Why Shoot in RAW???

[Chip]

Originally Posted by fletch

Only by understanding the process can you maximise your results.

If someone can demonstrate a full understanding of what a RAW file is, how to use it and the unpsides and downsides and then chooses to shoot JPEG I will say "Well done, JPEG is right for you". However I have yet to see that in this thread.

With todays software technology RAW should be the default (on a DSLR) and people should only shoot JPEG if they need to. However the default appears to be the other way round for most people.

fletch - I clearly don't have a full understanding of RAW, but that will hopefully come with time.

I've only recently started shooting in RAW (long story). Since I'm on pretty steep RAW learning curve, I have a question:

Assuming that the dynamic range of a photo falls within what JPEG can handle, and assuming that I get all technical aspects of the photo (WB, exposure, etc) perfectly correct, will there be any noticeable difference if I took the photo in RAW v. JPEG?

[kirbinster]

Originally Posted by Chip

Assuming that the dynamic range of a photo falls within what JPEG can handle, and assuming that I get all technical aspects of the photo (WB, exposure, etc) perfectly correct, will there be any noticeable difference if I took the photo in RAW v. JPEG?

That is a VERY BIG assumption. IFF it is true then JPEG is for you. Out in the real world (Not in the studio were you can control lighting) more times than not you cannot get everything perfect. For those cases RAW will save you rear-end on many occasions.

[Chip]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

That is a VERY BIG assumption. IFF it is true then JPEG is for you. Out in the real world (Not in the studio were you can control lighting) more times than not you cannot get everything perfect. For those cases RAW will save you rear-end on many occasions.

Thanks. I was just looking for some confirmation of how this all works in theory. (I have no illusions about perfection.) Appreciate the feedback.

[Jim Bryant]

look at it this way. Would you rather work in thousands of color bands or 256? When you shoot jpeg, it compress like colors into 256 color bands. That's why RAW images look to be more color saturated, vibrant and sharper.

Originally Posted by Chip

fletch - I clearly don't have a full understanding of RAW, but that will hopefully come with time.

I've only recently started shooting in RAW (long story). Since I'm on pretty steep RAW learning curve, I have a question:

Assuming that the dynamic range of a photo falls within what JPEG can handle, and assuming that I get all technical aspects of the photo (WB, exposure, etc) perfectly correct, will there be any noticeable difference if I took the photo in RAW v. JPEG?

[vandergus]

look at it this way. Would you rather work in thousands of color bands or 256? When you shoot jpeg, it compress like colors into 256 color bands.

Seriously Jim, this thread is already filled with plenty of misinformation. Jpeg's are compressed to 8 bits (256 values) per color channel, giving you about 16 million possible colors (256^3).

Yes, RAW files give you more data to work with, but let's try to keep the facts straight.

[Jim Bryant]

Originally Posted by vandergus

Seriously Jim, this thread is already filled with plenty of misinformation. Jpeg's are compressed to 8 bits (256 values) per color channel, giving you about 16 million possible colors (256^3).

Yes, RAW files give you more data to work with, but let's try to keep the facts straight.

yup typo on my part, didn't put in all the info, but still........

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Chip

Assuming that the dynamic range of a photo falls within what JPEG can handle, and assuming that I get all technical aspects of the photo (WB, exposure, etc) perfectly correct, will there be any noticeable difference if I took the photo in RAW v. JPEG?

It really depends on what you do with the RAW file. If you convert to JPEG in exactly the same way as your camera would have done then yes, they will be the same. If you are going to do any editing at all with the JPEG then the RAW will always be superior as it will have had one less compression cycle. Thats part of the joy with RAW, conversion and editing is all one step, its just editing these days. With a JPEG the camera does the conversion first, the you do the editing as a separate step.

For me the RAW vs JPEG is less about quality and compression its more about ease of use. I find RAWs so much easier I couldn't imagine shooting JPEG even for snap shots.

[Chip]

Thanks, fletch. That makes sense.

[Swisstony10]

I wonder if U2's latest music was recorded in a studio direct to 44.1khz MP3 files...


Russ.

[fletch]

Originally Posted by Swisstony10

I wonder if U2's latest music was recorded in a studio direct to 44.1khz MP3 files...


Russ.

I wonder why that is relevant but hey ho. I bet lots of amateur bands recored straight to MP3 files. Then again they won't be using profesional level equipment. Help Help, we are getting lost in an analogy.