Marcos5254
Well-known member
What do you shoot? JPEG 8bits or RAW 14bits? I shoot JPEG 8bits. I'm just wondering if I try RAW and process it, will I have a better image?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Jpeg or Raw?
- Thread starter Marcos5254
- Start date
ocrampix
Senior Member
Does JPEG come in anything else than 8 bits?
I shoot mainly in JPEG Normal Large, with now and then RAW 12 bits.
Marco
--
http://www.flickr.com/front_curtain
M
malch
Guest
ink0gnito
Senior Member
if you have to ask this question then you better shoot JPEG. otherwise, there is no reason not to shoot RAW.
D300s the CF card gets the RAW and the SD gets the jpeg. This allows me to drop them quickly on the computer for my wife to see and share on facebook, etc. Then for larger prints or pictures I'll print of my daughter I work the RAW file if I'm not happy with the JPEG.
TwoToneTony
Member
It really depends on what your target media is, even a JPEG normal will look good on a HD monitor with a bit of sharpening but it simply won't do if you do large prints. If you're not printing at home then you have to use a JPEG to print from anyway most likely. If you only ever post snapshots to the web or do small prints, you can stick with JPEG, but perhaps use JPEG fine.
If you overexpose on a JPEG than that's it, you've lost the detail for ever but on a RAW there's detail which your monitor can't even display and which can be "saved" from the raw data.
Definitely get into the habit of using RAW + JPEG unless you really need as many FPS as possible. Don't see your memory card as your library, it's just a roll of digital film
They're so cheap just get a spare.
I always use RAW and JPEG fine, just nothing to be gained by dropping the quality down what with the massive capacity of memory cards these days. The only time I drop the RAW and use JPEG alone is when I shoot high-speed and want 6 FPS.
JPEG is already a compromise on the quality of the image your camera can provide, no need to throw even more image details away!
Be prepared to give up the fact that you can just take the JPG from the card and post it straight to the web! If you're not prepared to optimise the image to make a decent JPEG from the RAW data then you may as well stick to JPEG. Shooting RAW will increase your image turnaround time.
One last thing: you'd be amazed how much you can crop down your photos and still have a printable image or very definitely one that looks good on screen if you shoot in RAW.
Sorry to ramble, that's my 2p worth.
If you overexpose on a JPEG than that's it, you've lost the detail for ever but on a RAW there's detail which your monitor can't even display and which can be "saved" from the raw data.
Definitely get into the habit of using RAW + JPEG unless you really need as many FPS as possible. Don't see your memory card as your library, it's just a roll of digital film
They're so cheap just get a spare.I always use RAW and JPEG fine, just nothing to be gained by dropping the quality down what with the massive capacity of memory cards these days. The only time I drop the RAW and use JPEG alone is when I shoot high-speed and want 6 FPS.
JPEG is already a compromise on the quality of the image your camera can provide, no need to throw even more image details away!
Be prepared to give up the fact that you can just take the JPG from the card and post it straight to the web! If you're not prepared to optimise the image to make a decent JPEG from the RAW data then you may as well stick to JPEG. Shooting RAW will increase your image turnaround time.
One last thing: you'd be amazed how much you can crop down your photos and still have a printable image or very definitely one that looks good on screen if you shoot in RAW.
Sorry to ramble, that's my 2p worth.
I don't know about "simply." I've done many large (mostly 12x18, but a few 24x36) prints from JPEG and they "did" great. In fact, my lab doesn't print from anything from JPEGs, so no matter what I shoot it's going to end up being printed from a JPEG.
Simon Garrett
Veteran Member
Very much discussed here, do a search.
In essence: having 12 or 14 bit data rather than compressed 8 bits means that there is much more numerical resolution in the image data. That really doesn't matter if you are going to print or display on a screen with little or no post processing. However, if you expect to do significant editing (changing exposure, major changes in tone curves, changes in white balance or pretty much any editing other than cropping) then doing the processing on 12/14 bit data means the result will be more accurate. Which means fewer visible artefacts, less tone banding and more dynamic range in the images (llower tendency to blown highlights, more capability to improve under exposed images).
Only you can say if that matters to you, but try shooting raw+jpeg, and experiment with images that need a lot of post processing. Do it on both raw and jpeg, and see if you can detect any difference on the end result.
--
Simon
In essence: having 12 or 14 bit data rather than compressed 8 bits means that there is much more numerical resolution in the image data. That really doesn't matter if you are going to print or display on a screen with little or no post processing. However, if you expect to do significant editing (changing exposure, major changes in tone curves, changes in white balance or pretty much any editing other than cropping) then doing the processing on 12/14 bit data means the result will be more accurate. Which means fewer visible artefacts, less tone banding and more dynamic range in the images (llower tendency to blown highlights, more capability to improve under exposed images).
Only you can say if that matters to you, but try shooting raw+jpeg, and experiment with images that need a lot of post processing. Do it on both raw and jpeg, and see if you can detect any difference on the end result.
--
Simon
Lexus330
Senior Member
Jetranger_Pilot
Senior Member
LOL - exactly.
--
'Let my heart be broken by the things that break the heart of God.'
===============
Nikon D300 - MB-D10 - SB800 - TC-14EII TC-17EII TC-20EII
Nikon 24-70(2.8), 105VR(2.8), 70-200 VR(2.8), 300VR(2.8)
http://wretchedradio.com
Murray Bowles
Senior Member
If I have reason to believe the JPEGs will come out close to correct, I shoot JPEGs, because the workflow is much faster.
If the lighting is difficult, or especially if the WB is questionable, I shoot JPEG+RAW.
If the lighting is difficult, or especially if the WB is questionable, I shoot JPEG+RAW.
andrzejmakal
Senior Member
Today I'm leaning to: what rather than how. Jpg from d300 is very good IMHO, without direct comparison on paper it's hard to distinguish.
One thing: if you plan hard editing, especially adding gradient, vignettes, or transfering between another spaces (LAB for ex) - after opening convert the jpg to 16bit. Then go back to 8bit. 16bit allows much better color trasitions, less artefacts etc.
regards
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries
D300:
50::ZEISS25/2.8::N24-70::N18-200VR::N35/1.8::S10-20::S150Macro::N50/1.8::SB600::sb400
One thing: if you plan hard editing, especially adding gradient, vignettes, or transfering between another spaces (LAB for ex) - after opening convert the jpg to 16bit. Then go back to 8bit. 16bit allows much better color trasitions, less artefacts etc.
regards
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries
D300:
50::ZEISS25/2.8::N24-70::N18-200VR::N35/1.8::S10-20::S150Macro::N50/1.8::SB600::sb400Marcos5254
Well-known member
Thanks a lot guys for all your replies. I've really learned a lot. It looks like raw+jpeg is the way to go. And just delete the raw files I don't need processing. Having two card slots really makes a big difference.
Once again thank you very much.
Once again thank you very much.
Marcos5254
Well-known member
Thanks a lot guys for all your replies. I've really learned a lot. It looks like raw+jpeg is the way to go. And just delete the raw files I don't need processing. Having two card slots really makes a big difference.
Once again thank you very much.
Once again thank you very much.
shot Raw now but thats only because i shoot so few images each day.
when doing weddings I shot jpg. there was no way I would ever use that much storage space or take that much time in editing, eating away at the bottom line.
Just make sure to custom WB in each lighting situation, I still do it for every raw picture but it is more important for Jpg with out question.
oh your pic wont be better with raw in the eyes off print viewers.
--
http://www.LightPaintPhotography.com
LightPaint.Carbonmade.com
when doing weddings I shot jpg. there was no way I would ever use that much storage space or take that much time in editing, eating away at the bottom line.
Just make sure to custom WB in each lighting situation, I still do it for every raw picture but it is more important for Jpg with out question.
oh your pic wont be better with raw in the eyes off print viewers.
--
http://www.LightPaintPhotography.com
LightPaint.Carbonmade.com
andrzejmakal
Senior Member
Agree
Other problem is to remember of getting rid of no needed RAW
If you set WB "circa about" for jpgs, you can cope with almost everything. Prints will be great.
Cheers
--
http://www.pbase.com/andrzejmakal/galleries
D300:
50::ZEISS25/2.8::N24-70::N18-200VR::N35/1.8::S10-20::S150Macro::N50/1.8::SB600::sb400raymond j barlow
Senior Member
I shoot 100% Raw. Shooting Raw + jpeg is a waste of time imo.
If you want jpeg files, just open your raw folder in view nx, and select all, convert to jpeg later.
Raw files are all you need, save you good shots in raw, double / triple them on backup systems, and edit everthing with a Raw editor. I use CS3 for all my editing., open the Raw files in Adobe Camera Raw, make several adjustments, then open in CS3.
There is a HUGE advantage to shooting raw, and again, the extra jpegs are useless. I once shot jpeg only, then a friend explianed the difference, and I tried raw + jpeg 2 shoots later, it was raw only for me.
The best way to get started with this idea is to sit down with someone who shoots / and knows how to process a raw file. Honestly, my raw file adustments take me less then 15 seconds, but the overall value makes a very large difference in my image.
just my opinion, works for me!
take care.
Nature Images Online Magazine
http://photographersonlinemagazine.blogspot.com/
http://raymondbarlow.blogspot.com/
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
If you want jpeg files, just open your raw folder in view nx, and select all, convert to jpeg later.
Raw files are all you need, save you good shots in raw, double / triple them on backup systems, and edit everthing with a Raw editor. I use CS3 for all my editing., open the Raw files in Adobe Camera Raw, make several adjustments, then open in CS3.
There is a HUGE advantage to shooting raw, and again, the extra jpegs are useless. I once shot jpeg only, then a friend explianed the difference, and I tried raw + jpeg 2 shoots later, it was raw only for me.
The best way to get started with this idea is to sit down with someone who shoots / and knows how to process a raw file. Honestly, my raw file adustments take me less then 15 seconds, but the overall value makes a very large difference in my image.
just my opinion, works for me!
take care.
--
Nature Images Online Magazine
http://photographersonlinemagazine.blogspot.com/
http://raymondbarlow.blogspot.com/
http://www.raymondbarlow.com
DezM
Forum Pro
Couldn't have said it any better than what Ray wrote above, although I like to use Capture NX to batch-convert my Raw files to Tiff and than edit the Tiffs in Photoshop
In my opinion, NX does a better job at converting Nikon Raw with minimal tweaking of colors (and it reads the in-camera settings), etc.
--
Dez
http://photos.dezmix.com
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum