• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Raw VS JPEG (1 Viewer)

T

tizziec

Well-known member
I know this topic has probably allready been discussed but it did not come on on my search and I can't find it anywhere myself but..

My new camera has the option to record in RAW (never had the option) and I just tried it with a random picture of my daughter's robot, and was able to get the image up and kind of tweaked in the software that came with the camera (Pentax Photo Lab) and I was wondering (as i am clueles here with all the digital/computer stuff) with my birding photography should I experiment with RAW? And what are the pros and cons with RAW and JPEG? I will say that I have been having a bit of trouble with glares from my high whites (Especially my egrets) and a fwe issues with purple fringe that I have been trying to work out with my settings and white balance (the AWB seems to be a little off for bird photography when the sky is behind the subject) and I was thinking maybe recording in RAW will give me more of an oprotunity to fix my issues (not to mention I could use a grand or so to buy a really good lense, but that is a whole different problem that I don't think you all can help me with... unless someone is a multibillionare and would love to through me a couple of million so I can live a charmed life ;) )
 
There's no right or wrong here - people get great pictures with each format.

My personal preference is to shoot RAW, simply because I feel I get better detail rendition, and because I need the extra "room to manouevre" I get with RAW for highlight recovery.

For the problem you mention with the egrets, if you're doing everything you can with the camera to control blown highlights and still get them, then RAW would help.

It can't perform miracles though.

With a decent PC and good converter software, RAW post processing is every bit as quick as jpeg post processing.
 
Hi Tizziec

There have been many threads and discussions on this subject on BF. I tend to shoot mainly JPG mainly because I don't have a great deal of time and a bit lazy of that front. I save the RAW format for the tricky shots. Although RAW does give you some latitude to correct errors in a number of areas but is probably least useful when dealing with blown highlights. You would be better off learning how to read the scene and compensate the exposure as required.

You will find one camp who swear by RAW and the other camp who say life is too short. Try it for yourself and see if it gives you the results you want or it is not worth the effort.
 
Last edited:
Well I went out today and took some raw images and I also had an egret hang out long enough to play with settings a bit. Of course today is quite over cast so the blown highlights will be less of problem anyway
 
I personally don't think I get better images with higher detail because I shoot in RAW but I am confident I can resolve minor mistakes in the field. However, if you totally lose detail in shadow or highlights, it is lost for ever...RAW or not. The data is not captured by the camera, so it can not be adjusted or added during RAW processing (you get shades of grey if you adjust exposure, but no detail).

The question of RAW taking longer...I don't understand why people are so hung up on this. There is potentially 1 extra step when working with RAW, the conversion to TIFF or JPEG. If you wish to adjust exposure, white balance, saturation, sharpness etc. then you can, but if you have it set how you want in camera, there is no need. However, you can make adjustments if you need to, which I think is the important point. Say the cloud moved or you set the wrong white-balance, then you can make that adjustment.

If you intend doing ANY post-processing on the image, you should be saving your work in a non data losing format, such as TIFF or PSD. Therefore, the first step you make will be converting to TIFF or similar (even if you shot JPEG), so why not do it from RAW rather than JPEG?

Just my opinion and as Keith says, there is no right of wrong. If I was a wedding photographer needing to process 100s of photos everyday, I would probably shoot JPEG so that I could go straight to print...or maybe I would shoot RAW and just batch convert overnight ;)
 
I shoot using the "Raw and small Jpeg" option on my Nikon. It's very easy to open all the small Jpegs quickly, and then i can just select which images are worth spending time with, and use the Raw image to produce a picture for printing.

Added bonus came when i had accidently left my camera on the white balance setting for indoors - which produced "blue" images when i took pictures of a little owl outside. Because i had Raw files, this was corrected easily.
 
Well I had no problem with the RAW images and did not take me much more time to upload. Becasue the lighting i had when i was shooting in RAW was so bad (very dark stormy day) I have yet to really make a comparrison as to what I am able to do or how the images seem to look or work. Hopefully I will get a chance tomorrow. I took some pics today, but with my point and shoot that I don't THINK has the RAW option (never bothered tolook and find out ) I DO really have to find a suitable setting for the egrets, they are just SO bright against the darker background I always seem to have with them. I suppose trial and error is key. Though more success would be nice. They whites seem to be my only real problem (and remembering to lower my ISO sensetivity when I don't need it too high)
 
tizziec said:
I suppose trial and error is key.
Click to expand...
I think this is true to an extent, but with experience you’ll get better at judging the compensation needed. Does your camera produce a histogram? If so, this can take some of the guesswork out of it. I think it’s a good learning exercise too.
 
tizziec said:
they are just SO bright against the darker background
Click to expand...

I agree with Paul you soon learn from experience. Based on your metering mode and the statement above my opening shot would of been to underexpose by -1 stop and check the histogram to see if more or less was required.

Just out of interest I took a shot of a Great tit the other day. The camera happened to set to RAW & Large JPG from the day before. The exposure was set to underexpose by -2/3 stop but the edge of the cheek was still slighty burnout. Editing the RAW version was unable to get the detail back.
 
Last edited:
I usually try to keep it a half step down as a rule (easier to fix an under exposed than an overexposed) I suppose I suffer a lot from that panic... I focus on getting the shot while the bird is there and forget to check my settings. I used to do a lot of black and white still life and portrait work, but then it was les likely that my subject would up and fly away LOL Practice practice practice. Right now I try to take at least about 100 photos a day and try to make at least half of that experimental, but I still jump to the shot a little quick and I have yet to memorize my settings and buttons like I had on my old 35mm (I actually put notches in teh setting dials so I would not have to look to change it)
 
Hi,
I too, shoot RAW and JPG simultanously on my Canon 350D. I shoot RAW for three reasons:
I feel that it sometimes gives me more details and sharpness.
It gives me way better control over the white balance.
It makes PP easier in general.
The JPGs give me the possibility quickly to decied which photos to PP.

This example is a bit extreme, but the attached photo is an in-camera JPG, where as the following link is excatly the same picture (from my gallary). It's just the post processed RAW. Both are cropped.
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/102851/sort/1/cat/500/page/1

/Thomas
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0612a.jpg
    IMG_0612a.jpg
    68 KB · Views: 162
robski said:
Editing the RAW version was unable to get the detail back.
Click to expand...
Which software, Rob?

I use Bibble, and it is fantastic at pulling back blown highlights.

I agree absolutely that if it's really blown, you've had it, but "slightly burnt out" is usually no problem at all.

These two looked shot to hell whan I first downloaded them, but I ended up with usable (if not exactly inspirational! ;)) pictures:

http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/114889/sort/1/cat/500/page/1
http://www.birdforum.net/pp_gallery/showphoto.php/photo/114887/sort/1/size/medium/cat/500/page/1
 
Last edited:
Hi Thomas,

that's the kind of difference I look for between in-camera jpeg and RAW shots too: they're both perfectly valid, useful pictures, but as a novice myself, I feel that RAW can definitely gives me more "wiggle room".

I'm happy to admit I've done no side-by-side testing of RAW and jpegs, but because I find RAW pp to be no more onerous than jpeg anyway, I'm not that inclined to.
 
Last edited:
rezMole said:
I shoot using the "Raw and small Jpeg" option on my Nikon. It's very easy to open all the small Jpegs quickly, and then i can just select which images are worth spending time with, and use the Raw image to produce a picture for printing.
QUOTE]
If you have the Microsoft Raw viewer installed (free download) you can just as easily select/delete the images from the Raw file without having to bother with Raw + Jpeg (the Raws can be viewed just as quick and easy as a jpeg).
Click to expand...
 
Keith I was using PS CS1, In the past I have tried other Raw converters with little joy. I give your suggestion a try as I still have the file to hand.
 
I always shoot in RAW mainly to correct the exposure, the extra proccessing time on average is less than one minute. If you are good enough to get the exposure crack on every time then you do not need to shoot in RAW but if you are a novice like me then RAW is invaluable.
 
Roy C said:
If you have the Microsoft Raw viewer installed (free download) you can just as easily select/delete the images from the Raw file without having to bother with Raw + Jpeg (the Raws can be viewed just as quick and easy as a jpeg).
Click to expand...
Doesn't seem to work with 30D RAW files, unfortunately.

This isn't really a problem though, because the RAW file browser in Bibble is very good.
 
I havent used raw for very long but by far prefer it over using jpeg. If shots are overexposed I find correction makes them look too flat and so i rarely use them but it is great for recovering shots that are underexposed. (which is one of my main faults) I find raw most valuable when it comes to editing. There is just so much more control there than photoshop programs can give you and find my editing has really improved because of it.
John I know what you mean about the slow buffer speed as I have experienced that too. But for me that is small sacrifice and would not want to go back to jpeg format
 
Keith Reeder said:
Doesn't seem to work with 30D RAW files, unfortunately.
.
Click to expand...
Yep, your right Keith it does not support 30D or 400D raw's yet (I still use the ancient 350D!).
 
Warning! This thread is more than 18 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

JTweedie
28 mm vs 35 mm
Replies
8
Views
700
lmans66
lmans66
Danielbirdwatcher
Nikon Coolpix P-1000 Shoot raw or jpeg?
Replies
9
Views
2K
Gzoladz74
G
S
Early attempts at wildlife videography
Replies
3
Views
921
KC Foggin
KC Foggin
J@se
Digiscope adapter for ED82a with 25 - 75x zoom
Replies
4
Views
786
J@se
J@se
laurencejackson
Trying out Swarovski 12x42 NL vs 10x...and the 12x are brighter?
Replies
6
Views
2K
laurencejackson
laurencejackson

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top