Raw Vs. JPG

[boomtap]

I searched for a thread on this, but didn't find anything out. Anybody have an opinion on using Raw vs JPG? Is is better to shoot raw, and then convert to jpg using PS rather than letting the camera convert to jpg. Or is it just better to have a smaller JPG file to work with from the beggining? Most people I have heard from say shoot JPG.

[payn817]

About a week ago, I would've said Jpeg is just as good. After a "RAW outing", my opinion has greatly changed. Noise is much better, and maybe it's just me, but the raw file seems to hold more detail. Your situation really can dictate what format is best. If the exposure is difficult, raw may have an advantage as you have greater control in post work. Furthermore, you can edit without loosing detail, jpeg looses detail each time you edit and save.

Sorry, I am not all that technical, and can't give you any controlled test results. No matter what anyone tells you, it really doesn't hit you until you go out and see the results for yourself. Just pick a typical place/subject, shoot raw all day, and when you get around to working the files you can decide which is better for you.

[Ronnoco]

A very good, thorough book on the subject is: Adobe Camera Raw For Digital Photographers Only.

Basically, if you tend to do all your work in setting up your shot with your camera, tripod, lighting, angles etc before you take the photo and tend not to be keen on much post-processing then jpeg is probably the format for you. Depending on the nature of the work, you may not have the time to spend on a lot of post-processing, either.

Raw is appropriate for those who use to like to spend a lot of time in the darkroom, or who like playing with photos on the computer. Top pros tend to use both, depending on the nature of the shot. Studio work tends to be in raw and most journalistic shots tend to be in jpeg. Shooting for web use would probably be in jpeg. For very important shots one might shoot both raw and jpeg.

The caveat with raw is that you really have to have an excellent eye for technical detail and know a heck of a lot about handling the format. It has always been said for example that there is more exposure latitude when you are using RAW. Well, yes and no. Yes there is, but changing exposure in raw also negatively affects colour, tone and noise. Adding saturation to counteract original over-exposure further adds to picture noise and further reduces the gradations of colour and therefore detail and tone.

If you have a very good eye and are aware of every change that you are making in raw and its overall effect in the photo and you are therfore quite careful in your adjustments, then you can be quite successful using raw. However, if your eye and technical understanding are "limited", then you can badly mess up the quality of your original photo using the raw format.

Ronnoco

[Photo-John]

RAW better. You don't need to know a ton and you won't mess up your photos because you shoot RAW. You can even convert them immediately to jpg if you want without messing with them. But RAW leaves you with more options, if you want them. And even if you don't want them now, you might want them in a year. Better to play it safe and start shooting RAW now. The only reasons I can think of to not shoot RAW are you don't have enough memory card storage available, you don't have access to good RAW conversion software, or your computer is really slow. Almost everyone I know shoots RAW - even photojournalists.

[boomtap]

I am going to shoot all day June 1st in Raw just to see the diffrence, now that everybody here has talked me into it. I would like to do more post processing in Photoshop, so it sounds like Raw is the method. I really never thought about the files getting re-compressed each time when they are saved as a JPG.

As far as memory cards go, they are getting so cheap shooting JPG for space sake isn't really a big thing to me. I just want quality shots that I can enjoy for years to come. Heck I just found a 2gig card for $39.99. A couple of those and I could wear my finger out before I run out of room.

[Photo-John]

I am going to shoot all day June 1st in Raw just to see the diffrence,

Good plan!

Heck I just found a 2gig card for $39.99. A couple of those and I could wear my finger out before I run out of room.

Where did you find that deal? I think I would like to get in on that.

One thing to remember about RAW is that you don't actually have to change anything. But you'll be shooting higher quality originals. You can just save them, if you want. But you'll have the satisfaction of knowing that you have the best. And the processing isn't really that big of a deal. The software and computers have gotten so good that I really see no reason to shoot JPEG anymore.

[boomtap]

Thanks for the great advice.

This is the website for the $39.99 cards (after rebate) http://www.etoys4less.com/product_in...oducts_id=1903

Or if you are not into rebates, this one comes out to $42.00 with shipping. http://www.titannotebook.com/product...p?c=DMSDSP2G_W

[Ronnoco]

RAW better. .

Raw gives you more flexibility and control, but jpeg is faster and requires less work. Both can provide a high quality shot.

You don't need to know a ton and you won't mess up your photos because you shoot RAW..

Well, that depends on your personal standards and your eye. If you have more noise, poorer colour, fewer tones, and less detail than your original because you went "too heavy" with the adjustments, then you certainly would have messed up your photos. You have a lot of experience, John, and that would not happen to you, but don't assume that everyone using raw software is at the same level.

You can even convert them immediately to jpg if you want without messing with them. .

Yes, you can, but some cameras provide a better quality original jpeg, then any later conversion from raw through software. That is the reason for the raw + jpeg choice on most cameras.

But RAW leaves you with more options, if you want them. And even if you don't want them now, you might want them in a year. .

That is assuming you have the computer space, computer speed, time and appropriate organizational program to store and find them quickly, easily, and efficiently. When using computers and networks for workspace and when even disks of photos pass 250, one tends to avoid keeping around many large RAW format photos, just in case.

Ronnoco

[boomtap]

I am a little confused on what would be diffrent about the raw image from the JPG before editing. And when editing how would the raw act diffrently? (Asides from being a larger file and taking up more space, and having to have the right software.) Is the raw image the nearest digital equalivalnt to the analog image of film that the camera can produce?

Thanks to you all for bringing up ideas on this.

[Franglais]

I am a little confused on what would be diffrent about the raw image from the JPG before editing. And when editing how would the raw act diffrently? (Asides from being a larger file and taking up more space, and having to have the right software.) Is the raw image the nearest digital equalivalnt to the analog image of film that the camera can produce?

Thanks to you all for bringing up ideas on this.

The RAW file is the 12-bit per colour per pixel image as it came out of the camera sensor, plus individual adjustments that have been made. When you modify the ajustments you are only working on the adjustment itself, not the basic signal. You can always go back later and change it.

The JPG is the final compressed 8-bit per colour per pixel image. Not only have you less data than with RAW, any changes are permanent and cannot be undone.

For example, imagine you convert an image to black & white, then the week after you decide you preferred the colour version better. In RAW you just undo the change that gave you black and white and hey presto you have a colour image again. In JPG when it's gone it's gone.

Personally I only use the camera manufacturer's tools to work on RAW. I have seen several tests where Photoshop does a worse conversion than the dedicated converted.

Charles

[masdog]

I searched for a thread on this, but didn't find anything out. Anybody have an opinion on using Raw vs JPG? Is is better to shoot raw, and then convert to jpg using PS rather than letting the camera convert to jpg. Or is it just better to have a smaller JPG file to work with from the beggining? Most people I have heard from say shoot JPG.

The answer is...yes. And the answer is also no. There is no correct answer to the question. What you end up shooting in will depend on the type of photography you're doing, the amount of time you have to post process, the amount of creative control you need, and the limitations of your equipment.

Generally speaking, JPEG is suitable for most tasks, but it isn't always the best. I generally shoot all my portrait, landscape, and creative shots in RAW while my sports photography is always in JPEG.

[jorgemonkey]

I'm pretty much with Masdog on this one. When I shoot my own stuff or portraits & stuff like that, I shoot RAW. I've started printing out some bigger images and like to squeeze out as much detail and stuff from my jpgs as possible. Of course I just blew up a jpg from my 3 meg camera to 11x14, and it came out great!

When I shoot sports on the other hand, I shoot jpg since its just easier and faster to edit.

[cyberlord]

For pictures of what RAW can do if you underexpose.

Why RAW mode ROCKS!

Tim

[dmm96452]

I am a little confused on what would be diffrent about the raw image from the JPG before editing. And when editing how would the raw act diffrently? (Asides from being a larger file and taking up more space, and having to have the right software.) Is the raw image the nearest digital equalivalnt to the analog image of film that the camera can produce?

Thanks to you all for bringing up ideas on this.

Think of a raw mage as undeveloped film. Everything the sensor saw is there. It gives you much more control of the final image.

[Sebastian]

There seems to be some confusion about RAW and noise. Noise is not a quality of the file format, it is a quality of the sensor, and therefor it's impossible for RAW to have less noise than JPEG. Typically, RAW processing software applies a bit of noise reduction during the developing process, and makes it appear as if there's less noise.

[boomtap]

For pictures of what RAW can do if you underexpose.

Why RAW mode ROCKS!

Tim

Great example!

So basically since the raw files is the image right from the camera, more post processing can be done because the image still contains more data than the JPG. And the image will be more responsive to corrections just as if you were correcting them in the camera?

[Photo-John]

Personally I only use the camera manufacturer's tools to work on RAW. I have seen several tests where Photoshop does a worse conversion than the dedicated converted.

I've also seen cases where the manufacturer's RAW software is terrible. That was the case with my old Canon G2. Different RAW conversion will deliver different results. Generally, Adobe Camera Raw is excellent. I'm a Canon user and don't like the Canon software at all. However, it's the interface I don't like. I use BreezeBrowser for some conversions it just uses the Canon conversion software with a different GUI. Lately I've been using Pixmantec's Raw Shooter. For me, it's the best I've used yet. I like the options and the conversions look better than from any other software I've used. I also think it's sped up my workflow considerably.

Shooting RAW will open up a whole new world to you. It sounds like you're ready for it. We'll be here to answer more questions. And you'll definitely have more to ask

[boomtap]

I thought I could get the raw pluggin for Photoshop 7, but I can't seem to find it. So it will be a little while (couple weeks) before I can get CS2. Any other Raw software that you recomend. Nikon didn't ship the raw software with the D50, so I don't have that either. As it sits, I have Picasa that will read and convert raw formats, but I can't really do much with it so that is a waste. Is photoshop the end all of imaging software? Is there something else I should be looking into when I am dropping big money for software?

[masdog]

Look into Pixmantec's RAW Shooter like PJ recommended. I haven't tried it, but they have a free edition that is compatible with most RAW shooting cameras. I have downloaded it, and I plan on installing it this week.

[boomtap]

Thanks a bunch.

Here is the link for all who are interested. http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter.asp

[Ronnoco]

The RAW file is the 12-bit per colour per pixel image as it came out of the camera sensor, plus individual adjustments that have been made. When you modify the ajustments you are only working on the adjustment itself, not the basic signal. You can always go back later and change it.

Not quite correct! The RAW file comes out of the A/D converter, not directly out of the sensor. When you do the modifications you are not only working on the adjustment itself, either. Exposure adjustment affects colour, noise, detail and tone. Making matters worse, the adjustments are global which means that you have to balance highlights and dark areas.

The JPG is the final compressed 8-bit per colour per pixel image. Not only have you less data than with RAW, any changes are permanent and cannot be undone. .

That is not quite true either. Most photographers just save the original and the modified version separately, but only if there is a need to. Changes don't need to be undone because you always have your original and perhaps more than one modification if you are in doubt.

For example, imagine you convert an image to black & white, then the week after you decide you preferred the colour version better. In RAW you just undo the change that gave you black and white and hey presto you have a colour image again. In JPG when it's gone it's gone..

Converting is not really the ideal approach to black and white anyway, because it does not give you the appropriate tonal quality. You should be working from the beginning either totally in colour or totally in black and white. And if you have erased the original jpeg then it was your bad decision.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

Great example!

So basically since the raw files is the image right from the camera, more post processing can be done because the image still contains more data than the JPG. And the image will be more responsive to corrections just as if you were correcting them in the camera?

No, the RAW file has been converted in the camera from analogue to digital, so it is not direct. Post processing is different in that RAW post processing is global and requires balancing areas of the photo. With jpeg you can selectively process different parts of the photo separately. The difference in image responsiveness to the corrections is one of global versus selectivity. With RAW you need to be able to see how one correction may cause another problem and control it. Not easy for all photographers.

Ronnoco

[Ronnoco]

There seems to be some confusion about RAW and noise. Noise is not a quality of the file format, it is a quality of the sensor, and therefor it's impossible for RAW to have less noise than JPEG. Typically, RAW processing software applies a bit of noise reduction during the developing process, and makes it appear as if there's less noise.

No, it isn't, but if you have more adjustments in RAW and each adjustment has the potential to add noise, and smoothing the noise in RAW tends to reduce details.

Ronnoco

[payn817]

The best possible way to find something out is to have a go at it.
You can read all of this back and forth stuff, but it still won't show you a thing. In fact, it can seem overwhelming and difficult to some.

Picasa does a good job on conversions, granted you know the tools, and use the sliders instead of the "auto" functions. Raw shooter essentials 2006 seems to work well too, but runs slower on my machine.

As for the noise thing, that's my opinion, just going by what is on the print/screen.

[Ronnoco]

No matter what anyone tells you, it really doesn't hit you until you go out and see the results for yourself. Just pick a typical place/subject, shoot raw all day, and when you get around to working the files you can decide which is better for you.

No, wrong approach. Shoot raw + jpeg all day. Process your raw, do the transfer to jpeg, then compare. Blow up areas of one colour and look for colour noise. Look at detail in both the bright areas and the dark areas. Look at colour, particularly in the areas you processed in RAW versus the areas in the jpeg. Do selective processing on the jpeg files and the standard global processing on the raw files.

Then you will really see, which format, fits your style and level of experience and knowlege.

Ronnoco