Options

RAW and JPEG - The Age old Story

sebpaynesebpayne Registered Users Posts: 73 Big grins
edited February 21, 2006 in Technique
Hi Gang :clap

I ended up staying with Mac btw (just bought a shiney new PowerBook G4 12"!). Anyway, since December, I have been shooting in nothing but RAW and I 'thought' I was getting better pictures - especially with the ability to change light balance.

I went to a christening on Sunday (and become the 'offical photographer' within 3 minutes!) and I took 154 photos which would have not been possible with RAW. Now, am I being stupid or I am missing out much with JPEG? It is faster on my computer and the usual things but I am wondering, for a 'serious ameteur' guy, is RAW or JPEG better. I like using iView/Lightroom for my sorting out of photos.

Thanks

Seb

Comments

  • Options
    AndyAndy Registered Users Posts: 50,016 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    sebpayne wrote:
    but I am wondering, for a 'serious ameteur' guy, is RAW or JPEG better. I like using iView/Lightroom for my sorting out of photos.

    Thanks

    Seb

    It depends.

    There's ABSOLUTELY no reason that you can't get really good exposures, color, skin tones, contrast, sharpness right from the camera with in-camera jpgs. That said, many folks really like the added flexibility that working with the original data, the RAW file, allows. You can do EXACTLY THE SAME adjustments and more, even in an automated fashion, in RAW processing workflow - the difference is, you have a true untouched file, that can be developed again and again, in any way you see fit. I know many event shooters, who have worked their in-camera jpgs to perfection, and they don't want the added burden of time, file size, storage, etc.

    It depends.
    Andy

    Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
  • Options
    ForeheadForehead Registered Users Posts: 679 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    RAW vs NEF
    OK, you probably know that Nikon just has to call there otherwise RAW pictures NEF--Nikon Engineering Format, I think.

    I'm in my comfort zone right now with jpeg, but I wonder if NEF is really the same as RAW.

    I mess enough shots up on my own. I don't want to actually WORK to flub things up (although that happens too)!
    Andy wrote:
    It depends.

    There's ABSOLUTELY no reason that you can't get really good exposures, color, skin tones, contrast, sharpness right from the camera with in-camera jpgs. That said, many folks really like the added flexibility that working with the original data, the RAW file, allows. You can do EXACTLY THE SAME adjustments and more, even in an automated fashion, in RAW processing workflow - the difference is, you have a true untouched file, that can be developed again and again, in any way you see fit. I know many event shooters, who have worked their in-camera jpgs to perfection, and they don't want the added burden of time, file size, storage, etc.

    It depends.
    Steve-o
  • Options
    cletuscletus Registered Users Posts: 1,930 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    Forehead wrote:
    I'm in my comfort zone right now with jpeg, but I wonder if NEF is really the same as RAW.

    NEF is just Nikon's name for RAW. Different names, different filetypes, basically same content and same capabilities.
    ab0wa.smugmug.com
  • Options
    Steve CaviglianoSteve Cavigliano Super Moderators Posts: 3,599 moderator
    edited February 21, 2006
    Seb,
    Just to add to Andy's comment. If you dislike processing RAW images, or your camera takes an inordinate amount of time to save them to memory. Then you should seriously consider shoot jpg thumb.gif If you are shooting in mixed lighting, under strange temperature lighting, or shooting subjects or scenes with a large dynamic range and don't mind the post processing. Then you should probably consider using RAW thumb.gif

    IMHO, there is a place for both, no matter how serious of a shooter you become. It's sort of like asking if one likes steak or prime rib better. There is no better or worse here. As Andy explains, RAW is what the jpg is made up from. It's just an unprocessed version, or a digital negative. The lack of processing allows more flexability post-shoot. If digital cameras could capture 8+ stops of dynamic range, many people wouldn't need this flexability. Or, at least not as often. Unfortunately, most digitals only capture about 5 stops of light ne_nau.gif

    Steve
    SmugMug Support Hero
  • Options
    Scott_QuierScott_Quier Registered Users Posts: 6,524 Major grins
    edited February 21, 2006
    I dislike throwing away data
    I shoot RAW, exclusively, becuase I really, really dislike discarding data. Storage is cheap (and getting cheaper) whereas data that has been discarded is unrecoverable.

    Rather than repeat myself here, see my post (#42) in the following thread:

    http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2592

    I hope this helps some.
    Scott
    My Photos
    Thoughts on photographing a wedding, How to post a picture, AF Microadjustments?, Light Scoop
    Equipment List - Check my profile
Sign In or Register to comment.