RAW vs JPEG

[russj]

What is the opinion here, I'm using am EOS 300D and have been experimenting with the JPEG from the camera at full quality, and converting the RAW with Phaseone C1 software. In my opinion, the quality from RAW is better, but the difference is subtle. I would imagine the printed results would be indistinguishable from each other. If your like me, i cannot accept shooting on an inferior format, even if the differences are minute! ;)

[Photo-John]

Generally I use JPEG files for everything. But I shoot always shoot RAW with imbedded JPEGs so that I have the RAW files for archiving and fine printing. It may be hard to tell the difference between RAW and JPEG, and it would be a pain to do a really controlled test. But, with RAW files, you have the confidence of knowing that there's no compression and you're making the processing decisions. When it really counts, it's nice to have the RAW.

[ustein]

I use nearly exclusively raw for the last 4 years. There are to many situation where I need to change EV and WB to get a good print.

On the other side with the Leica Digilux 2 the JPGs really look nice.

A main issues with JPG are:
- WB tuning
- Most JPGs get sharpening in camera and that is rarely good news
- Contrast setting in camera may be to agressive
- Exposure corrections maybe needed
- 8 bit
- compression artifacts

> I would imagine the printed results would be indistinguishable from each other.

8x10" or 20x30" will be very different stories.

More about RAW is here:

http://www.outbackphoto.com/artofraw/index.html

Uwe

[wburychka]

This is a case where the expression "There's no free lunch" applies. The price of that 75% reduction in file size is that JPEG throws away actual information and replaces it with guess, estimates, and predictions. Yeah, in 4x6 prints, no problem. But what if you happen to get that once in a lifetime shot of an actual UFO landing or your daughter's ballet recital? Shoot RAW and only edit in PSD or TIFF formats, because every time you resave that JPEG, you throw away a little more data that you can never get back. I think RAW gives a little more exposure latitude too. And you don't need to buy an expensive converter program. The Canon FileViewer utility does just fine and saves either 8 or 16-bit TIFFs.

[SmartWombat]

What is the opinion here, I'm using am EOS 300D and have been experimenting with the JPEG from the camera at full quality, and converting the RAW with Phaseone C1 software. In my opinion, the quality from RAW is better, but the difference is subtle. I would imagine the printed results would be indistinguishable from each other. If your like me, i cannot accept shooting on an inferior format, even if the differences are minute! ;)

It depends on your software. I don't have a 300D (yet).
Take this with a large pinch of salt, OK?

Using a Minolta A1 and A2, the JPG files produced from the supplied software out of a .RAW file is 50% larger than the JPG files produced in-camera.
The algorithm used is different, and I saw in one web review that the resolution was better (in lines per mm) and moire interference was reduced - all by usinng RAW and converting to JPG on the computer.

Disadvantages?
Size: I needed to buy another 1GB memory card.
Weight: I need to carry a laptop with me on a high volumne shooting day (F1 races).
Poor in-camera preview: it won't Zoom a RAW image, so I can't check focus by magnifying up to x8 on the rear screen to see if I've got the manual focus spot on.

Advantages?
Quality: I can (just) see the difference between the two on-screen at 1:1 pixel
Latitude: RAW files are at full sensor resolution, so I can adjust ISO in software
Balance: RAW files can be white-balanced after shooting using the supplied software

Now having said all that, I don't know how much applies to the 300D.
But I hope it gives you things to look for and try out for yourself.

[b_nikon]

Depends on what you are planning to do with you images. For a website JPEG will do the job but if you plan some serious PS, go for RAW. RAW has so many more capabilities. I shoot with a Nikon D 70 in RAW and probably won't ever shoot in JPEG. Afterwards (if RAW) you can still adjust lightcompensation, white balance, etc, etc.

Bart

[Peter_AUS]

Paul,

You can buy an image tank to transfer your images, they aren't that expensive and can have 40G drives in them, that is some serious storage and is about the sixe of a small tape recorder. The one I have X-Drive Pro also has its own small case which you can attach to your belt and storage for more CF cards as well. Worked well for me at my daughters Communion, as I only had 256meg Cards at the time.

Yes transfer times are a little slow, but if you have two cards you can be transferring from one card while still taking images to the other card.

[SmartWombat]

Peter, the big drwaback for me is the inability to zoom on the A1 & A2 so I can't check focus.
The number of opportunities I've lost becuase of poor focus, the more I work with the A1/2 the more I want to sell them.

[opus]

I have a Canon 300D. I shot jpeg for a year and loved my shots! But once I came here and started seeing what other people's shots looked like, I became aware that many of my shots were unacceptably (to me) dark--not drastic, but nothing ever seemed to *POP* like other people's stuff did. I'd bring it into photoshop but usually seemed like I was altering too much and I felt I was ruining my stuff in postprocessing.

Then I switched over to RAW and seemed to notice the difference right away. I feel my whites are whiter, I seem to have a wider range of color available, and I can control the contrast myself. Now I do so much less post-processing in Photoshop.

I also have more exposure latitude in RAW, so I have the ability to take "nearly impossible" handheld shots in low lighting situations and bring up the exposure back home.

[opus]

There are drawbacks of speed and size, so I will on occasion switch back to jpeg if I need speed. I should figure out exactly what the ideal camera settings should be for jpeg.

[Sebastian]

RAW will always give you more headroom to work with, and will give you a slight edge when it comes to final quality. The difference is minor hwever, and unless you're making larger prints, it's pretty much ireelevent. If someone knows what they're doing they will get a JPG just as good as a RAW file, but the RAW will allow for better post-processing results.

[yaronsh]

I got my 300D in April. Shot mostly RAW, until a particular outing earlier this summer when I just happened to take some more JPEGs (don't remember why), and was really surprised at the amount of information and room for manipulability of the JPEGs (even some in low lighting). I now shoot mostly JPEG, and go to RAW mainly for night shots or other tricky lighting situations.

Like kellybean, I still intend to do a bit of work to figure out the best parameters to use with JPEG. (Incidentally, I'm a fan of high contrast.)

- Yaron