Under which circumstances does RAW show the greatest advantage over JPEG?

[dlwjiang]

I can't seem to see a difference when I open the files in Lightroom, at least initially, I'm guessing the main strength is in certain types of post-processing.

What types of post-processing would benefit most from RAW, and under which circumstances would a photo be taken to require such post-processing?

[Jonbar18]

Raw is an un-compressed format. Meaning unlike, JPEG, ti doesn't through out some data to make the file size smaller. It also isn't affected by white balance so you could set one in PP

[nickbedford]

All types of processing. The great thing about RAW is that you are provided the sensor data to turn into whatever image you want (and thus, a JPEG). With JPEG, you're letting the camera do the work. Sure you can shoot great photos in JPEG, but you'd be hard pressed to get great results trying to change it too much. With RAW, you start from scratch and generate the image you want.

As soon as I switched to RAW I immediately felt so much more in control of how I was developing my photos, but in no way did it hinder me. The only thing that is now required is to import and quickly process the photos.

Another difference with developing RAW files over JPEG is that you get orders of magnitude more accurate data to work with when processing.

JPEGs are typically only 16.7 million colours, each component of which has 256 possible values. In 14-bit RAW (on many higher end DSLRs), your "pixels", whilst not stored linearly allow 16,384 possible values of intensity. For an entire RGB pixel that's 4,398,046,511,104 possible colours. Keep in mind that RAW sensor data is typically not stored as red, green, blue pixels and a tone curve has not been applied.

Here's an article you might want to read: http://mansurovs.com/raw-vs-jpeg

[Digidave]

I can't seem to see a difference when I open the files in Lightroom

When you open a RAW file in any program what you are actually seeing is a jpeg that was rendered by that program. If you shoot RAW plus jpeg in camera & compare the 2 in any program, what you are looking at is a jpeg that was rendered in camera using your camera settings & an imbedded jpeg that was rendered by that particular program using your camera settings. There will most likely be a small difference between the two.

[inkista]

Try this.

Select the white balance "tungsten" setting.

Go outside in the daytime, and take a picture of someone, one in RAW, another in JPEG.

Bring them both into Lightroom, and fix the white balance--particularly in terms of getting the skin tones correct.

Then put the camera into B&W mode, with a red filter on it.

Again, shoot a picture of someone in RAW, and another in JPEG.

Go into Lightroom, and try to remove the red filter, and make it as if you shot with a green filter instead.

You'll see why RAW is better in some situations.

[dlwjiang]

Thank you all for the replies but they're all rather standard and cookie cutter. Basic explanations as well as a bunch of data no one really remembers accurately.

What I really want to know what types of pictures would benefit most from RAW, as compared to being only a slight difference only a blown up picture or a professional would care about.

Say throughout the day you have one memory card that can shoot 100 JPEGS and 10 RAW photos, when would you shoot the RAW photos? Do you see an HDR opportunity? Is it useful for long exposures? A colorful scene? A landscape? A portrait? A dark area? With a tripod? During the golden hour?

[Woody]

Mate,

It appears that maybe at this stage of your photography development, you should just stick to jpeg.

Whether its RAW or jpeg or what ever, it makes no difference to the type of photo you wish to take. All digital cameras take images in RAW. It is only then that the little computer in the camera processes the file into a jpeg image. This jpeg image is the cameras interpretation of the scene you have exposed it to.

By taking a photo in RAW, just means that you take the file that the camera has made and you can process or modify it yourself in say Lighroom.

So if YOU wish to control the PROCESSING of the picture, use RAW or if you want to allow the camera to process for you, use jpeg.

Happy snapping.

Cheers

John W

[Mr Guy]

The most honest answer you're going to find:

RAW has the greatest advantage over JPEGs when you make a mistake or change your mind after the fact.

Depending on the camera and type of mistake, RAW can let you adjust white balance significantly, push and pull exposures much farther, as well as selectively develop portions of pictures separately.

[RecurrentNerve]

What I really want to know what types of pictures would benefit most from RAW, as compared to being only a slight difference only a blown up picture or a professional would care about.

All of them.

If you have the software to process it and can be bothered to learn it, shoot RAW.

[inkista]

Originally Posted by dlwjiang

What I really want to know what types of pictures would benefit most from RAW, as compared to being only a slight difference only a blown up picture or a professional would care about.

RAW gives you more latitude in post-processing. So the kind of shots that benefit the most are where you are likely to make the largest amount of change in post processing, whether that's pushing saturation, shifting color tones, or adjusting exposure. While you can really only shift exposure a stop in one direction or another with JPEG without losing information, with RAW, you can shift two stops or more. How far do you want to be able to move the sliders in Lightroom?

Say throughout the day you have one memory card that can shoot 100 JPEGS and 10 RAW photos, when would you shoot the RAW photos?

For me, typically, it's when I don't have time to carefully set everything up to get it completely correct in-camera. When I have to run'n'gun, or when I know I'm going to work with a tough white-balance correction situation (mixed lighting), or tough-to-gauge exposure situation (high dynamic range, night shooting--something where the meter is going to be guessing very wrong) where even my histogram can't guide me well.

Do you see an HDR opportunity? Is it useful for long exposures? A colorful scene? A landscape? A portrait? A dark area? With a tripod? During the golden hour?

All of the above, actually. Also B&W shooting, because you'll retain all the color information for B&W conversion, which shooting in JPEG would discard.

For most of us who shot film, RAW is like having a negative, while JPEG is like having a print. What you can do in producing a final image (print) is pretty different. That doesn't mean JPEG is useless, or that you can't manipulate it, but you're much more limited in what you can do. If you nail exactly what you want in camera every time, then JPEG will be fine for you. Most of us don't manage to do that, especially when we get more experienced with post-processing and realize how much more you can enhance a photo by tweaking it in post.