RAW or JPEG!!!

[andre]

Originally Posted by Foppel

That means that in terms of visual impression (not data quality, and not counting in compression, 8bit etc) straight from the camera an image in RAW should be the same as JPEG.

Am I wrong in that assumption?

Hi!

Take a look at this article I came across:

http://blog.epicedits.com/2008/04/07...al-comparison/

[javavibe]

You are correct the jpg image is created with RAW data and then the RAW data is discarded and the jpg is saved. What I think is important to know is what happens in the conversion to jpg process. A RAW file is exactly that, raw. There has been no conversion or filter applied. The preset data is there, but it hasn't been applied in a destructive manner. That's why you can adjust the white balance so easily in RAW, your software knows what the expected value is but it can be changed if you want. When RAW is converted to jpg in your camera several things happen. First colour is evaluated based on the intensity of the light hitting the sensor. Your camera will then uses a Colour Filter Array or Bayer Matix with an algorithm to fix a RGB value for each pixel (it also takes an average of the surrounding pixels to evaluate the colour). The white balance is fixed to jpg either based on the camera preset or automatically. There will be an anti-aliasing filter applied to the jpg to remove artifacts. This is why jpg can have a soft or fuzzy look. Because camera sensors measure intensity (twice the light equals double the voltage) images taken straight out of the camera can look dark (we view luminosity in a logarithmic manner not linear) so there is a tone curve applied to the image to correct this. The curve is applied to lighten the image and get a more realistic image. There are presets in the camera to control contrast and saturation (in most camera's you can change these presets) that are applied to the jpg during conversion. Jpg's are 8 bit images, but the image capture will be 12 or 14 bit. So that extra data is discarded during the conversion. Finally jpg is a lossy compressed file, that means in order to create the smaller file data is removed and discarded. If you shoot RAW, none of this happens. You get all the data, with none of the adjustments or destructive filters being applied. Boy, that's a lot. I hope this makes it a little easier to understand and not confuse anyone more. I got this information from a very knowledgeable photographer from Blackpool England, David Nightingale.

[hydroment]

Originally Posted by sfmoe

I think thats the best explanation yet, simplistic is always the best

JPEG : instant
RAW: negative

That is a good summarization, but let me add to it.

Another reason to use raw format would be for not only the post proc, but also for the print. It may take longer to get the image to the printer due to more information, but each printer and driver reads picture and color info just a little differently. The more info you can send it the better chances you have of getting a true representation of color, lighting, contrast, WB, etc. Some of the desktop printers use not only 4 colors, CMYK, but 6 and 8 as well. I don't know if you remember the Alps printers. They were a multi-pass printer that used up to about a dozen cassette cartridges that it would call for when needed including whites and metallics.

Most better image processing software and hardware will have some sort of calibration sceme or color management system to ensure quality results through each stage of processing. If in a situation of "only get one shot" you would be better off to shoot in RAW to save all the information the camera sees so that you can be sure that information would get to the final print.

[my wife tells me I am wordy and do not explain things well. So I hope this one made sense]

Mike

[victor.ghost]

I honestly shoot JPG 85-90% of the time... I get into RAW If I'm taking some calculated shots (model shots, assignment shots, stuff like this). Even though RAW is great for pp and setting white balance afterwards, I find it that I can just shoot 10 pictures (10 jpgs=1 raw in file size; I like burst) and get at least one image worthy. With raw I have to wait a lot for it to be written to the card and I lost a few good shots because of this. Another reason why I particulary like to shoot in JPG is that the .raf made by my Fuji is not that well supported by RAW editors (but with LR 1.4 I noticed that the noise introduced in my RAWs went down).

Another thing... I read somewhere that the best way to shoot concerts is to shoot them RAW... I shoot 1000+ shots at a concert, not to miss anything... RAW would be very bulky in such conditions (slow card writing, only 100 shots enter my 2 gb card and such). What doi you think?

[coreypotter]

I already know that I WANT to shoot in raw. I have Photoshop CS.
My question is... once I get the pictures on my computer, HOW do I do some of this post processing?
How do I change the white balance?
Photoshop CS wont even open RAW files for me... do I need a plugin, or is there another method of doing it?
What are some other practical tips about editing RAW files?

If someone could direct me to another website or post with this kind of information, I would be very grateful!

[javavibe]

You should be able to open RAW files in CS. Link here to see the page from Adobe's website. You might need to add you cameras update to be able to use it. If you are using a Nikon (NEF) camera, there is a link here to correct it. Looks like there was some issues with the Nikon plugin. This page also includes a link to the update ACR software.

[tigervyh]

If you've read the advice, JPEG is for the shoot-and-print, save-your-time occasions when you just don't have the time to go through the hassle of post-processing your photos! If you have lots of time to post process and you have lots of spare memory cards, then go ahead and shoot in RAW.

Shooting in RAW also will required a slightly longer shooting time, as the files are a few times larger, it'll take the camera more time to save to your memory cards, so if you are using the standard memory cards, then that time will be longer.

[ditch_azeroth]

raw is definitely the best output that you can get quality-wise. that said, it is not always advisable to shoot in raw. when turnaround time is key, shooting in jpeg is better. if you are planning to pass your pictures to competitions and all similar high-calibre areas, raw is essential because basically, it just gives you more options. in the advent of lightroom and aperture, and other similar software, even jpegs have similar options to raw... not entirely the same set of options, but similar. the question here is what do you need your pictures for? answer that and you'll know whether to shoot raw or jpeg, or raw+jpeg.

[coreypotter]

I found out why my version of Photoshop wouldn't open raw files... I needed to update the Camera Raw plugin. In case anyone else needs the link... you can find the newest version of the plugin at http://www.adobe.com/support/downloa...jsp?ftpID=3896

[mseljos]

I shoot exclusively in raw. It gives me total control over the processing I may have to do on the image later if necessary. I would rather determine what needs to be done, if anything, rather than the camera trying to do it for me. Also, my Canon camera is not a high-end pro camera, so shooting in raw allows me to push the camera to its quality limits.