RAW or Jpeg?

[clairebear150980]

I'm new to this and recently bought a Canon 350D (second hand). I'm familiar with the camera because I've spent the last year or so pinching my boyfriends. He always shoots Jpeg and tells me that shooting RAW is just too timeconsuming in the editing needed. However, I'm having real trouble balancing the exposures in the sky and land in my landscape pictures and it's driving me nuts!!!

I bought a polariser when I bought my camera and that has helped to make the sky bluer, but I'm still not getting fully balanced shots. After reading around in mags and online, I've reached the conclusion that the solution is either to buy an NDgrad filter, or shoot in RAW.

So the question is, should I be shooting my landscapes in RAW or can I get the shots I want in JPeg with better manual settings (of f and shutter speed)?

[iffles]

I shoot in RAW + jpg. For me, it's the best of both worlds. I've found, though, that I usually end up editing the RAW file intsead of the jpg.

Here's the way I see your situation: if you want to get the perfectly exposed shot right ouf the camera without doing any editing, you're going to need that ND filter. Without the filter, your best option is to take two shots - one exposed for the sky and one exposed for the foreground, and then edit the photos together. However, unless you have tripod, it's hard to get the exact same shot two times in a row. This is where shooting in RAW is an advantage becuase you can adjust the exposure after the fact to get two images better than you can with a jpg. Either way, though, you're going to have to edit the files, so shooting in RAW isn't making it any more difficult.

I don't have an ND filter or a tripod, though, and I just use two different exposures from one RAW file and it does ok for me.

Anyway, my advice is, if you have a big enough memory card, switch to RAW + jpg until you decide for yourself which way you prefer.

Sorry if that was round-about and not really a good final answer

[alex3410]

i was doing that until i figured out my camera would only save the jpg at 3MP instead of the full 10 :P so read the manual before opting for this

also lightroom is worth a look it takes all of the hassle out of using RAW files

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by alex3410

i was doing that until i figured out my camera would only save the jpg at 3MP instead of the full 10 :P so read the manual before opting for this

Nikon's lower-end models will only do "RAW + JPEG (basic)" which means that the jpeg is of "basic" quality (probably like 80% jpeg quality or something similar). Other than that, I have no clue what you mean -- every DSLR I know of has full-sized jpegs (10 MP if your sensor can do 10 MP, etc.). Are you thinking megaBYTES, instead of megaPIXELS?

Also, as far as the "why use raw?" question -- check out this thread on that very topic which is active right now.

[alex3410]

its either 3MP or 30% (i assumed both would be the same on a 10MP camera? ) but its a bridge camera not a full SLR

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by alex3410

its either 3MP or 30% (i assumed both would be the same on a 10MP camera? ) but its a bridge camera not a full SLR

No -- you seem confused. There are two different things we could be talking about: number of pixels or file size. These are very different things.

The number of pixels (measured in megapixels) is a feature of the sensor -- you can have a 10 MP sensor, or 12 MP, or whatever. You can usually make photos "smaller" by choosing different image sizes -- so that the camera uses only the center 8 MP or 6 MP of the sensor. You may want to check your settings to ensure that this is set to its maximum.

The file size (measured in megabytes) produced by the camera is related to, but not the same as, the number of pixels. This is simply the size of the data, as stored in a file on your memory card (or hard disk). If you shoot raw, then you will have a large file -- because ALL data from the sensor is there, including a lot of stuff you wouldn't notice if it were gone. If you shoot jpeg, then the image will have been compressed -- for example, a big blue sky doesn't take up much space at all, because in a jpeg that is essentially stored as "put a big blue gradient HERE" -- takes a lot less space than recording every single pixel, and visually it's hard to tell the difference. However, an image stored in jpeg still has the same number of pixels as an image stored in raw -- it's just HOW those pixels are stored (or compressed) that changes.

3 megabytes is about the right size for a 10 megapixel file stored as a jpeg -- I highly suspect that's what's going on. The file size (in megabytes) does NOT tell you the megapixel rating of your camera.

Here's something to try: change to jpeg mode, take a photo, then open it up in your favorite photo editor and find the image dimensions (how many pixels tall, how many pixels wide). Multiply those together and divide by 1,000,000 -- that's how many megapixels are in your image.

[clairebear150980]

So, the general consensus is shoot RAW.

Thanks for the help guys. I guess I'll be trying RAW this wekend. Lol

[dcclark]

Originally Posted by clairebear150980

So, the general consensus is shoot RAW.

Thanks for the help guys. I guess I'll be trying RAW this wekend. Lol

If you're just starting, you probably should shoot jpeg, and focus on the really important things: composition, lighting, shapes, colors, textures, and so on. Shooting raw is a technical issue which is really a red herring, until you're far more confident with your own abilities.

[autofocus]

What I've noticed is your position relative to the sun will often dictate how good your sky will look...with, or without a polarizer. As you swing and compose your shot closer to the light source (the sun) the rich saturation of the sky will change. Yes, RAW will give you more latitude, but unless you are having trouble with your white balance I think you should be able to get some very nice shots shooting JPEG, and not have to fuss with RAW conversions.

[alex3410]

thanks dcclark for helping after trying out your tip they are the same size as in image size but the file size on average is 50% smaller for photos taken at the same time as the RAW