Raw or JPEG

Hello All

I've been into photography for a couple of years now and I am now trying to decide wherther it is right for me to move to shooting in Raw or stay with Jpeg. I don't do a lot of photo editing as I've spent many a bored hour setting up my camera's personal settings and I'm happy with the results so don't feel the need too, although I may adjust the exposure where necessary. I'm not one to dramatically change an image either. Are there any real benefits from shooting in raw other than excellent editing or for somebody like me, am I best to stay with Jpeg? All publications seem to say Raw but I now want the opinion of the real world. Thanks.

My real world experience say: Shoot RAW! It is like having a negative in the old film days. It could be handy to tell us what camera you use etc.

Little example: one of my camera's is the Canon S90 compact. I realy need to use RAW there from ISO 400 and up because the in camera noise handling / removing is terrible. LR3 does it a whole lo better.

Further it is very handy to use to correct exposures / colorprofiles etc without losing quality.

Hooley said:

Hello All

I've been into photography for a couple of years now and I am now trying to decide wherther it is right for me to move to shooting in Raw or stay with Jpeg. I don't do a lot of photo editing as I've spent many a bored hour setting up my camera's personal settings and I'm happy with the results so don't feel the need too, although I may adjust the exposure where necessary. I'm not one to dramatically change an image either. Are there any real benefits from shooting in raw other than excellent editing or for somebody like me, am I best to stay with Jpeg? All publications seem to say Raw but I now want the opinion of the real world. Thanks.

Click to expand...

You can always try it and see how you get on; you haven't lost anything. if your camera is set up how you like it and you find that you don't need to tweak your pics much, quite possibly you'll decide to stick with jpeg.

But... the biggest advantage of shooting RAW (even if you don't need to PP your pics much) is that software improves substantially over the years. If you have a RAW file from a couple of years ago that you didn't do anything with because (for example) it was too noisy, you might be surprised how much better you could make it look with the new generation of noise removal software. For me the ability to go back to old pics and do a better job than I did first time around is one of the main advantages of RAW.

Best wishes
--
Mike

Thanks for writing. I'm currently using a Canon 450D (XSi I think in the USA). I think I will give it a go as you say, I won't lose anything. I can save the files in Raw+Jpeg so I can get the feel of how it is going. It's what I enjoy about photography. There is always something new to learn.

Hooley said:

Hello All

I've been into photography for a couple of years now and I am now trying to decide wherther it is right for me to move to shooting in Raw or stay with Jpeg.

Click to expand...

If you have to ask, probably not. Moving from one to another is can be like migrating to a different country or taking up a different religion. You must feel some dissatisfaction with the current or you must be seeking some new feature that the existing does not have.

Hooley said:

Are there any real benefits from shooting in raw other than excellent editing or for somebody like me, am I best to stay with Jpeg?

Click to expand...

• When your tweaking still does not yield the result e.g. when White Balance with Mixed Light Sources

• When you want to get a little bit more Dynamic Range or Highlight Recovery from RAW - that's assuming you want to recover that.

• You'll potentially get more ability to cope with tonal changes, sharpening, de-noising when you need to edit because RAW is represented in higher bit depth - that's assuming that you want to tweak the tones.

Now, what do you lose?

• If your camera is slow writing, RAW will slow your fps.

• If you don't use the camera maker's software, the JPEG visual style you process may not be the same as your camera's typical JPEG output.

Hooley said:

All publications seem to say Raw but I now want the opinion of the real world.

Click to expand...

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com

'There are a whole range of greys and colours - from
the photographer who shoots everything in iA / green
AUTO to the one who shoots Manual Everything. There
is no right or wrong - there are just instances of
individuality and individual choice.'

Whether RAW is a hassle or not these days depends very much on what software you use. In my experience, modern RAW workflow tools like Lightroom or Aperture make working in RAW not really any harder than JPEG; whereas if you have to use a separate RAW converter and image editor software, it would be a big pain.

I would suggest trying raw+jpeg. With the raw you can easily take care of white balance issues, can change exposure to some degree and do it better than using a lightness/darkness slider with a jpeg, you can recover blown highlights to some extent which you simply cannot do with a jpeg, and you can apply selective preocesing to parts of an image rather than to the entire image which is what happens when you use the in camera jpeg processing adjustments. While you can do many processing tasks with a jpeg, you can often do better with the raw because there is more data to work with.

Persoanlly, as a raw + jpeg shooter, 90% of my jpegs are just fine, require a touch of contrast and sharpening in a simple program, and I purposely leave those settings low in camera, and the other 10% of my keepers are the raws and processing ranging from quite simple to quite complicated. If I did not have the raw avaialble, then they would not exist. You can do lots with jpegs from the camera but for some certain images, having a raw image and knowing what to do with it can save a photo that simply isn't acceptable as a jpeg.

Those who shoot only raw and never jpeg, and thsoe who shoot only jpeg but never raw, don't listen to them because they just don't know. If they have no experience with the other method, than how could they possibly know? If you want to know the real answers, shoot raw+jpeg and learn why the raw can sometimes give a better result. After a year or so, then you can evaluate whether you should shoot raw or jpeg, or raw+jpeg. It doesn't really matter how you shot it. The best result is best but one must consider the convenience of getting that result. Differnt individuals will have different perspectives on this and personally I will continue to shoot raw+jpeg. The raw is just an insurance and for 1 out of 10 keepers, I collect on that insurance. I've been shooting raw+jpeg since the second day out with a digtal camera (shot only jpeg the first day and discovered how very different it was from film) and it took me over a year to learn about the advantages of raw, how to use Photoshop effectively, how to shoot for raw rather than jpeg, etc.

Quite seriously, I would advise you shoot raw+jpeg and just put an effort into learning why you would process the raw and why you sometimes may not need to. You will have to do many comparisons of raw and jpeg images. I have done hundreds trying to decide if I should go full raw or full jpeg and can only say that I will be shooting raw+jpeg for quite some time.

You want a simple answer but you will never get it. There is too much of the emotional aspect to the argument of raw vs jpeg, people shooting raw because 'that is what the pros do' when many pros shot only jpeg. And then there are the jpeg shooters who like the convenience and claim that many raw shooters are wasting their time. But if they like the way they do it, then they aren't wasting their time. They just have a different perspective on how to spend their time.

Seriously, if you want to decide on raw or jpeg, then shoot raw+jpeg for at least a year while having a thirst for learning and a willigness to take photos for experimentation purposes (not to just get a keeper everytime you click) and you will get the best answers for you. And it will work for anything you have a question about although you might want to devote many years to answering some of your questions.

Experience answers most any question. That is why I rarely ask others, I go get experience, and while that takes a lot longer it gives the right answer. Asking never gives the right answer, just gives many differnt opinions from many differnt people, many of who do not have enough experience with what they are talking about. As a raw+jpeg shooter for many years, I can look at the advice of both the raw only shooter and the jpeg only shooters and see quite clearly why I shoot raw+jpeg. This is not religion or politics where you choose a side (or have your parents chose it for you) and then defend it to the point of illogicalness. It's just photos for gosh sakes. You want the best results for the least effort and I personally can not fathom how someone can achieve that without shooting raw+jpeg. But that perspective comes from experience. And asking is not experience. Stop asking. Do. Experiment. Learn. Be a photographer instead of asking how to be one. It is the only way to get the best answers for your photography. While this isn a time consuming process, you likely die of old age before you discover your true potential as a photographer, is it not the challenge, the discovery, the experimentation and learning, the wonderful feeling of knowing your efforts have led to improvement of your craft, you create images that others ask how you did that, you laugh at earlier photos that you thought were keepers but look rather poor now, you have oppotunities to actually sell photos based on your results,....well none of that comes about by asking questions. Only experience can take care of that. And isn't it the experience, the challenge and learning that keeps you doing photogaphy? You like that so you keep doing it? If not, then this is the wrong hobby for you.

I noenestly don't understand thse 'should I shoot raw or jpeg' questions. Stop asking. Do, and figger out the best answer for you. You're going have to try everytihing you hear anyway, so why I ask? Just do. Be a photographer.

Hooley said:

Hello All

I've been into photography for a couple of years now and I am now trying to decide wherther it is right for me to move to shooting in Raw or stay with Jpeg. I don't do a lot of photo editing as I've spent many a bored hour setting up my camera's personal settings and I'm happy with the results so don't feel the need too, although I may adjust the exposure where necessary. I'm not one to dramatically change an image either. Are there any real benefits from shooting in raw other than excellent editing or for somebody like me, am I best to stay with Jpeg? All publications seem to say Raw but I now want the opinion of the real world. Thanks.

Click to expand...

Short answer:- Shoot RAW.

Longer answer:- Even if you have set your camera up exactly as you like it, JPEG or TIFF files made from RAW data using your computer and DPP will be more detailed with fewer artefacts and better colour and contrast than JPEGs made in camera. Remember, this is even with absolutely no adjustments to the image.

Once you have done this, then have a "play" with adjustments in RAW. You will find that everything is much easier to adjust than with JPEGs. Indeed, if you fiddle with the image settings in post processing which are duplicated on the camera (picture style, white balance, saturation, contrast, etc) the image behaves exactly as if you had made these settings on your camera prior to taking the photo. DPP also enables you to go back to the settings originally made without degradation of the image and you can change, go back, and change again as often as you like without any image degradation. You can't do that with JPEG. Any change and save you do will degrade the image and it's impossible to go back to the original image without first saving it as a separate image.

As well as this, DPP (the Canon RAW converter) keeps getting upgraded and you can expect better results with upgraded algorithms and features with your older RAW files. As an example, I have been shooting RAW since I bought my 400D and when I got my 50D, it came with an improved DPP which allows for lens corrections. This means I can go back and correct some images with chromatic abberations I made with the 400D. This is just not possible with JPEG.

A lot of people wiill tell you that JPEGs are "good enough" if you take care with your settings and do minimal or no post processing and that is certainly true. However, if you want the best your camera can produce now and into the future, shoot RAW.

Raw files are exactly what they say they are. "Uncooked"

Theoretically, a raw file is exactly what the sensor captured, with no (or very little) processing applied. This means you must do all the work yourself when you develop the file. If you don't like doing a lot of post processing work, then raw files may not be for you.

You end up being the jpeg engine, since raw files aren't viewable. Someone must convert that file into a jpeg. Either your camera will do it, or you will do it, but in the end you will have a jpeg file.

Most cameras jpeg engines work pretty well. And they can also apply lens correction, distortion correction and chromatic abberation correction. If you needs aren't critical, you may find that the jpeg engine works well enough for you.

However, you really can get better results by shooting raw. When you use your camera's jpeg engine, it applies various corrections to your shot, based on it's programmed algorithms. And you can do better sometimes by making these decisions yourself. More importantly, once your camera creates a jpeg, the raw information is lost. The process is destructive. There is no going back.

By processing the raw file yourself, you can sometimes correct poor exposures and reclaim some detail from shadow areas.

So what should you do?

I suggest you shoot "raw+jpeg" for a while, assuming your camera allows this setting. Then, process the raw files yourself and compare them to the the jpegs that were automatically produced by your camera. If you cannot seem to get a better result than the jpeg engine is getting, then it just means you don't know enough about raw processing. So don't give up. You should be able to "beat the jpeg" 90% of the time.

But if your jpeg engine gets good results, or at least results good enough for your needs, then you might want to just leave your camera set for jpegs.

I use an Olympus E30 and EP1 and my needs are not that critical. I am just an amateur hobbyist, and I find the jpegs work very well for me. I only shoot raw for something really important.
--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

FWIW....

I've played around with the Olympus RAW files and found I can't do better than the Oly jpegs---I say I can't but I'm sure others can and do. When I bought in, I'd read that Oly had great OOC jpegs and it was a selling point for me.

Once in awhile I wish I'd shot a raw file as well, possibly to save an image or to get even more out of it. The proposition to me would be shooting both and saving only a very few RAW files once I've looked at the jpegs, then delete 99% of RAW files. I don't need tremendously sustained bursts...still I sometimes forget my CF card and end up using the xD I leave in it. That xD may be slow, but it sure is sloooow . I'd fill that up, too, before I had concluded a session.

How satisfied are you with your camera's jpeg output? Back in the film day, I shot color negative and handed it over to a lab for processing. I got used to handling problems in the camera, not the enlarger, because I had no choice. After developing (black and white) in a darkroom, nah. I'd still rather hand them over to someone else. That's where my interest lies, still---every hour processing them is one less hour taking them. As Karl Marx said, quantity has a quality all its own.

I know a guy who shoots with a Canon and he spends a lot of time on processing; he told me he admires how fast I get images up on the web. I don't think he's happy with the colors he gets, possibly due to white balance. In all fairness though he wants to shoot RAW and develop files three times the size of mine, and I've never seen his "unfinished" work.

I wonder if it's like what they say about parents. For the first child, the baby book is completely filled. The second baby, not so much. By the third child, there may not even be a baby book. At first, every image with this new camera is going to be earth-shattering. The first good capture of a dragonfly is a rush, but after you've taken them dozens of time, not so much. And often the latest capture (with your latest equipment and improved technique) is going to be best. Will I really look back through files for that first one? I doubt it.

If I were somehow roped into shooting something important (e.g. a wedding), I'd shoot raw as backup, insurance. Otherwise I'll be out looking for my blue mud dauber.
--
Gear listed in profile under "plan."

Someone stop me before I buy again, please!
Dave

For a good while I shot both RAW and JPG. However, after a recent weekend trip, I was unhappy with the way a handful of the JPGs turned out. I decided as an experiment to batch process all the RAW files in Photoshop Elements 8, using the latest Adobe Camera Raw plugin. I used the "Auto" setting. (The option also exists to use custom settings; I haven't gotten that far yet. And, you can use the "Default" setting for your camera as well, if you want to.) After all the RAW files were processed, I then batch-converted them to JPGs, using a naming convention that didn't overlay the existing JPG files. I did NOT go in and do them one file at a time. One operation to run them all through ACR; another to develop them out into a bunch of JPG files.

I then compared the ACR-Elements produced JPGs to the camera-produced JPGs. I found that virtually without exception, the ACR to JPG images were every bit as good as the in-camera JPGs, with many looking a little better. Some were a whole lot better (including the ones that set me off in the first place). There were only about 2 files out of 135 that I had to tweak a bit to get them the way I wanted.

I repeated the experiment with another folder of photos taken another weekend, in entirely different shooting conditions. Same results: the batch processed ACR Auto setting was as good if not better than the out of camera JPGs. Moreover, I found that I consistently got the same sort of results for photos taken with my Sony A500, and my Panasonic G1 as well.

I did find one exception to the "Auto", and that was for a set of shots taken at night. The "Auto" setting tried to brighten them all up too much. That was the only instance where the "Default" setting worked better.

So, I decided that if the ACR batch processing will yield JPGs that are at least as good as the in camera JPGs, and in many cases better, there is no use in loading up my SD card with RAW and JPG images. My standard operating procedure is now to shoot only in RAW, and then come home and batch process / convert to JPG in Elements and Adobe Camera Raw. As before, if there is a file that I want to work on individually, I of course stiill have that capability.

The only real difference is that my JPG files are now produced by my Dell home computer, instead of the computer in the camera. The benefits are that I now have room for a lot more photos on my memory card. And, when I make a first pass to get rid of the photos that aren't "keepers", I only have to delete the individual RAW files, instead of a RAW and JPG pair.

PS. I did not try batch-processing in the respective Sony and Panasonic RAW converters. I used the ACR because I'm trying to get to a common way of processing all my files, instead of having to use and try to become proficient at two disparate software applications. If you only have one brand of camera, and/or don't have Elements or Adobe Camera Raw, you can probably do the same basic batch processing approach with the raw converter that came with your camera.

--
Tom

Thanks all for your replies. They were helpful. I didn't want anybody to give me an answer as to what I should do because as some people said, it's all down to personal preference at the end of the day, it was more a rhetorical question so I could get some feedback on what other people thought. Mission accomplished I think . Time to go and play.

There are only 3 certainties in life. Death, taxes and the fact you will eventually only shoot RAW !

When you do you will soon have a huge regret. That regret will be that all your earlier photos were not shot in RAW.

I therefore suggest you immediately start shooting in RAW + Jpeg. You can go about your transition to RAW in your own time but at least you will have the RAW files to play with later.

In some circumstances like very bright day, you are not able to evaluate your picture from your LCD. even the histogram can sometimes be hard to read.

You can miss the opportunity to take great shots only due to the use of JPEG. Especially when you have only few secondes to press the shutter.

I use the software that came with my camera to create my jpeg's instead of letting the camera do it. This way I can correct for those times that I don't have the correct White Balance, or color profile (Standard, Vivid, Natural, etc.), or if I haven't nailed the exposure exactly how I wanted it.

Disclaimer: I shoot in full manual, never letting the camera make any decisions. I know that today's cameras can take beautiful photographs (I've seen plenty), but they are not my photographs if I let the camera do it. So no Auto Anything for me.
--
Michael

MRM4350 said:

I use the software that came with my camera to create my jpeg's instead of letting the camera do it. This way I can correct for those times that I don't have the correct White Balance, or color profile (Standard, Vivid, Natural, etc.), or if I haven't nailed the exposure exactly how I wanted it.

Disclaimer: I shoot in full manual, never letting the camera make any decisions. I know that today's cameras can take beautiful photographs (I've seen plenty), but they are not my photographs if I let the camera do it. So no Auto Anything for me.
--
Michael

Click to expand...

Using manual exposure is not much different to aperture or shutter priority automatic exposure. If you are matching the shutter speed and/or aperture to the recommended exposure you are letting the camera make the decision for you anyway, all you are doing is altering the settings by hand - a function the camera can do much more quickly and accurately.

If the auto settings look like they are not going to be correct such as when you are shooting into the sun or your subject is back lit, then a little exposure compensation is very easy to dial in for the exposure you want.

It is very unhelpful to the creative process to equate making setting changes on your camera with taking responsibility for the resulting image - I mean, you do use autofocus right?

What makes the image a "good" or even great photograph is your choice of subject, your viewpoint, the lens, aperture, composition and lighting - not who manually set the controls to what the camera recommended.

Everybody will say raw. Though just like you, I do not like PP so many shots and converting to JPeg later. Composition is one thing that does not change in PP. So simply as you said, if your happy with your in camera settings, you get many more pictures with jpeg. Also, though sometime people play with PP to get a sureal image as that say (did I say that right), but is not always what you are really seeing.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

That could be a great thing. I guess a lot comes down to how many pictures a person shoots. A person who shoots several hundred pictures a day on a normal day walking around, it may be better just jpeg and raw for the more special events.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

I love that camera. I find it produces great Jpegs and is a very smart camera with its settings and its auto areas like controlling shutter when your in aperture mode.
--

Darkness is the monster and your shutter is your sword, aperture your shield and iso your armor. Strike fast with your sword and defend well with your shield and hope your armor holds up.

I just recently moved to DSLR. I love the lens correction feature in lightroom and it is currently only available in RAW for all my lenses. I don't do much post processing but I love the way the lens correction gets rid of distortion and vingetting.