RAW or JPEG

3rdPlanetPhotography · February 26, 2005

Can someone please tell me why I would want to use the RAW format on the camera? I don't see the advantage of using RAW.

Thanks
kc7dji

wxwax · February 26, 2005

Have you ever missed the exposure, and needed to add some light, or lose some light? Have you ever messed up your white balance?

If not, then the advantages of RAW may be lost on you. But for the rest of us mere mortals, the ability to fix mistakes like white balance and exposure is a huge plus.

And for those with the right software, you can also more easily correct chromatic abberration and color noise. Shadows and highlights too.

In other words, RAW offers no advantages for the perfectly exposed photograph. But it does offer the photographer tools for fixing problem shots - problems which may not become apparent until you check the shot in post.

And you can use the exposure tool to your advantage. You can deliberately underexpose a shot in RAW to gain shutter speed, for example, knowing that in post you can push the exposure by a couple of stops and get the shot you wanted. You can also compensate for digital cameras' narrow dynamic range by making two exposures in RAW: one exposure for the shadows, a second exposure for the bright bits, then combining them in photoshop using Layers.

RAW is a great tool for saving shots, and for creatively solving problems.

I recommend your do a search for RAW here, and see how many posts there are which discuss this subject.

And welcome aboard!

Harryb · February 26, 2005

kc7dji wrote:

Can someone please tell me why I would want to use the RAW format on the camera? I don't see the advantage of using RAW.

Thanks
kc7dji

Hi,

It all depends on your workflow. I shoot only in RAW because it gives me greater lattitutde in my postprocessing.

When you shoot in jpeg the camera applies the set white balance to the shot, it will compress the file, it will apply sharpending, etc to the picture. When you process the pic these settings can't be changed. When you shoot in RAW the camera records all the info captured by its sensors. Nothing is carved in stone as it is in jpeg and you can change the WB settings etc in your post processing.

RAW shots require a bit more post processing than jpegs but for me deliver higher image quality. A much clearer and better explanation can be found here http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

Andy · February 26, 2005

what harry and waxy said

i'll add:

if you can make your in-camera jpgs to your liking (sharpness, color, wb, and exposure) then shoot jpg... less work in post! i do this, but i also shoot raw+jpg, so that if i *want* to make adjustments in post (typically to w.b. and exposure / dynamic range) i have the ability to do so becuase i have the raw file. with storage so cheap, this makes good sense to me.

leebase · February 26, 2005

andy wrote:

but i also shoot raw+jpg, so that if i *want* to make adjustments in post (typically to w.b. and exposure / dynamic range) i have the ability to do so becuase i have the raw file. with storage so cheap, this makes good sense to me.

I too have begun to shoot raw+jpg when I'm in situations where I'll have enough cf space to do so.

Once I got a handle on setting custom white balance, and getting my exposures right -- I was quite happy with my jpg results. I've still yet to see much benefit to raw -- but it's nice to have "just in case" -- and my skills with raw developing will improve.

Lee

JohnR · February 26, 2005

Shooting RAW does require more work but for me, I can make adjustments as needed. With JPEG, you can't do as much.

Once you lose the information, you can't get it back. With JPEG, you lose some. With RAW, you lose nothing.

mslammers · February 26, 2005

One more reason

JohnR wrote:

Shooting RAW does require more work but for me, I can make adjustments as needed. With JPEG, you can't do as much.

Once you lose the information, you can't get it back. With JPEG, you lose some. With RAW, you lose nothing.

With RAW, you are capturing a 16 bit (well 12 bit but captured at 16, and I don't know enough to argue this subject so I use 16 bit in my terminology) vs 8 bit image. Shoot one of each with the RAW+JPEG at fine level and then put the RAW image into PS CS. Check the histogram of each. Then edit each one equally. Then recheck the histogram. See all those gaps in the 8 bit histo? That is data lost forever. You don't lose as much with 16bit. Also with more to start with, you can produce better results, admitedly on the margin, but better nevertheless. However if you have never tried RAW and are happy with your JPEGs all the time, press on. I am like Andy. I capture both. If the JPEG makes me happy, then I just store the negative (RAW is the negative, JPEG is the print).

mercphoto · February 26, 2005

kc7dji wrote:

Can someone please tell me why I would want to use the RAW format on the camera? I don't see the advantage of using RAW.

It depends on many things. What types of photos do you take? What are their intended use? Is the lighting difficult? And how many photos will you take in any given session with the camera? For example, if I'm going to shoot 2,000 photos at a race I shoot JPG. If I'm shooting 100 photos of portraits I tend towards RAW. And contrary to common notions, there is a lot of manipulation you can do in a JPG in post. White balance is very hard, but exposure and shadow corrections are all entirely possible. Noel Carboni has excellent Photoshop CS actions for this. http://home.att.net/~ncarboni/DigiPhoto.html

I like Andy's approach of RAW+JPG. Most of the time the JPG will be right, and as you learn to use the camera you will get JPG correct more and more often, needing the RAW less. One thing that I have found, however, with my Canon 20D is that I prefer the Canon EVU converter over Adobe's ACR. I think this is because I like the look of the in-camera JPG, and Canon's converter gets me this look with ease compared to ACR.

fish · February 26, 2005

kc7dji wrote:

Can someone please tell me why I would want to use the RAW format on the camera? I don't see the advantage of using RAW.

Thanks
kc7dji

You've already gotten some good answers from the usual suspects. But before I answer, I'd like to ask you a question:

What type of photography do you enjoy? Snapshots? Art? Journalism? Landscapes? Still life?

3rdPlanetPhotography · February 26, 2005

Reply to Fish.

fish wrote:

You've already gotten some good answers from the usual suspects. But before I answer, I'd like to ask you a question:

What type of photography do you enjoy? Snapshots? Art? Journalism? Landscapes? Still life?

Well lets see... mainly Landscapes and Journalism. I do tend to get a lot of portrait request in the form of Faimily Christmas photos and Wedding photos. I have a weeding to shoot in May. I've done a lot of weedings in the past but with the ole rugged film camera. This will be my first shot with Digital and I'm torn between the Rebel XT and the 20D.

Thanks for the reply

fish · February 26, 2005

kc7dji wrote:

Well lets see... mainly Landscapes and Journalism. I do tend to get a lot of portrait request in the form of Faimily Christmas photos and Wedding photos. I have a weeding to shoot in May. I've done a lot of weedings in the past but with the ole rugged film camera. This will be my first shot with Digital and I'm torn between the Rebel XT and the 20D.

Thanks for the reply

Okay. For journalistic and family shots, it's probably just fine to shoot large jpegs. If you get the 20D, you'll find that the camera does a fantastic job on parameter 1 and you won't have to adjust the images much...which is great for volume shooting. For landscapes (and maybe even weddings) you may choose to shoot RAW to give you more flexibility in adjusting exposure and other settings (as have been mentioned before).

Some people only shoot RAW, some people only shoot JPEG, but I tend to shoot about 70% JPEG and 30% RAW, depending on how important it is for me to get the image "right" versus volume and speed. Like all other things in life, it's a tradeoff, and it's nice to have the option.

Does this help?

fish

3rdPlanetPhotography · February 26, 2005

Thanks

fish wrote:

Okay. For journalistic and family shots, it's probably just fine to shoot large jpegs. If you get the 20D, you'll find that the camera does a fantastic job on parameter 1 and you won't have to adjust the images much...which is great for volume shooting. For landscapes (and maybe even weddings) you may choose to shoot RAW to give you more flexibility in adjusting exposure and other settings (as have been mentioned before).

Some people only shoot RAW, some people only shoot JPEG, but I tend to shoot about 70% JPEG and 30% RAW, depending on how important it is for me to get the image "right" versus volume and speed. Like all other things in life, it's a tradeoff, and it's nice to have the option.

Does this help?

fish

Yes it helps a lot. Thanks for everyone's input. Today is my first day on this site and I've got more questions than answers

Thanks again and hope to see you around.

Khaos · February 26, 2005

You can see another thread where I posed this question.

That was before I got an L series lens and a decent prime.

I will only use RAW now. These lenses do not cause me extra work. Noise? Nah, almost non-existant. Having a fast lens is expensive, but the quality is awesome.

The ability to adjust exposure is key. Trust me, if want to get serious about this, use RAW. I was in the same position as you not more than a few days ago.

KeithAlanK · February 26, 2005

My guide (if I had RAW) would be jpg for speed and RAW when I have time.

fish · February 26, 2005

kc7dji wrote:

Yes it helps a lot. Thanks for everyone's input. Today is my first day on this site and I've got more questions than answers

Thanks again and hope to see you around.

Glad to hear it, kc7dji. Welcome to dgrin. And remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people. :lol

Now start shooting and let's see some images. I'd also be interested to hear your thoughts after shooting some RAWs.

fish · February 26, 2005

KeithAlanK wrote:

My guide (if I had RAW) would be jpg for speed and RAW when I have time.

I'm pretty sure that's what I said, just not as efficiently.

:

I just checked out your blog...wow, you've got some great shots! I look forward to seeing some more from you. Welcome to dgrin, KakTex.

btw, if you want to change your username to match your blog, let me know.

This one just absolutely rocks:

ndsimm · March 7, 2005

mslammers wrote:

(RAW is the negative, JPEG is the print).

I never thought of it like that. I'l be shooting RAW from now on, especially since I took some building shots and lost some detail I couldn't get back, thanks for the info

Angelo · March 7, 2005

fish wrote:

...remember, there are no stupid questions, just stupid people.

:whip

mercphoto · March 7, 2005

fish wrote:

Some people only shoot RAW, some people only shoot JPEG, but I tend to shoot about 70% JPEG and 30% RAW, depending on how important it is for me to get the image "right" versus volume and speed. Like all other things in life, it's a tradeoff, and it's nice to have the option.

That's the best advice I've heard of any RAW versus JPG debate yet.

PeterGar · March 9, 2005

Does shooting RAW (or RAW + jpg) impede camera performance such as FPS and write time???

ian408 · March 9, 2005

PeterGar wrote:

Does shooting RAW (or RAW + jpg) impede camera performance such as FPS and write time???

Yes. You're writing 2 files to the memory card. Let's say you're shooting
with a 1DMKII. The jpeg might be 2MB in size and the raw, 8MB.
The 1DMKII's frame rate is 8fps. With camera buffering, you can shoot
something like 13 frames before the buffer is full (RAW+L JPEG). If I shoot
raw only, the buffering is almost 20 frames. JPEG only, 30+ (depending on
jpeg quality).

Depending on the media you choose, performance may be enough to keep
up with 8fps or not (again, depends on your image size/quality).

In my experience, spinning media, like a 4GB Hitachi MicroDrive, is significantly
slower than an 80x Lexar card.

As always, YMMV.

Ian

RAW or JPEG

Comments