RAW vs. JPEG...

[Kiwikat]

Which of these three settings do you use and why?

I use RAW all the time because it captures more detail than jpeg. It also allows me to have full control over my photo, instead of the camera guessing at what I want the final product to look like. It is also nice to work with a lossless format when editing in photoshop.

[luckydog]

Which of these three settings do you use and why?

I use RAW all the time because it captures more detail than jpeg. It also allows me to have full control over my photo, instead of the camera guessing at what I want the final product to look like. It is also nice to work with a lossless format when editing in photoshop.

I think we need to keep this in the KISS mode: "Keep it simple stupid........"

Most of these folks are beginners.

"lossless format, jpeg & RAW" mean nothing to them. And Photoshop is pretty expensive.

I've got an idea !!!

Why don't we discuss the two main components of photography ( light and composition ) and leave the bullsh*t computer manipulation for later ????

just a thought...............

[Kiwikat]

and leave the bullsh*t computer manipulation for later ????

Despite what you call it, it is still a relevant subject given that most people here shoot with digital cameras. Post processing is an important part of the process- one that can make or break an already good photo. I thought it'd be interesting to hear others' points of view on the matter. After all, this is a discussion forum. :mixedsmi:

Perhaps we can use this thread as a way to inform those who don't know about the differences between the two formats, or even that there are two formats available?

One of my favorite things about photography is the nearly infinite learning curve. As soon as you think you know something, you turn the corner and see a whole new world.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

I only use JPEG since it's sufficient for what I need - to upload it up at Flickr (even got one at Jetphotos...just proof that you don't always need RAW), to let make Christmas cards out of it, for use at the sites in my signature. Don't need to make big prints or so.

An advantage for me would be the ability to recover more of highlights - RAW is said to include about +1 stop more information so you could get more detail out of it. Quality is higher of course in RAW but I'm not that sort of a pixel peeper.

I agree that decent post-processing is an extremely important aspect of digital photography, but if the photo itself isn't decent quality when it comes out of the camera (unsharp, for instance) you can do whatever you want in Lightroom, Photoshop or Aperture, it still won't be a great photo. Good photos can be made better, bad photos can't. If the original isn't good,...Photoshop won't create miracles for you.

The thing I personally hate about RAW is the huge filesize. While my JPEG 14 MP files' size is from 3.5 to 5 MB, RAW files are 10 to 15 MB. Even this little MacBook Pro powerhouse would have difficulties with it (2.53 Ghz, 4 GB RAM, Nvidia 9400M), I suppose.

To be honest, I haven't yet really tried editing a RAW file in Aperture, I did try it in Windows when I still was in the Wind'ohs world .

Thanks for creating the thread, it's something I had been thinking about myself.

Two pictures which you have already seen but now in a higher resolution. Made in the inferior JPEG quality :
http://img38.imagefra.me/img/img38/1...9m_88e9e15.jpg
http://img03.imagefra.me/img/img03/2...hm_b93479f.jpg

As a professional photographer said in one of the last Focus editions (Dutch photography magazine, since 1915, available in Belgium & the Netherlands): "If your exposure is done correctly and in the highest resolution, there's nothing wrong with a JPEG."

In the field you don't always have a laptop or imagetank or so with you as well - at least, I haven't :mixedsmi: - and you should get more memory cards as well. Now I can use two 4 GB CF memory cards for two days of nearly full-day shooting.

So, to conclude:

RAW:
+ more information in the highlights,
+ should be better quality,
+ more possibilities for post-processing,
+ ...

- bigger filesize, requiring additional (disc) space both on memory cards, external and internal hard discs,
- less fast to transfer to a computer when compared to the same amount of JPEG files, result of the bigger filesize.
- ....

Perhaps we should keep this list and try to add more and see what's the best for everyone to his own in the end ? In my humble opinion everyone should decide it for him/herself whether the increased quality and post-processing possibilities make up/compensate for the huge filesize and less large buffer (an A550 can make about 32 JPEG pictures for instance at full speed, while 'only' about 15 RAW).

[kilo delta]

RAW + JPEG for me, and I tend to carry a bunch of memory cards. If I feel the need (and I have the time) I'll edit the raw file in Lightroom or CS4.

[Snuffy]

I'd have to say that as a person still shooting film ... I do raw. LOL!

[Panther_99FS]

JPEG for the moment since I don't have any software to process RAW images...

[6297J]

12 bit RAW only. I can get 394 shots (plus a few more usually) on an 8GB card. I love what you can do with a RAW file - how much more information is retained. Trying to recover lost details with a JPEG for instance can be impossible. Of course if you had got the perfect shot to begin with then a JPEG is fine but I have never taken a single shot that I haven't fiddled with in some small way. If it is a shot I am particularly pleased with then I will save a copy of the RAW file to my external drive so that I may revisit it in years to come when my post-processing skills have improved.

[6297J]

JPEG for the moment since I don't have any software to process RAW images...

Panther can I suggest you download ViewNX from Nikon's site. It's a completely free if basic viewer but I think you can at least view RAW (NEF) files and convert them to TIFF or JPEG. It maybe worth buying CaptureNX at some point also but ViewNX is free and you can use it for some basic tweaking too. Get it from Nikon's site here -

http://support.nikontech.com/app/ans...1UFJq#Anchor-1

I use it to browse my shots when I first offload them from the card and send them from there to Capture NX and/or Photoshop.

[Henry]

I have never been a big raw person
there are a few cameras out there with a tiff option
i have seen a few people who shot in the raw format
all there vacation pics and then cannot access them
and it is expensive to have them converted in a lab
as all raw formats are different.
I guess its all down to the individual and what level
you wish to work at
my own opinion is get the pic right when you take it
so you do not have to mess with it
post production is time consuming
depends on the photographer
shoot a couple of hundred pics on a job
its a lot easier shooting tiffs or low compression jpg's
i do not believe there is a right or wrong
just down to what you need or prefer
H

[Henry]

Panther can I suggest you download ViewNX from Nikon's site. It's a completely free if basic viewer but I think you can at least view RAW (NEF) files and convert them to TIFF or JPEG. It maybe worth buying CaptureNX at some point also but ViewNX is free and you can use it for some basic tweaking too. Get it from Nikon's site here -

http://support.nikontech.com/app/ans...1UFJq#Anchor-1

I use it to browse my shots when I first offload them from the card and send them from there to Capture NX and/or Photoshop.

There are also free plug ins for photoshop
H

[6297J]

I see no real difference between the little tweaks I learnt in the darkroom when I was an Art student to the little tweaks I can do with Photoshop. A big part of the enjoyment of photography for me is the post-processing. I can spend hours on a single shot. I am not talking about special effects filters or adding things that weren't there to begin with (some things are just cheating I think) but creative use of cropping and applying subtle changes to exposure bias and tonality. You will get the same results by printing on different papers or controlling the exposure in the darkroom - thats all Photoshiop is to me - a virtual darkroom.

[kilo delta]

JPEG for the moment since I don't have any software to process RAW images...

Try these,P...

http://www.gimp.org/ with this plugin http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/

[6297J]

There are also free plug ins for photoshop
H

Indeed the latest versions of Photoshop can open RAW files with the CameraRaw Plugin which is updated regularly as new camera models are released but the individual Camera manufacturers generally provide better software for converting files. If I open a Nikon RAW file directly with Photoshop it looks terrible compared to ViewNX or CaptureNX. Lightroom is yet another option if you have plenty of money!

[JorisVandenBerghe]

And for the Mac there's Aperture 2. That's yet another problem of RAW, if you have just bought a new camera it may not yet be supported by the software...

[Moparmike]

I do both.

If I'm on the hunt for something that I think I might be making a big print of or if I'm just wanting to play around with different post-processing methods I shoot RAW (Pentax PEF format for me), but I use JPEG quite a bit too.
I've done some pretty decent prints up to 20x30 from JPEG...stuff that was captured when I wasn't expecting to do anything fancy with the shots.

My DL doesn't do RAW+JPEG, but if my next camera has that option I'll probably use that since I do fiddle with both.

[Cratermaker]

I've kind of settled down to RAW for everything except airshow action shots where I want to take lots of pics rapidly without filling up the buffer or filling up lots of cards.

You can always convert the RAW images to JPG when you are pleased with the shot. In a nutshell, I understand the pros use RAW for the greater flexibility in post processing. They don't necessarily like the camera's jpg processor output. Sure you can tweak JPGs, but you can't do as much as you can with the RAW file. The data is already gone and compressed.

I'm surprised that Nikon doesn't provide a RAW manipulation program with their camera? My Canon came with on that tweaks pretty much all parameters, even come with profiles to correct for barrel or pincushion on those massive range zoom lenses.

[6297J]

I'm surprised that Nikon doesn't provide a RAW manipulation program with their camera? My Canon came with on that tweaks pretty much all parameters, even come with profiles to correct for barrel or pincushion on those massive range zoom lenses.

Well ViewNX is free although Nikon don't provide it on a disk or even tell you it's available anywhere! CaptureNX is the one they plug and it is very good - some people use nothing else but you have to buy it.

I use ViewNX to browse after I've dragged the folder from the card to my desktop and for initial very basic tweaking - dialling the Exposure Bias up or down one for eg, I then send it to CaptureNX where I crop and maybe tweak the Exposure Bias a little more finely or adjust the Shadows/Highlights and then save it as a TIFF for final editing in Photoshop before it's uploaded to my Smugmug site and my external hard drive if it's good enough to keep.

Usually though I just go through them in ViewNX and press delete, delete, delete, keep, delete, delete :mixedsmi:

[Cratermaker]

Usually though I just go through them in ViewNX and press delete, delete, delete, keep, delete, delete :mixedsmi:

Ha ha! I know what you mean. So many ones ready to get deleted! My favorites are shots of the empty sky or ground... I've had a few of those. No lens cap photos yet though!

[Henry]

I see no real difference between the little tweaks I learnt in the darkroom when I was an Art student to the little tweaks I can do with Photoshop. A big part of the enjoyment of photography for me is the post-processing. I can spend hours on a single shot. I am not talking about special effects filters or adding things that weren't there to begin with (some things are just cheating I think) but creative use of cropping and applying subtle changes to exposure bias and tonality. You will get the same results by printing on different papers or controlling the exposure in the darkroom - thats all Photoshiop is to me - a virtual darkroom.

actually you can do more in less time in photoshop
as a Darkroom tech for about 40 years
you can change paper grades, burn and dodge,
use masks, use different developers etc etc
but its time consuming and photoshop can do it in a few seconds
and its live using sliders etc
and i do not stink of fixer when i am done
OT when i worked in London
i had to make 12ft square photos on wood
the only way i could do that was add liquid emulsion
to the wood with a mop
then expose the image
develop with a mop
then add fixer i was covered with fixer
no showers in the studio
so i had to get the tube in rush hour
drenched in fix
i wonder why people stayed away from me
LOL
ill work with photoshop anyday
H

[Kiwikat]

There's lots of great information here guys. Thanks for the good responses.

If anyone reading has any questions, ask away!

I'm pretty much in the same situation as Cratermaker. If I know I am going to be using continuous shooting for any period of time I'll set it to jpeg, otherwise I enjoy the benefits of RAW. With two 8 GB SDHC cards and plenty of hard drive space, I see no reason not to.

Does anyone here have and use Adobe Lightroom 2?

[6297J]

If I'm shooting in continuous mode then 12 bit RAW is fine, if I try and shoot 14 bit RAW then the buffer trips over itself very quickly. While I can see the difference between JPEG and RAW I can't for the life of me see any difference between 12 bit and 14 bit RAW!

I wonder what my buffer would make of 90MB/s !!

http://www.sandisk.com/products/dslr...pactflash-card

64GB - $895.99 :isadizzy:

[djscoo]

If I'm shooting in continuous mode then 12 bit RAW is fine, if I try and shoot 14 bit RAW then the buffer trips over itself very quickly. While I can see the difference between JPEG and RAW I can't for the life of me see any difference between 12 bit and 14 bit RAW!

I wonder what my buffer would make of 90MB/s !!

http://www.sandisk.com/products/dslr...pactflash-card

64GB - $895.99 :isadizzy:

In one of the recent issues of Wired, they featured a 2 TB SD card in development...I don't want to take a guess on the price at debut.

[JorisVandenBerghe]

Oh. My. A 2 TB card.... What's next, a 5 TB iPod classic :isadizzy: ?!

[Tracon]

I shoot JPEG.