RAW, Jpeg fine, basic etc

[nyrfan44]

I, like most of you in this section use a Nikon D50. For my memory cards I use Sandisk SD Ultra II 1.0gb cards and have just received two SanDisk Extreme III 2.0gb cards as a gift. No I was wondering since I have been shooting in either Jpeg basic (large) or RAW (large). Which would be best for photojournalism and sports photography and most efficient at the same time.

I know that RAW and and Jpeg (all three version including RAW+JPEG setting) are a big issue among DigPhotog's. but, with all that I have read yet again. I have yet to find a definitive answer, if any...

[wulf]

It depends on your workflow, all the way from the settings you choose on the camera to what you do with your pictures afterwards (both post processing and the usage you put them to).

Personally (and speaking as a D40 user... but the answers apply to a wide range of cameras), I find fine quality JPEG files at medium size (or large if I know I will need to do a crop-based "zoom") are great at the moment. My laptop can cope with processing them and they generally look reasonable straight out of the camera.

Recently I have been getting back into post-processing but I still find the fine JPEGs give me a lot of scope for adjustment. I have to admit that I still haven't tried RAW and, when I do, perhaps I'll be hooked on that for a while.

However, I don't think there is a definitive answer - if I was wanting to take lots of action shots solely for the purpose of publishing on a website, I might go for small fine JPEGS (smaller files should give faster processing in camera and will certainly be quicker to sort and cut down to web-suitable sizes) whereas, if someone was paying me to take some portraits, I would feel much more motivated to learn how to deal with RAW files so I could get as much information as possible to play with in the digital darkroom (even if I had to put all the proceeds towards a new computer to cope with the RAM demands).

Wulf

[nyrfan44]

Ok.. I guess it will have to be chosen on a case by case basis.. Thank you Wulf...

[Sime™]

G'day nyrfan44 I'd not used RAW until very recently (up until then it had always been as large a jpg as I could allow for cards sake) but, with the bevvy of cards I received from one of my suppliers (4 x 4gb) I now shoot in RAW+LARGE JPG ...so I get a raw file and a large jpg at the same time... jpg is good if i'm mucking about and don't want to have to convert etc (as Wulf said, depends on your workflow) But I really LOVE the flexibility that raw offers me... i'm a convert

(And yeah - RAW+LIGHTROOM=RAM HEAVY...2gb P4 3.6...gets there, slowly!)

[Nicole]

Like Sime I'm a Raw+Jpg girl (of course, Sime's not a girl, but you get the idea :p) I use that option because sometimes I just want to upload the jpgs to Flickr without a lot of post-processing work. So that's when the jpgs come in really handy. But, I figure by shooting with Raw as well, I've also got the option to work with the file more should I want to. Sometimes that's really useful. But obviously it does depend on your needs and how much time you want to spend on your workflow. :)

[tufcat]

I shoot RAW + JPG as well. You can get 239 captions, on a 2GB card, using this setting on your D50. The (in camera) processing is a little slower, but you can get still get a four shot burst in continuous mode. Contrary to most of the photos I post on this site, I shoot a lot of action photos, mostly racing cars. This setting works well for that application.

PROs:
[1] I print a lot of my photos (large format). The RAW image offers a lot of post processing options.
[2] The JPG format makes for quick and easy viewing of all pictures on the card. I tend to take a lot of pictures. I view the JPGs quickly using Windows Explorer and pick out the ones I want to print. I then open the corresponding RAW file in Photoshop Elements, which I use for post processing.
[3] You can view the card's contents on virtually any computer (JPG format). You only need a RAW converter if you want to do post processing on a selected shot.

CONs:
[1] In most cases, you will still need to resize the image to post it online.
[2] Takes up more space on your card. If you need to take more than 239 images before downloading your images to a computer, take an extra card.

As noted above, it all depends what you intend to do with your photos. If you just want to share your pictures online, small JPGs are perfect. If you want to print your pictures, then a larger format is recommended.

Also, despite all of the post processing discussions you hear, many people print from JPG formats with little or no post processing. The D50 delivers a pretty good image right from the camera. You can make pretty good prints by using a larger JPG format.

[nyrfan44]

Well, thank you all. The info given has been most helpful. Like all of you have said my options will have to be taken into account on a case by case basis. but, so far I guess I shall be shooting in JPG Large for most of the time and RAW+Jpeg for those special pic's.




My learning curve has increased greatly since joining this site.

[magnuscanis]

Up to now I've been saving photos exclusively as JPEG on my D40. Having read somewhere the other day that the GIMP (my image editor of choice) is supposed to be able to import Nikon's NEF format, along with a bunch of other RAW file formats, I decided this morning to try a few shots on RAW+JPG mode.

The GIMP (version 2.2 for Linux) was able to load the .nef file, but it came out as a very small, very blocky image. Am I just doing something stupid, or is RAW support in the GIMP broken? Does anyone know of any free, or at least open source, software that can handle NEF files? I'm committed to using open source software as far as possible.

I'd like to use RAW images as, by all accounts, they offer significant advantages over JPEG, but I don't want to make my image processing workflow substantially more complicated than it currently is, or to spend lots of money on software for processing the files.

- Magnus

[nyrfan44]

Try the free online version of Adobe photoshop, I use it sometimes.. In fact i'm myself will be in the market for a better program soon. I most likely will be upgrading the Adobe.

[wulf]

I think you might have to load a plugin (ufRaw?) to get the Gimp playing nicely with RAW images. I haven't tried it yet but you could check the Gimp groups on Flickr for information - I am sure someone has talked about it there.

Wulf

[magnuscanis]

Oh yes, thanks.

I checked out the "GIMP users" group discussion archives on Flickr and found a few references to ufraw, so I checked out the Ubuntu package repositories and was able to find a ufraw plugin for the Gimp, which I've now installed.

On loading a RAW file, it brings up a dialog box with lots of complicated looking options for things like setting/altering the white balance and the exposure before loading the file. It gives you a full preview of the effect of your chosen settings, but unfortunately doesn't seem to offer any easy way to flit between the current settings and the default values, which I would find to be useful for seeing if changes are heading in the right direction. Still, it means I can now process RAW files.

I'm not sure yet whether I will switch to using RAW format on the camera, but I'll certainly give it a try for a while.

- Magnus

[magnuscanis]

Shortly after my last post on this subject I discovered that the image I'd converted from RAW was missing any EXIF data.

With a bit of reading around the subject, it seems that the RAW format should save the EXIF information but that the software I'm using to convert the files (ufraw, either standalone or as a plugin to the Gimp) doesn't preserve it. I gather that you can compile ufraw with EXIF support, but I don't have time to play around with that just now.

I must admit that I find it useful to be able to refer to the EXIF data, probably more than to be able to tweak the raw images, so if I can't find a smooth way of keeping the information I'm not likely to stick with shooting RAW. I've found a solution, but it's not very convenient as yet although I might be able to automate a lot of it with some judicious scripting.

Essentially, I'm storing the shots on my camera in RAW + JPEG mode and the JPEG version keeps its EXIF data without trouble. I found a utility called exiv2 that enables you to import and export EXIF data from JPEG files. That means that I can load the RAW file, manipulate it as necessary, save it as a good quality JPEG and then export the data from the basic quality JPEG version into the new one. The data may no longer be entirely accurate regarding things like exposure compensation and white balance, but at least it retains the information about aperture and focal length which is what I mostly want anyway.

On the other hand, I'm still not entirely convinced that RAW originals offer me significant enough advantages over fine quality JPEGs, at least for my current level of shooting and photo usage, to make it worth the extra hassle of processing them.

- Magnus

[nyrfan44]

Well, since I first posted this thread. I have tried using each setting that my D50 has.. Jpeg Fine seems to be the overall best for common everyday photo's. But, when it comes down to those pic's that I know I will need to work with in a program. RAW it shall be..

[bigdoggold]

I shoot in RAW almost all the time and convert in Lightroom. I like the flexibility that RAW gives me, and it truly is not that big a deal to convert, especially if you want to do some nice things in post to your shots.

But when I am not really caring about things I shoot in JPEG so I can just download and enjoy the shoots.