-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
RAW versus JPEG
- Thread starter timtagel
- Start date
photophile
Forum Pro
many photographers ONLY shoot in RAW mode to give them maximum possible information for post processing and/or image correction afterwards.
I shoot manily highest quality JPEG, but RAW steps in when the lighting is tricky, or low or when I think there may be issues with exposure or WB.
--
AH
Optimum tempus garantitum omnibus
James Arnold 1971
Senior Member
First some background reading 
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=20990557
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=21001896
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=20320056
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=18085822
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1007&message=20990557
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1014&message=21001896
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=20320056
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=18085822
James Arnold 1971
Senior Member
For Myself,
I usually shoot raw with the accompanying JPG. Buffer speed, continuous shooting etc are of little use to me most of the time, and a 1 gb is more than enough for my typicall outing.
1) I like the process, I like taking the time with my photos after I capture, for me the RAW workflow is a like an emulation of the time I spent in darkrooms or behind a minilab.
2) It is only on the rare occasion that a processed RAW image doesn't look better than the out of camera JPEG. I don't care to debate why but for me this is the case.
3) Depending on how I might want to use the images in future holding on to the extra data keeps the door open to more possibilities.
Just keep in mind as this discussion moves forward that it all boils down to personal preference and individual needs.
Jamie
I usually shoot raw with the accompanying JPG. Buffer speed, continuous shooting etc are of little use to me most of the time, and a 1 gb is more than enough for my typicall outing.
1) I like the process, I like taking the time with my photos after I capture, for me the RAW workflow is a like an emulation of the time I spent in darkrooms or behind a minilab.
2) It is only on the rare occasion that a processed RAW image doesn't look better than the out of camera JPEG. I don't care to debate why but for me this is the case.
3) Depending on how I might want to use the images in future holding on to the extra data keeps the door open to more possibilities.
Just keep in mind as this discussion moves forward that it all boils down to personal preference and individual needs.
Jamie
Hemidart
Senior Member
I shoot RAW with my D200 since it gives me more control over the final image. But with my Ricoh GR, that can shoot RAW, I shoot JPEG.
Honestly...If you have your exposure dead on, then there is nothing wrong with JPEG. RAW will allow you to fix things like WB and exposure and save a bad image.
If the final image looks great....no one will be able to tell how you shot it.
--
Nikon D200, Sigma 18-50/2.8, Nikon 50/1.8, Nikon 35/2.0, Ricoh GR and Canon A620.
http://dwinnert.zenfolio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrlurch
Honestly...If you have your exposure dead on, then there is nothing wrong with JPEG. RAW will allow you to fix things like WB and exposure and save a bad image.
If the final image looks great....no one will be able to tell how you shot it.
--
Nikon D200, Sigma 18-50/2.8, Nikon 50/1.8, Nikon 35/2.0, Ricoh GR and Canon A620.
http://dwinnert.zenfolio.com
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrlurch
I was drug kicking and screaming into shooting RAW because of all those reasons. What I have found is that they did not outweigh the benefits. Better color, more detail, and greater dynamic range. The workflow is actually less time consuming because my skills have improved, I adjust my settings for a particular event and then use them on the whole group. I also learned to write actions for certain processes that I repeat frequently, such as sharpening and final saving.
Once you get used to shooting in RAW, you will find jpegs to be a disappointment. I always shoot RAW now. (And don't feel that you HAVE to save all those RAW files, I only keep the ones that really matter.)
--
Theresa K
http://theresak.smugmug.com/
Denis de Gannes
Senior Member
If you are only going to order prints of 4x6 or the odd 8x10 at Cosco or other 1 hr lab shoot only JPEG.
If you paid for a camera that can record in RAW its the way to go.
You can always produce IMHO a better final print from a raw file. The learning process is not that difficult and the additional opportunities are numerous.
Visit sites like "Luminous Landscape" and you can get the info.
The advancement of raw processing software is improving very rapidly and the possibilities of re-processing with superior results in the next year or two is reason enough to retain the raw files.
Even the great powerhouse of editing and processing digital files is only shortly to release their new processing program "Lightroom".
Shooting JPEG limits you to the "taste" of your camera manufacturer with the RAW file there are dozens of other excellent raw converters to expand your creativity. Why would an artist want to restrict themselves.
--
Denis de Gannes
If you paid for a camera that can record in RAW its the way to go.
You can always produce IMHO a better final print from a raw file. The learning process is not that difficult and the additional opportunities are numerous.
Visit sites like "Luminous Landscape" and you can get the info.
The advancement of raw processing software is improving very rapidly and the possibilities of re-processing with superior results in the next year or two is reason enough to retain the raw files.
Even the great powerhouse of editing and processing digital files is only shortly to release their new processing program "Lightroom".
Shooting JPEG limits you to the "taste" of your camera manufacturer with the RAW file there are dozens of other excellent raw converters to expand your creativity. Why would an artist want to restrict themselves.
--
Denis de Gannes
qumqats
Active member
I shoot jpeg for shapshots where I don't care as much about the final result and where the 8-bit per color DR is enough.
For all my serious work I shoot RAW. That gives me a start to finish 12-bit per color workflow with maximum DR. The RAW file is the digital negative that will allow me to always come back and re post process the image.
For all my serious work I shoot RAW. That gives me a start to finish 12-bit per color workflow with maximum DR. The RAW file is the digital negative that will allow me to always come back and re post process the image.
Adobe Lightroom makes RAW workflow easier than the old JPG+Photoshop workflow. It's really amazing. (Lightroom works just fine with JPG as well, so the wonderfulness here is more with Lightroom than with RAW).
From what I hear, Apple Aperture is of the same ilk.
Adobe Lightroom is still in beta, and as such has some quirks (some serious), but nevertheless I've move all my workflow to it. Being in beta, it's free for the moment.
Highly recommended.
Jeffrey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Friedl -- Kyoto, Japan -- http://regex.info/blog/
From what I hear, Apple Aperture is of the same ilk.
Adobe Lightroom is still in beta, and as such has some quirks (some serious), but nevertheless I've move all my workflow to it. Being in beta, it's free for the moment.
Highly recommended.
Jeffrey
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Friedl -- Kyoto, Japan -- http://regex.info/blog/
David Hughes124436
Veteran Member
RAW is usefull but not always needed and the best quality jpg's are good enough for most users. I only switch to RAW when I see/guess the shot is difficult and need it badly.
As I see it, RAW is a tool like CW metering or spot metering or manual focus or manual WB or shutter priority or aperture priority or EV compensation or auto bracketing. Auto is pretty well near perfect for a lot of things and you just have to step in and make the choice when you need to.
In other words, use a bit of common sense.
Regards, David
PS If I depended on my pictures to pay for my food etc everyday then I'd use RAW but I can afford to miss a shot from time to time and I value my non-photographic time...
As I see it, RAW is a tool like CW metering or spot metering or manual focus or manual WB or shutter priority or aperture priority or EV compensation or auto bracketing. Auto is pretty well near perfect for a lot of things and you just have to step in and make the choice when you need to.
In other words, use a bit of common sense.
Regards, David
PS If I depended on my pictures to pay for my food etc everyday then I'd use RAW but I can afford to miss a shot from time to time and I value my non-photographic time...
Patrick T. Kelly
Senior Member
tried shooting raw I had an Olympus C5050Z. It was, in my opinion, a fine camera but it wasn't particularly good in low light. So, most of my shots were done in good light. I shot some pictures in raw and the same shot at the same time in JPG.
I converted the raw files using a very clunky program--and I forget which one now. The results were identical.
Then I got a DSLR and the software for editing and converting raw files had improved markedly. When I shot interiors or museums or churches I got better results with raw files. When I shot in the evening under weird streetlights I got better results with raw.
I briefly tried shooting JPEG during the day but I quickly found that my workflow went quicker if I just shot all raw. Ninety percent of my editing was done in the raw converter program. The average shot, which would have been shot JPEG, got about five seconds of tweaking.
Now, I shoot all raw files. Lastly, my critical backups are the raw files. I can pull one up and work on it as an original.
I converted the raw files using a very clunky program--and I forget which one now. The results were identical.
Then I got a DSLR and the software for editing and converting raw files had improved markedly. When I shot interiors or museums or churches I got better results with raw files. When I shot in the evening under weird streetlights I got better results with raw.
I briefly tried shooting JPEG during the day but I quickly found that my workflow went quicker if I just shot all raw. Ninety percent of my editing was done in the raw converter program. The average shot, which would have been shot JPEG, got about five seconds of tweaking.
Now, I shoot all raw files. Lastly, my critical backups are the raw files. I can pull one up and work on it as an original.
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
I have found the same thing. I also have found that RAW actually is faster for me. With jpg, I spent a great deal of time trying to recover blown highlights or in some way bringing an exposure back into balance. RAW makes all that much easier for many more photos. I don't know this for sure, but I'd be willing to bet that most RAW shooters would feel that now that they've learned the process, they spend no more time in post processing than they did before.
I always shoot RAW now. (And don't feel that you
No, I HAVE to save all those RAW files. It's part compulsive behavior and part learned behavior. I don't know how many times I've gone over some old photos and discovered something I had no regard for that now seems pretty darned good.
In spite of my initial mistrust of Adobe, I have learned the value DNG and convert all my .ORF files to DNG. Lightroom makes it easy to convert and DNG files are smaller than ORF.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'
lungdoc
Forum Enthusiast
I disagree - and I am an amateur who prints much like you describe, don't knock Costco -excellent results if you use the drycreekphoto.com profiles correctly.
The reasons I like RAW for even casual pictures is the ability to recover from exposure errors and (especially) the ability to correct white balance easily, and without IQ penalty. This applies even if it's for a casual 4x6.
Mark
WillieC
Forum Enthusiast
I was going to start a thread on this. I tried converting some shots from NEF to DNG in hopes that I would get more functionality in bringing them into PSE5. (Doesn't matter.) But after that I was wondering about doing a mass conversion of all my NEFs to DNG just for a more stable archiving format. Any thoughts on that? What are the advantages? The disadvantages are the extra PP time to do the conversion and the unknown long term viability of DNG (which of course is a disadvantage of any other RAW format too). DNGs seem to be slightly larger than NEFs.
GaryDeM
Veteran Member
first i shoot jpeg all the time. i use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw aand got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test i thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason i concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc. for me, i do almost zero, my goal in the field is to shoot the pics so that they are good enough to stand on there own without pp.
the two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adlustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture.
in other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg.
but, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs.
for me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go.
the ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.
this keeps the as shot quality intact.
i do believe that if you are batch processing raw shots 50 or a 100 at a time then you would be missing one great raw advantage: to get the most out of each individual shot. raw's great advantage is to pp each shot in order to get as close to the best shot possible from each pic. if you are not doing that then you are doing the raw method a great disservise. yes i have pe3 and cs2 and can use both.
my view. gary
the two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adlustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture.
in other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg.
but, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs.
for me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go.
the ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall.
this keeps the as shot quality intact.
i do believe that if you are batch processing raw shots 50 or a 100 at a time then you would be missing one great raw advantage: to get the most out of each individual shot. raw's great advantage is to pp each shot in order to get as close to the best shot possible from each pic. if you are not doing that then you are doing the raw method a great disservise. yes i have pe3 and cs2 and can use both.
my view. gary
guyoliver
Well-known member
--
guy
I will be sold on RAW when I find a program that will import from my card reader, put up all the pix, allow me to select the one I want and then decide which button to click and then permit me to one click to e-mail them to family. In other words when Picasa starts converting RAW i will be sold.
guy
I will be sold on RAW when I find a program that will import from my card reader, put up all the pix, allow me to select the one I want and then decide which button to click and then permit me to one click to e-mail them to family. In other words when Picasa starts converting RAW i will be sold.
guyoliver
Well-known member
--
guy No one has mentioned that with the K10 Preview you can see what you are going to get and then make the adjustments before shooting. I use this quite a bit. I look at the preview, maybe adjust white balance change the iso, or maybe aperture. preview again and if it is okay then I have a picture that seldom needs a tweak
guy No one has mentioned that with the K10 Preview you can see what you are going to get and then make the adjustments before shooting. I use this quite a bit. I look at the preview, maybe adjust white balance change the iso, or maybe aperture. preview again and if it is okay then I have a picture that seldom needs a tweak
Glen Barrington
Forum Pro
Anyone who promises you long term viability is a fortune teller.
No one knows WHAT formats will be viable in 20 years. If you can't think of a benefit for using DNG today for benefits today, then I wouldn't use it because you're just guessing like the rest of us.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'
No one knows WHAT formats will be viable in 20 years. If you can't think of a benefit for using DNG today for benefits today, then I wouldn't use it because you're just guessing like the rest of us.
--
Never trust a man who spells the word 'cheese' with a 'z'
WillieC
Forum Enthusiast
That was kind of my take too. I just wondered if anyone else had a reason to use DNG that I hadn't thought of.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum