RAW or JPEG

[dimitrz]

Hi All


After a long wait I have recently migrated from Digital camera to the DSLR.

One of the requirement I needed in a DSLR was RAW because I had heard how it can be a better format for capturing image when com pared to Jpeg.

Now that I am about to go on a holiday to the mountains with my new camera, i am a little bit confused so to wether I should stick to Jpeg or go for RAW shots?

Will it be too much work and need expert handling to handle and view raw images ?

Memory I believe is no big issue since I will have three 4 gb cards with me.

Thanks

[sdphil]

I have done a bit of reading regarding RAW and Jpeg files

The only advantages I see in RAW files are,
You can easily change white balance
The shot is exactly how you took it

The downside to this is that you will need to PP all your RAW files unless your such an awesome photographer that you nail it every time.

The down side to Jpeg is that the camera will make some adjustments to the image before saving it therefore deteriorating the image slightly in the process. From what I understand it's only if you PP the image several times will the loss of quality be apparent with high MP images.

There is also the consideration of the memory RAW files take and it will decrease the amount of images you can get on a card. This can obviously be corrected by simply having more cards on hand.

I have read that many pro photographers shoot in Jpeg so I think it's good enough for me.

Hope this helps.
Phil

[sandman935]

What software are you using for post processing?

[Snowdust]

A search will yield many, many topics on this.

I would just offer that unless you are looking to PP your images after shooting, you should probally shoot jpg. If you wanting to start to play in the raw space, then shoot jpg+raw. You will have a processed jpg OOF , and be able to play with the same file in raw if you later desire.

[Doug Pardee]

Originally Posted by dimitrz

One of the requirement I needed in a DSLR was RAW because I had heard how it can be a better format for capturing image when com pared to Jpeg.

To be pedagogical about it, a JPEG file captures an image but a Raw file captures sensor data.

The Raw file is not an image. A Raw file requires that you use software to interpret the sensor data to produce an image from it. The software will create an image by assigning color and brightness to each pixel. The color and brightness is based on the software's analysis of the sensor data contained in the Raw file and on the conversion settings that you have selected. Therefore, the specific qualities of the produced image will depend on the software that you use and the settings that you selected in that software.

Now that I am about to go on a holiday to the mountains with my new camera, i am a little bit confused so to wether I should stick to Jpeg or go for RAW shots?

Since memory isn't an issue, I suggest shooting Raw+JPEG. You'll have the JPEGs for convenience, and the Raw files to experiment/practice/play with.

Will it be too much work and need expert handling to handle and view raw images ?

That depends to some extent on the software that you choose for Raw file conversion, and to a huge extent on how much fooling around you choose to put into the conversions. A simple batch conversion "as shot" is very easy, but of course the results are little better (if any) than the in-camera JPEGs would be. In that case the advantage of Raw is that you could go back and convert some or all of the photos differently if you ever choose to.

[BryanC]

Originally Posted by sdphil

I have done a bit of reading regarding RAW and Jpeg files

The only advantages I see in RAW files are,
You can easily change white balance
The shot is exactly how you took it

There are more advantages shooting in RAW to different people. Shooting in Jpeg is also "exactly how you took it."

The downside to this is that you will need to PP all your RAW files unless your such an awesome photographer that you nail it every time.

The only PP needed for shooting in RAW is converting to a file format you can print or post online. This is the same step that is taken in camera if shooting in Jpeg. It has nothing to do with being an awesome photographer or not.

The down side to Jpeg is that the camera will make some adjustments to the image before saving it therefore deteriorating the image slightly in the process. From what I understand it's only if you PP the image several times will the loss of quality be apparent with high MP images.

The 'adjustments' made are compression. A first generation, high quality, low compression Jpeg image will compare in quality with the RAW file.

There is also the consideration of the memory RAW files take and it will decrease the amount of images you can get on a card. This can obviously be corrected by simply having more cards on hand.

The RAW files are larger, yes. They contain all of the data as recorded by the camera.

I have read that many pro photographers shoot in Jpeg so I think it's good enough for me.

As well as many that shoot in RAW.

Hope this helps.
Phil

The point of my post is: Do your research, get your information from many places. Understand what RAW files are, what Jpeg files are. There's alot of opinions out there, some being informed sources, some not. Educate yourself and decide what's best for you.

[Gonzo13]

I used to shoot film when I was younger and I worked on the school newspaper. I remember spending time in the dark room processing pictures. Once I started shooting with a DSLR I compared raw files with the negatives and jpeg files to the prints from the negative. A raw file saves all the info from the sensor and isn't permanently changed. A jpeg just uses and saves the settings that you were using at that time like a polaroid. The only time that I shoot in jpeg+raw is when I don't have access to a computer that can convert raw files and I want to put the files on a computer right away. It sucks when you forget to change the white balance or the picture style, for example going outside after shooting inside and forgetting to or not having time to change from tungsten to sunlight and having all the pictures come out blue. Or not changing the from monochrome and taking pictures of colorful flowers. In raw you can change all that in PP with a jpeg you might just be out of luck.

~Gonzo13

[NZMXr]

I am a RAW convert , have been using RAW for over a year now so my opinion is to shoot RAW if you can, true it does require PP but you can get alot more from your pix than as a jpeg (they are smaller files for a reason )

[dcclark]

Have you had time to play around with raw file, and learn about converting them, post-processing, etc.? It can be a time-consuming process. If you are going to take a lot of photos on vacation and haven't figured out a good raw workflow, I would definitely stick with jpegs.

Actually, I would stick with jpegs anyhow, unless you have a compelling need to seriously post-process all of your images.

[fletch]

DSLRs JPEG files nomally need PP to bring out the best in them, even if you do get it right in camera they are still a little muted and flat. IMO this negates the "RAWs take time to process" arguement.