RAW or JPEG?

I just got my 40D and took a couple of photos. I must say, this thing is a beast. When I pick it up in my hands, I can't control my excitement. It's my first dSLR and I am determined to learn as much as I can about digital photography.

The only downside with this camera is that it is bulky and quite heavy. But that is very small compared to all of its positive aspects.

Question: Do I really need to set my image quality to RAW + Fine, or should I just leave it in the highest JPEG setting? I want the best photos possible, but don't know if RAW is worth the additional 10mb per photo. Also, the manual says that RAW needs additional reworking with Canon's included software. Is it best to just use ordinary JPEG format?

Shoot in Raw!!! I promise you - you will not regret it.It is the best digital format that you can get and you will get the best result from!!!



--
Morten
The guy from Norway

Learn how to use DPP and the tone curve assist feature. It is wonderful and will bring a smile to your face. The sharpness tool is also great.

If you take a photo that turns out under or over-exposed (not too over, though as the highlights are blown out), DPP can help fix exposure problems.

In JPEG format, it can help slightly, but not as much. Only downside is that in RAW mode, you don't get the same number of burst shots as you would in JPEG.

Good luck!

--
Whether you think you can or you can't, you're right!

40D, 1D MIIN, 1DS MII, 17-40L, 24-105L, 70-200 2.8 IS L, 100-400 IS L, 50 1.4, next -16-35L and 400 2.8 IS L

jonlee1 said:

Learn how to use DPP and the tone curve assist feature. It is
wonderful and will bring a smile to your face. The sharpness tool
is also great.

Click to expand...

Hmm..... I agree the sharpness tool is surprisingly good for "free" software, and for most of my pics it saves the trouble of going into PS to use unsharp mask (and thus avoids all the PS RAW conversion issues.) However on virtually every image I've ever tried it on, the tone curve assist has produced an over-bright image with washed-out contrast - is there something I'm not understanding here ?

John

Even if you're not doing anything with the RAWs right now, at least shoot in RAW + JPG mode so you've got both.

Later, when you get better acquainted with RAW, you'll be very glad that you've got the RAWs for all of your photos.

Shooting in "JPG-Only" mode is throwing away so much of the captured data that I can't imagine doing that for anything I'm remotely serious about.

Not that the camera doesn't make great in-camera RAW-to-JPG conversions - it does. But it's just that you give up so much potential by letting the camera discard the RAW data that I just can't see doing it.

I just posted a bit of a mini-workflow description in this thread (for what it's worth).

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=26385993

But regardless of whether or not you use the RAWs right away, they're well worth the extra storage space used on your CF cards and on your computer hard drives. Having them will prove to be valuable to you later. I regret not having the RAWs for the few weeks of shooting I did with my new 20D in "JPG-Only" mode when I first got it a few years ago and didn't know any better.

Again, the in-camera JPGs are great. Particularly so for the 40D. But there is just so much you can do if you've got the RAW files that I always shoot RAW now.

--
Jim H.

photoman17 said:

The only downside with this camera is that it is bulky and quite heavy.

Click to expand...

It is no different to most decent bodies. This is how good camera bodies tend to be built, and always have been. Go pick up a D200/D300, D3, 1D or 1DS. After picking up a DS and using it, you will think that your 40D is quite lightweight and compact.

No question about raw offering the digital negative and that the raw image contains more information. My view is that I use both but separately. If it's amess around shoot I'll probably use .jpg, if I know that it's going to be serious then I set to raw. I see no point of a hard drive full of 10 mp images that will never see the light of day.

frameman said:

I see no point of a hard drive full of 10 mp images that will never see the light of
day.

Click to expand...

Delete them?

There is such a thing as information overload. I look through folders several months after shooting, and if I think 'why did I keep that shot' I delete it. Ruthless, but essential in my opinion.

My philosophy is this. I'm 38 now, and could well be taking pictures for another 40 years (well, maybe . If I shoot a leisurely 10,000 photos a year, I'll accumalate another 400,000 photos. When I'm 78 (!) I probably won't have time to view 400,000 images... and I seriously doubt any [sane] family will look through them for prosperity! You HAVE to seperate the wheat from the chaffe, otherwise anything relevant just gets lost amongst the cr@p.

--
Regards
Mark

photoman17 said:

excitement. It's my first dSLR and I am determined to learn as much
as I can about digital photography.
Question: Do I really need to set my image quality to RAW + Fine, or
should I just leave it in the highest JPEG setting? I want the best
photos possible, but don't know if RAW is worth the additional 10mb
per photo. Also, the manual says that RAW needs additional reworking
with Canon's included software. Is it best to just use ordinary JPEG
format?

Click to expand...

Shoot JPG (large/fine) first. Play with the Picture Style for the color, contrast, and sharpening you'd like to have set on the captures.

Assuming your exposures are good, you'll find out in relatively short order whether RAW is necessary for what you do.

The extra data RAW provides takes a bit of finessing, both to convert it to TIF/PSD/JPG, and usually some additional editing is in order. That is, to eke all that one can out of the capture, to make the best presentation possible. If you like intricate details in large prints, RAW is pretty much necessary. But if you just print 4x6 - 8x10, or just post to the web, RAW may be overkill. Between what you shoot, and what you do with the images, only you can say. So I say start with JPGs out of camera, and then see if you want more than what the JPGs provide.

Each facet of digital photography can become involved, from proper exposures, compositions, to how the images are prepared and presented. Depending on what facet you personally are trying to master at the moment, RAW on top of that might be distracting. (Yes? No? Definitely maybe?)

When you're ready to give RAW a run, no matter which converter you currently would use, I'd suggest getting Bruce Frasier's "Real World Adobe Camera RAW with PSCS3". It's a great guide into what RAW is, and how to get the best possible conversions out of that format (both correct approaches of attack, and incorrect ones). While it uses Photoshop's Adobe RAW Converter, the advice translates to any converter one might use. It's a nice reference to have at one's fingertips.

Don't get me wrong - I think RAW is the only way to go. But there are many respected photographers that never need to go near RAW for their objectives. This is something you'll come to terms with in due time.

--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

' Now, if you are asking instead why camera enthusiasts are more
emphatic than other enthusiasts, I have no answer. I've not seen
that movie yet. : ) ' - Joe Mama

Read this, from Ken Rockwell's site, for an interesting take on the situation. Also, the best photographer of pro cycling, Graham Watson, shoots nothing but jpeg.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

http://www.grahamwatson.com/gw/askgraham.nsf/AskGraham?OpenForm&Start=5&Count=1000&ExpandView&Seq=1

I do shoot RAW for some things but am amazed at how little difference there is between RAW and a well exposed jpeg.

Tim McTeague

If you want the camera to 'develop' your image data use jpg. Even then, chances are, you'll want/need to do some PP (Post Processing). Thus - why not start with the largest amount of, and the best, data? RAW!

I only use jpg if I need to direct view and/or direct print images.
--
Jim F

duh.

90% of my RAW file images are processed using the Exposure, Recovery, Fill Light, Clarity and Vibrance adjustments from within Adobe Camera Raw or LightRoom. I have NO idea why there's a 'Brightness' adjustment. IMHO it's worthless!

The first three listed can dramatically increase the dynamic range of an image.

In all fairness to Canon - I do remember reading test results that show DPP does a slightly better job of range increasing than the Adobe products.
--
Jim F

Though it's just another 'take' on the question, I have no respect for much of Rockwell's postures and reasoning.

--
...Bob, NYC

Galleries: http://www.pbase.com/btullis

' Now, if you are asking instead why camera enthusiasts are more
emphatic than other enthusiasts, I have no answer. I've not seen
that movie yet. : ) ' - Joe Mama

Agreed!

Bob Tullis said:

Though it's just another 'take' on the question, I have no respect
for much of Rockwell's postures and reasoning.

Click to expand...

SNIP

--
Jim F

Photoman,

I agree with what JimH has said...his settings and work flow is almost identical to mine...and it seems to work just fine....atleast for me.Shooting raw +jpeg fine is really the best setting{IMHO}...

Some photgraphers prefer not to shoot with raw+jpeg,due to file size....I don't find this an issue because I usually back-up most of my shots to a dvd ..then to a backup hardrive...hard drives prices are extremely cheap these days.

Good luck with your new camera

Mike

I too have just to the 40D, and I'm still learning all of the features, and am grateful for the advice on this thread about RAW, or RAW + fine.

However, will PS Elements allow me to do much with RAW files, or do I need something like Aperature or another program? I use Mac, but any advice would be appreciated!

Thanks,

Jason

If you hadn't taken the photo it would not be on the disk. Photos are just sets of data.

Use whatever mode suits you and the purpose you have for shooting photos.

JPEG shooting with some care about getting exposure right can produce sparkling imagery. I'll wager many folks can't operate a raw converter well enough to produce an image better looking than the JPEG provided by the camera. The Digic chip does a MARVELOUS job with the conversion; it's quite hard to rival.

On the other hand, you may choose to shoot Raw to extract the most possible information out of the file, and/or to bank on future raw converter improvements. You will get slower performance, fewer images on the card, your hard drive will fill faster... There are always tradeoffs.

Canon provided both modes (and many variants including Raw + JPEG) so that this question - which absolutely DOES NOT have one answer - can be addressed by the individual.

My recommendation is to shoot JPEGs until you truly feel there are things you are not getting from the JPEGs that you could get from a Raw file. Shoot Raw+JPEG if you have some time and want to objectively compare for yourself.

-Noel

PS Elements 6 and PS CS3 will convert your 40D Raw files. No earlier version will do that.

-Noel

Thanks!

Jason