Either/Or: Raw or Jpg?

[Nicole]

This is the first of what will be called "Either/Or" polls. What we'd like you to do is tell us, if you could only pick one, which one you would pick and why. As Saralonde told me "No wishy-washiness allowed". You might use both of the options, but if you could only use one, which would you pick.

This week, we want to know: Jpg or Raw.

If you had to pick either Jpg or Raw to shoot in, which would you pick and why? It doesn't matter if your camera doesn't use Raw, if you want to use it, tell us why. If your camera shoots in 8 different formats, tell us whether you would use Jpg or Raw and why. Of course, these are all supposed to be fun. There is no right or wrong answer, but you guys already know that

This is one of the more contentious issues in digital photography, right up there with the debate over Canon or Nikon. The blog has a very comprehensive article about the differences between Raw and Jpg. The biggest differences are that Raw is uncompressed and unprocessed, while Jpg is compressed and processed in the camera.

Lots of people have discussed the issue of Raw or Jpg, including Ken Rockwell and Luminous Landscape. And if you want a technical explanation of how the Raw, Jpg, and Tiff formats differ, you might want to read up on it at Photo.net.

So, let's hear it guys, Raw or Jpg?

[Nicole]

I'll get this discussion going. Personally, I would pick Raw.

I think that Jpgs are convenient, and great for sending in e-mails. But when it comes down to it, I want the control that you get when you're processing the Raw files. What I find to be the best part is the ability to tweak the white balance before you even do anything else. That way, if you forgot to change the WB, or you left it on Auto and the camera picked wrong, your shots are not lost. The other thing that sets Raw apart for me is that it seems to be much less susceptible to colour banding than Jpg because it's not compressing the file. If I'm doing really minimalist shots, Jpg can fall down there because it compresses the colour information.

So for those reasons, I'd pick Raw if I had to pick one.

[Saralonde]

Ok, just to be different, I'll pick jpeg. I've shot in RAW, but as I do very little post processing, and most of that in Picasa, jpeg works out fine for me. A nice advantage to jpeg is if you are taking a lot of shots and your card is filling up fast, jpeg definitely takes up less space. Shooting jpeg also forces me to pay attention totry to get the WB right while I'm taking the shot.

So I'll vote jpeg.

[thingy]

Storage is cheap! RAW everytime without question. Who knows what you might want to do with your images at a later date. Why restrict the post processing potential of a shot to a compressed lossy format.

My brief POV

G

[tufcat]

I picked RAW. I like the post processing options and the ability to fix a bad shot (Lord knows I take more than my share of bad shots). I like the many options that come with shooting in RAW, though I would miss some of the conveniences and ease uploading JPGs right out of the camera.

[jdepould]

I've only ever shot JPEG once and it was because I needed the extra buffer space for continuous drive. D200 solved that problem nicely.

[NaturesPixel]

i shoot raw on my nikon D80 cause i sell my photos.. or at least i try too ...lol and when you use jpeg with in camera it compresses it, you then open it up in what ever program you use and do some minor detail save it again and you loose more detail cause its being compressed yet again So the more you save this jpeg the more data you loose with in your image...... if your selling photos or even printing them for family or your self i believe that you should soot in the highest possible setting your camera has..

having said that if im just doing thanks giving dinner or something similar i sometimes soot jpeg

my 2¢ worth

[Sime]

RAAAAAAAAWWWWW!!!.... innit

Raw has made my phototaking so much more flexible with loads more options in post, not that I do a lot of post but hey ho... Love it.

S

[wulf]

JPEG - it is hard enough finding time to process JPEG shots let alone if I only had the option of shooting in RAW.

In fact, I'll 'fess up... I haven't even tried RAW yet, even though I've had my D40 for over six months now. I like the idea but practicalities like time and file size have held me back so for.

One day... but for now I have voted JPEG.

Wulf

[jdepould]

Originally Posted by wulf

JPEG - it is hard enough finding time to process JPEG shots let alone if I only had the option of shooting in RAW.

In fact, I'll 'fess up... I haven't even tried RAW yet, even though I've had my D40 for over six months now. I like the idea but practicalities like time and file size have held me back so for.

One day... but for now I have voted JPEG.

Wulf

If you have a program like Lightroom or Aperture then processing RAW isn't really different from JPEG. Most of the corrections are simple EV, contrast, and minor color adjustments. If you don't have a RAW editor then I can see how it would be a complete PITA.