer, better camera. With raw...I can.
I'm just trying to get good info out there so people can make an informed choice.
Do you have more latitude trying to fix a RAW file, sure.
If you get the photo right in camera, you maybe don't need that latitude.
Art, I have a hard time explaining anything cause in one line you have "open and close" the next
you type "open and save"
Open and close does nothing to the file, open and saving does. (but not as bad as I was lead to believe)
The link that you have where they open and save a shot 50 times looks bad, but they're saving at level 8.
Sure it's going to look bad when doing that.
Load the 2 shots I have above into PS. Put one in a layer above the other. Show where after saving it 10 times
that the shot is so much worse, that you would say it's lost cause.
I don't have to read about someone's test, I did my own.
With smaller images, with fewer pixels, I can maybe see this being more of an issue. At 18 MB, maybe not so much.
I'm not really bring up the fact that a old computer can read the newer files, it's the fact that any computer can view JPGs.
Unless the proper software is installed, not many computers will be able to display a RAW file.
I like having the shots in a file form that's been around for a number of years, and that doesn't change every time a new camera is released.
The one thing I don't know for sure is, do JPGs look the same when opened on a given computer through different software?
We all know that the RAWs look different in ACR and DPP. Yet somehow people tell me this is better.
Isn't consistency what we look for?
OK, I loaded one in CS3 and opened the same shot in Preview on the IMac. Colors look the same in both programs.
Like I said, with the newer programs, shooting JPGs isn't all that different from shooting in RAW mode.
The workflow is or can be much the same for both.
The one thing I can say is people get way to hung up on whether a shoot was in RAW or JPG.
I had someone looking at a print of mine, falling all over themselves telling what a great shot it was and this and that,
then they asked me something about what I changed in the RAW file, I told them nothing cause I shot in JPG.
Their response was, Oh, that's to bad. Somehow the photo lost all it luster cause it wasn't shot in RAW.
Last thing, I had some friends dogging me to shoot in RAW. So I tried it. I shot RAW + JPG a few different times.
I can barely tell the difference in the shots.
Which side came from the RAW file. (100% crops)
No matter which side you like better, I can make the other side look like it in less than a minute.
I'm done. Thanks for looking.
Hopefully some of what I said made sense, cause it's way to late at night for me to know for sure.:D
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Just a point of fact, Bibble (which I use) lets you edit JPGs (and other formats) in their RAW converter software and I'd actually be more surprised if the other stand alone packages out there didn't let you edit other file types too.
thank you for clarification.......and I should have said "as far as I know..............................", as that is what I said earlier....I had forgotten about Bibble, as i have never used it...my experience runs into Jasc and corel......neither had a raw converter when I was using them so I came back to Adobe PS and LR........I tried the Gimp but found it was not for me ........Adobe products were more intuitive for me and I have been stuck there ever since........but it was very late and I screwed up with the "it is only adobe products............"
Thanks again to bringing this to my attention............
This is a great question. I notice myself that there is a lot of snobbery about shooting raw, lots of people dismiss you as a photographer when you don't.
I switched to raw about 12 months ago because I thought I should at least learn about it and I was dissatisfied with the dynamic range that a DSLR seems able to capture and still am.
Raw shifts some of the workload from understanding what your in-camera options are to correcting in post - which is almost always needed with raw. A naked raw file looks dull and should always be improved in post.
The hard disk space argument is obsolete, I think. Hard disk capacity is so cheap as to be infinite. So is the compatibility argument: it takes nanoseconds to create a jpeg from a raw when you want to publish. The "polaroid" discussion also falls down - there is lots of software around for tweaking jpegs. You need to have the initial exposure approximately right but the same is true for raw.
So why do I persevere with raw?
- I am learning my post software (Aperture) and continue to improve. I still think my camera on automatic might have done better, although less often.
- the in-camera options like white balance and scenes are blunt instruments. I now prefer to ignore them and adjust in post. My new work flow makes shooting easier - lazier some might say.
- someday I might know more achieving the results I like than the people who designed the automatic features on my camera - not there yet!
I don't think that raw is needed for me to become a great photographer. Some of my favourite shots were taken 30 years ago on slide film and scanned in much too late and in a too low resolution. Still, they are good photos - at least, I like them. Most important is to capture something that speaks.
Having said that, a modern pro needs to master post-processing. Not being able to shoot raw would be insane. Why rely on the in-camera options when you get paid to do better? A great photo will still be a great photo, even when shot in raw. The only argument against this for a pro would be to save time in post - if you understand your camera fully then you can shoot lots of images in jpeg using in-camera options without needing any post processing at all, especially when you intend to publish on the web or in a newspaper. I am not a pro and so can afford to spend time working with raw. Raw is strictly for the hobbyist, the artist, and pros in dire straits.
Quite a sinister remark. Could you explain why its insane for not shooting RAW. Not to put a feather on my cap, all my photos were shot in jpeg and I think i have many many keepers (that's what I think)
That's absolute rubbish and the most insane remark I ever come across.
More correctly would be a great photo will still be a great photo, even when shot in jpeg. Wrong?
Actually, I'd add a bad photo even when shot in RAW is destined for the bin.
So by every account including the amateurs (basically hobbyist) ought to shoot RAW lest they shouldn't even take up photography at all? And you expect a 70 yr old hobbyist who enjoy taking a few snap shots of his grandson to do a RAW conversion.
Pse, don't impose your warp philosophy unto others.
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
The simple answer is that if you are completely happy with the jpgs your camera pops out, and do not ever want or need to edit them, then shoot jpgs. Period. Modern DSLRs can produce quite lovely jpgs with no time or effort on your part..... Lots of professional sport and wildlife shooters do exactly that.
But 8 bit jpgs will not tolerate editing nearly as well as a 16 bit RAW file, because the 8 bit jpgs has less than 1/3 of the original data remaining. Really good jpgs require much greater exposure precision than a RAW file, and jpgs will exibit a lower total dynamic range that a properly edited jpg from a 16 bit RAW file.
If you are really seriously interested in the RAW versus jpg discussion, the bible is "Real World Camera RAW with Adobe Photoshop CS5" by Jeffe Schewe and Bruce Fraser. (There are also a versions for CS 3 and CS 4 if memory serves.) This book explains why RAW files are preferable for editing to jpgs. If you plan to edit your files, there is no comparison between OOC jpgs and properly edited RAW files. If you do not PLAN to edit a RAW file well, your camera will give a you a better jpg than an unedited RAW file. If you are on a time budget, shoot jpgs. Davev says you can edit a jpg in Camera Raw and you can, but you have much less data than a comparable RAW file, so you are limited in the extent of your editing compared to a RAW file. Try changing your color balance on a jpg in ACR, and see how that works out. You will end up with bare areas in your histogram.
Try this - shoot a 32 step grey scale as an 8 bit jpg, and see what is required to get the middle tone in the middle of your histogram, the white tone on the right, and the black tone on the far left. Your exposure will have to be within 1/3 of an fstop.
Jpgs take up less space, but 1 TB drives are cheap.. A straight out of the camera jpg is basically a finished product, a RAW file from 2003 can be re-edited today with the more modern sophisticated RAW editors and improved. I am in the process of re-editing some 20D files from several years ago, and the new Adobe Camera RAW 6.1 can do so much more today than when the camera was new.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
If the prospective image has a higher dynamic range - particularly shooting a snow / no-snow, in the darker / lower-exposure conditions - then RAW is the way to go because it will have the information I need in order to PP the image and get the results I want.
For example, shooting scenes with very bright snow in it is challenging, and often as not would result in blown sections when shooting JPG. When shot with RAW, the data was there to bring out the details in the snow while properly presenting the rest of the picture. Fixing WB issues is a lot easier in RAW than it is in JPG.
I've been using LR2 for all my work, and there's very little difference in the workflow for me.
What I meant to say is that every pro photographer should be able to shoot and process raw. This seems self evident to me.
Raw gives more data to process in post which has been mentioned several times already. Jpegs are convenient on many occasions.
Nothing "sinister" about this. In fact it seems so obvious that I wonder why I bothered posting at all. Nothing better to do today
The second one has a microscopic slight bit more clarity. Its near impossible to see at %100. Only after staring for a little bit I could see it when I would switch between them in photoshop. Side by side I can't even tell, but flashing between them its just ever so slight. Not worth an extra 3MB slight
As for the duck, I believe the right side is JPEG, left side is RAW. The left seems to have a bit more detail than the right, and less processing done to it
Once again, really?
Shoot JPGs if you "do not ever want or need to edit them."
"Modern DSLRs can produce quite lovely jpgs with no time or effort"
Once again, really? I must be doing everything wrong then, cause I still have to edit my shots.
The biggest problem that I have with the this whole discussion is the fact that the folks on the
RAW side of it like to make absolute statements like the two above.
But to say that people that shoot JPGs put no time or effort into their shots is wrong.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.
Dead on on both counts.
At 100% there is almost no difference.
I'm thinking if printed at some reasonable size, the prints would be the same.
The raw side of the duck shot is the left side. The jpg side has had the processing done in camera that just
about everyone would do to the raw file. A little sharpening, a bit more contrast.
Thanks for taking the time to look at the shots.
Basking in the shadows of yesterday's triumphs'.