RAW or JPG

[netrhino]

I've been a photographer for many years but I'm new to digital.

This is probably a question that has been asked many times before.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of RAW v JPG?

An explanation here, or a link to an explanation elsewhere would be very useful to me.

In case it's relevant I am using a Canon EOS300D

Thanks

Vince

[dannyrich]

I shoot in raw when i need the back up of just about recovering anything!

You can do much more with raw than JPEG from a recovery point of view.

[freybear3]

I am new to Raw myself. I just started shooting in Raw within the last month.

I can honestly say RAW is a good way to shoot your photos. Yes, it does take up ALOT more memory, but you are able to post process the photo really easy.

I was hesitant on using RAW, because i knew nothing about it. I was scared and clueless. But it didn't take me long to quickly get over that fear I just went out and shot a few shots in RAW, to see what all the hype was about. I came in and uploaded them to my computer, and i was in shock! I was like OMG i should always be shooting in Raw, lol.

I am not a big fan on post processing, but i can honestly say it makes it alot easier in the final photo.

You are able to do all the camera settings, well most, during post processing of Raw. It is nice.

[owiepenaflor]

Originally Posted by netrhino

I've been a photographer for many years but I'm new to digital.

This is probably a question that has been asked many times before.

What are the advantages/disadvantages of RAW v JPG?

An explanation here, or a link to an explanation elsewhere would be very useful to me.

In case it's relevant I am using a Canon EOS300D

Thanks

Vince

Hi Vince,
1. Using RAW eats up a lot in your memory card.
2. But using RAW give you a lot of advantage during post production especially in white balance and noise reduction.
3. I usually use RAW when my shot will be use in a contest or the shot quality is very very important for me and I would like to put extra room for post production.
4. Your RAW files cannot be openned on other picture viewer unlike JPG where it can be openned in most picture viewers. You still have to convert your RAW files before it can be viewed or printed.

'Hope it helps you understand when to use RAW and JPG.

Owie

[cdgaskin]

i must admit im new to raw myself, but since shooting it ive found that it gives you more options to change attributes of the shot that you wouldnt be able to change in jpeg, certain settings that you make on the camera are locked in jpeg but in raw only iso is locked so everything else no matter what your camera setup was can be changed. (you do need a big memory card as raw saves all camera info so each photo will be a large mb size) lastly if your camera saves raw and jpeg together use that so you can view your shots on your camera viewer there and then(you cant view raw in your on camera viewer as far as i can tell, correct me if im wrong)

[RichardT]

There is a lot of debate on which is best to shoot in, you'll get people from both sides who will tell you that they think their way is the best and that there is no other reason to use the other.

When shooting in RAW mode you are basically capturing all the information that the camera's image sensor is seeing at that specific point in time. This allows you to capture a lot more data that what is actually used to generate the image. Some like to say that the bit bucket is bigger than a jpeg.

With a jpeg the photo is already processed with certain settings that are determined by the camera. It is basically taking the RAW data and applying processing then removing all the unneeded data from the raw to generate a jpeg. This makes jpg files smaller, but also only gives the photo the minimum number of bits to generate the image.

What RAW does well is that it allows you to tweak the settings of the image more like changing white balance or adjusting the exposure without compromising image quality. Its also good are recovering from over exposed and underexposed images. Some people think of a RAW like a film negative and its up to you to process it to get the most out of the image.

As for some of the limitations I think they are slowly decreasing. With the price of storage going down its not as big of a hit on the number of photos that can be shot. I use a 16gb SDHC card and shoot only in RAW and I've never had to switch out cards during a course of a days shooting. As for image playback that is the only big downside, but if your only using a computer view photos than there are a lot of image viewers now that have build in raw viewing support. When I'm not inside lightroom I can still view my RAW files through picasa, its a little slower but it works.

Beyond what anyone will tell you about which is better, the pro and cons, I think its best for you to play around with both formats and see which one you like better.

[fletch]

Whoop Whoop - Go RAW

R A W
R A W
R A W

http://jfletcherphoto.wordpress.com/...you-shoot-raw/

[Quo Fan]

You're an old film guy. Think of it this way: Doing post on a jpeg is like editing a print that has photographed. Doing post on RAW is like editing from the original negative. You have much more control over the final product, because there is more information to work from.

[morts]

Use RAW. It's better.

Like everyone said, it gives FAR greater control during post-processing. Also, a fun quirk of RAW is that it saves ALL colour data, regardless of shooting mode. If you shoot in B&W, it will still save your colour data and simply set a "desaturate" flag on the file.

The upshot of this is that if you change your mind you can go back to colour with little effort on your part!

[harrysixtie7]

At high ISO, raw is your friend