Raw and Jpeg

canon400d · January 13, 2011

I am a wee bit confused with this and if anyone can give me some advice I would really appreciate it.
I have upgraded from a 40 to a 7D and I have always shot Raw. I attend a lot of motor rallies and take around 1500 images per shoot. Following my upgrade I have had to get a couple of 8GB cards because I can only get around 300 images on each card following my upgrade because of the 18mp.
Whilst at the rallies all the guys standing next to me say they never shoot Raw and shoot Jpeg.
When I return home and upload the images on the computer they go into Digital Photo Professional and come out as Jpegs. If need be I will probably tweak them in CS4 in ACR and then into Photoshop. In actual fact I never use a corresponding CR2 image and this is where I am confused. In actual fact after I have completed everything I delete the folder with all the CR2 images because of the room on my external drives. Should I be keeping these CR2 images? I find it difficult and time consuming to look at a CR2 image because I have to right click and open it to see what it is. Are all the guys telling me not to use Raw correct? As I say I would like a simple explanation to all this as I am attending a big rally on Sunday.
Cheers
Bob

zoomer · January 13, 2011

Now you did it....
Yes you can live with shooting only Jpeg just fine.

canon400d · January 13, 2011

zoomer wrote: »

Now you did it....
Yes you can live with shooting only Jpeg just fine.

Thanks for your reply. What I would like to know exactly is it better to shoot Raw or Jpeg and the reasons why.
Cheers
Bob

zoomer · January 13, 2011

If you do a search on the net a million threads will come up.....and with 2,000 posts I think you are just stirring the pot....

angevin1 · January 13, 2011

zoomer wrote: »

If you do a search on the net a million threads will come up.....and with 2,000 posts I think you are just stirring the pot....

If not to stir then what's a pot for? j/k!

besides, He is from Scotland after all!

Zoomer is dead on as far as thousands of threads and discussions on this very topic. The thing I think I read recently that I liked best was from One of our Moderators; Pathfinder. He said it was nice to have the RAW files because as the technology improved he could go back and further adjust older images and get results he couldn't get at the time they were taken. I thought that was an especially good reason to keep RAW files.

The thing is on RAW versus Jpeg. Sometimes JPEG will do just fine and sometimes you might be better served to keep the RAW file. I like having RAW's in case I missed a flaw in my photo the first time.

canon400d · January 13, 2011

angevin1 wrote: »

If not to stir then what's a pot for? j/k!

besides, He is from Scotland after all!

Zoomer is dead on as far as thousands of threads and discussions on this very topic. The thing I think I read recently that I liked best was from One of our Moderators; Pathfinder. He said it was nice to have the RAW files because as the technology improved he could go back and further adjust older images and get results he couldn't get at the time they were taken. I thought that was an especially good reason to keep RAW files.

The thing is on RAW versus Jpeg. Sometimes JPEG will do just fine and sometimes you might be better served to keep the RAW file. I like having RAW's in case I missed a flaw in my photo the first time.

Thanks for that. As far as Zoomer is concerned he can think what he wants and if he has read the 2000 posts it hasn't done him much good. I wish I had the time.
I will obviously have to rely on Pathfinder to explain things to me in a civil manner.
If I am not gaining anything by shooting raw I have obviuosly spent a lot of money on extra cards where I needn't have.
Cheers
Bob

TonyCooper · January 13, 2011

canon400d wrote: »

I am a wee bit confused with this and if anyone can give me some advice I would really appreciate it.
Are all the guys telling me not to use Raw correct? As I say I would like a simple explanation to all this as I am attending a big rally on Sunday.

There's no right answer to you question because no one always shoots
under the same conditions. On a clear, bright, sunny day where you are
shooting multiple shots of the same type of image, taking jpegs only would
most probably be the best way to go. You really won't need the tweaks
that you can do with a RAW file.

Change the conditions, though, and you may want to shoot RAW because
you can expect to make corrections in white balance or exposure.

Base your decision on your own history. If you are not making many
adjustments to your RAW files (other than cropping and basic editing),
go jpeg and get more on your SD card.

Personally, I shoot RAW sometimes, RAW plus jpeg sometimes, and only
jpeg sometimes. It's easy to jump to the menu and make the change on
the fly. Sometimes I change the capture format during a shoot.

arodney · January 13, 2011

canon400d wrote: »

Are all the guys telling me not to use Raw correct?

Its all about rendering the print (the major job photography entails). This piece while a bit long is a must read:http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf

Dan7312 · January 13, 2011

When you shoot jpeg the camera does it best to figure out what the whitepoint in the image is, and adjusts all the levels accordingly. When it gets that right there is no advanage to shooting raw.

However when camera gets it wrong it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to correct the whitepoint and levels in the jpeg image without blowing out bright parts of the image or loosing shadow detail.

When you shoot raw you can in, for example, lightroom or photoshop use the whitepoint and levels the camera choose as the are included in the metadata in the raw file. If the colors and levels don't look right then you have quite a bit of room change them and correct the image without blowing out highlights or loosing shadow detail.

If when you process your raw images all you do is use the "as shot" whitepoint and don't change the levels and the results are satisfactory, then shooting raw isn't buying you much.

canon400d wrote: »

I am a wee bit confused with this and if anyone can give me some advice I would really appreciate it.
I have upgraded from a 40 to a 7D and I have always shot Raw. I attend a lot of motor rallies and take around 1500 images per shoot. Following my upgrade I have had to get a couple of 8GB cards because I can only get around 300 images on each card following my upgrade because of the 18mp.
Whilst at the rallies all the guys standing next to me say they never shoot Raw and shoot Jpeg.
When I return home and upload the images on the computer they go into Digital Photo Professional and come out as Jpegs. If need be I will probably tweak them in CS4 in ACR and then into Photoshop. In actual fact I never use a corresponding CR2 image and this is where I am confused. In actual fact after I have completed everything I delete the folder with all the CR2 images because of the room on my external drives. Should I be keeping these CR2 images? I find it difficult and time consuming to look at a CR2 image because I have to right click and open it to see what it is. Are all the guys telling me not to use Raw correct? As I say I would like a simple explanation to all this as I am attending a big rally on Sunday.
Cheers
Bob

pathfinder · January 13, 2011

Your RAW file is the basic data the camera captured at the time of exposure, Bob. Think of it as your negative. Like a negative, it can be processed different ways by you with your editing software. This does take more time and effort, and yes, also more storage as well. After processing your RAW file you will have a jpg that you can look at or print. The jpg is a finished file, it will tolerate a lot less altering in software than your RAW file, because it is so much smaller in term of digital data.

Your camera processes your RAW files for you automatically when you shoot straight out of the camera jpgs, and then discards the RAW file. For some images, shot in low contrast situations, this may be quite ok. But your camera with its little computer built into it is not capable of the RAW processing one CAN do with a good desk top computer, Adobe Camera Raw, and some image editing expertise.

Like the posters have said, their is no single all the time right answer in the Raw vs jpg arguments. You can find thousands of links on the web about this discussion. It all comes down to what your needs and desires are. Shoot jpgs and you get your files quickly and easily, and they store in a smaller space. They MAY not be as good as the files you can create from a Raw file if you have the desire and the dedication to do that. But they will be better than many folks with no knowledge or understanding of RAW processing will create. Straight out of the camera jpgs are much less intolerant of exposure errors than RAW. Good jpgs require you to be within 1/3 to 1/2 stop of the correct exposure, RAW files are more tolerant. Jpgs are much harder to color balance than RAW files as well.

As mentioned earlier, one of the real advantages of Raw files, is that as the RAW engines - like Adobe Camera Raw - continue to improve as the years go by, you can go back to Raw files shot 5 or 6 years ago and create better images now, than when they were originally shot. I have done this many times, especially with files from my 10D and 20D from 5 or 6 years ago. Straight out of the camera jpgs from those cameras offer far less opportunity for improvement with newer software. But this means you must store the RAW files, rather than just the jpgs.

Sports shooters like jpgs because they are processed much faster than the RAW files, and the buffer does not fill up as fast when shooting in high speed frame rate. That is one of the reasons I shoot jpgs some time, if the buffer fills up and prevents me from shooting in high frame rate in RAw file mode.

Compact flash is cheap these days. Try shooting Raw + jpg and see how your files that you create compare to the jpgs the camera spits out. If you like the SOOC jpgs better, then you know your answer for yourself.

Converrt your 7D RAW files to dng, and your CS5 RAW engine will open them and process them without needing to run through Digital Photo Pro.

Try shooting the smaller mRAW files that the 7D spits out also. You may find you do not really need 18MB files for the quality you need.

Invest in Lightroom 3, it will bring you the new innovations in Adobe Camera Raw, and will open and read your 7D Raw files for you. LR3 offers dramatically better Raw processing for your 7D files, than CS4 does.

When you are shooting the volume of images you are - +1500 frames a weekend - you need a fast system for image processing. That is why your mates shoot jpgs, they are faster and easier hands down. Sometimes good enough, but not as good as well edited Raw files. You get to choose what is most important to you, time, quality, space, color balance, etc.

canon400d · January 14, 2011

pathfinder wrote: »

Your RAW file is the basic data the camera captured at the time of exposure, Bob. Think of it as your negative. Like a negative, it can be processed different ways by you with your editing software. This does take more time and effort, and yes, also more storage as well. After processing your RAW file you will have a jpg that you can look at or print. The jpg is a finished file, it will tolerate a lot less altering in software than your RAW file, because it is so much smaller in term of digital data.

Your camera processes your RAW files for you automatically when you shoot straight out of the camera jpgs, and then discards the RAW file. For some images, shot in low contrast situations, this may be quite ok. But your camera with its little computer built into it is not capable of the RAW processing one CAN do with a good desk top computer, Adobe Camera Raw, and some image editing expertise.

Like the posters have said, their is no single all the time right answer in the Raw vs jpg arguments. You can find thousands of links on the web about this discussion. It all comes down to what your needs and desires are. Shoot jpgs and you get your files quickly and easily, and they store in a smaller space. They MAY not be as good as the files you can create from a Raw file if you have the desire and the dedication to do that. But they will be better than many folks with no knowledge or understanding of RAW processing will create. Straight out of the camera jpgs are much less intolerant of exposure errors than RAW. Good jpgs require you to be within 1/3 to 1/2 stop of the correct exposure, RAW files are more tolerant. Jpgs are much harder to color balance than RAW files as well.

As mentioned earlier, one of the real advantages of Raw files, is that as the RAW engines - like Adobe Camera Raw - continue to improve as the years go by, you can go back to Raw files shot 5 or 6 years ago and create better images now, than when they were originally shot. I have done this many times, especially with files from my 10D and 20D from 5 or 6 years ago. Straight out of the camera jpgs from those cameras offer far less opportunity for improvement with newer software. But this means you must store the RAW files, rather than just the jpgs.

Sports shooters like jpgs because they are processed much faster than the RAW files, and the buffer does not fill up as fast when shooting in high speed frame rate. That is one of the reasons I shoot jpgs some time, if the buffer fills up and prevents me from shooting in high frame rate in RAw file mode.

Compact flash is cheap these days. Try shooting Raw + jpg and see how your files that you create compare to the jpgs the camera spits out. If you like the SOOC jpgs better, then you know your answer for yourself.

Converrt your 7D RAW files to dng, and your CS5 RAW engine will open them and process them without needing to run through Digital Photo Pro.

Try shooting the smaller mRAW files that the 7D spits out also. You may find you do not really need 18MB files for the quality you need.

Invest in Lightroom 3, it will bring you the new innovations in Adobe Camera Raw, and will open and read your 7D Raw files for you. LR3 offers dramatically better Raw processing for your 7D files, than CS4 does.

When you are shooting the volume of images you are - +1500 frames a weekend - you need a fast system for image processing. That is why your mates shoot jpgs, they are faster and easier hands down. Sometimes good enough, but not as good as well edited Raw files. You get to choose what is most important to you, time, quality, space, color balance, etc.

Thanks ever so much Tony, Andrew, Dan and especially Pathfinder. The sound information you have given me is exactly what I was looking for. Now I know the difference between Raw and Jpeg. I now know what I am talking about in future. As always I know I can rely on Pathfinder for a simple and satisfactory answer to my query or problem.
Kind regards
Bob

zoomer · January 14, 2011

canon400d,
It just seemed odd that someone who had been around for 2000 posts didn't already know this info....and we all know there are people who love to stir up the camps in the jpeg raw discussion.
Sorry I jumped to that conclusion

. Looks like you got all the info you needed from the knowledgeable folks here.

pathfinder · January 14, 2011

Bob has always been a straight shooter.

Glad to help, Bob.

Anthony · January 14, 2011

pathfinder wrote: »

Bob has always been a straight shooter.

Glad to help, Bob.

+1 0n that...

Anthony.

kdog · January 14, 2011

Zoomer is a good guy as well and had legitimate reason to be skeptical. He's certainly correct that this topic has been beaten to death a million times over. :deadhorse

HamsterHuey · January 14, 2011

I think that you need the right tools to take advantage of RAW and so that you have an efficient workflow. Before I started using Lightroom, RAWs were very time consuming and painful to process. However, I stuck with it because RAW really helps, especially when you are still improving your skills. You can rescue many great shots with good composition but under/overexposure, or bad white balance. Most importantly, I find the extra information that 14 bit RAWs carry extremely useful when processing my images. Whether it be simple Graduated Neutral Density filters applied via Lightroom to increase foreground exposure/decrease sky exposure or minor tweaks using the adjustment brush. I also think that RAW is especially useful for nature/landscape photography.

Ultimately, it depends on how much you put into processing your images and what typical processing you do. For simple brightness/contrast type manipulations, you will probably do just as well with Jpegs.

pathfinder · January 14, 2011

kdog wrote: »

Zoomer is a good guy as well and had legitimate reason to be skeptical. He's certainly correct that this topic has been beaten to death a million times over. :deadhorse

I agree, Joel, no disrespect intended to Zoomer.

I did indeed understand Zoomer's question, but in this case felt Zoomer was not seeing that Bob's question really was sincere.

I don't like either/or discussions when the answer is frequently both, or neither just as often.

chrisjohnson · January 15, 2011

There was a long and good discussion on this topic about 6 months ago, most reflected in the above comments. A lot of pros are shooting Jpeg at events like motor rallies because they get good results out of camera and save time in post. I never ever shot 1500 images in a day, but should I want to they would be JPEGs. Every RAW I shoot needs individual attention to bring it up to JPEG standard.

pathfinder · January 15, 2011

Quite true, shooting RAW, does indeed, include the requirement of later post processing to achieve quality results.

If one is not going to post process their RAW files carefully, then they are much. much better off shooting appropriately set up in camera jpgs.

Or one can shoot RAW + jpg if the action is not so hot that the camera and the memory card can't keep up.

I sometimes set my camera to B&W jpgs and shoot Raw + jpgs so I get the best of both worlds.

Richard is going to drop in here soon and remind me that we can make better B&W images with Raw files after the fact via post processing.

None the less, some jpgs from my camera in B&W I find pleasing. But that is another discussion.

I plan to show some jpgs shot at ISO 12800, and compare their noise with B&W files from Raw conversions as well.

arodney · January 15, 2011

goldenballs wrote: »

A lot of pros are shooting Jpeg at events like motor rallies because they get good results out of camera and save time in post.

Or maybe because they can get an big increase in burst motor drive speeds.

Every RAW I shoot needs individual attention to bring it up to JPEG standard.

Using metadata (parametric) tools (presets) to batch process the raw data would go a long way in making this less the case. Kind of what the in camera processing is doing (you are always shooting raw, whether you set the camera for JPEG or not).

Raw and Jpeg

Comments