The old chestnut again - Raw or jpeg. (1 Viewer)

[senatore]

In a hide yesterday all the photographers except me were using RAW to take shots.They all said I must change and I would end up with better pics.

Is this true though? My current editing software(nothing special) allows me to fiddle my jpeg shots with brightness,contrast,colour saturation,gamma correction,dust reduction,softening/sharpening etc. so what else would be available if I shot in RAW.

Any advice would be welcome.

Max.

 

[fugl]

The main advantage of shooting raw as far as I’m concerned is that it provides the digital equivalent of a “negative” that one can always go back to for more “prints”. With JPEGs, on the other hand, if you make a post-processing mistake—or simply want to try something different—you’re out of luck, there’s nothing to be done.

 

[MSA]

The main advantage of shooting raw as far as I’m concerned is that it provides the digital equivalent of a “negative” that one can always go back to for more “prints”. With JPEGs, on the other hand, if you make a post-processing mistake—or simply want to try something different—you’re out of luck, there’s nothing to be done.

I'm not sure this is valid; as long as you save the processed file under a different name, surely the original jpeg will be unaltered?

However, I do believe that jpegs "deteriorate" after each opening, so the raw file gives a more robust negative.

I would be interested to learn if there are major advantages for those of us who don't do a great deal of processing (other than the obvious "you might want to go back to old photos when you've learned more about how to process"). Main drawback of raw is the space it takes up, so you need to take more memory with you (I'm off to The Gambia in a couple of weeks, so this is quite relevant to me).

 

[Roy C]

To be quite honest, if you do not know the advantages of RAW then it is probably not worth considering (if that makes sense). Also if you do not want to do much,if any, processing then again RAW is probably not for you.

I personally shoot 100% RAW but the difference is that I enjoy processing

 

[hollis_f]

I'm not sure this is valid; as long as you save the processed file under a different name, surely the original jpeg will be unaltered?

Correct. When I used to shoot jpeg I'd never overwrite the original file - always edit and save under a different name or in a different folder.

However, I do believe that jpegs "deteriorate" after each opening, so the raw file gives a more robust negative.

Simply opening a jpeg won't cause any deterioration. Repeated opening, editing and saving will. So I'd always save intermediate stages in a lossless format (normally the native format of my editing program).

I would be interested to learn if there are major advantages for those of us who don't do a great deal of processing (other than the obvious "you might want to go back to old photos when you've learned more about how to process").

If, like me, you don't always get it dead-right in the camera, using raw gives you a lot (and I mean a lot) more leeway to recover from your cock-ups. Raw processing takes very little extra effort compared to jpeg processing. You'd be doing much the same thing to either format.

Main drawback of raw is the space it takes up, so you need to take more memory with you (I'm off to The Gambia in a couple of weeks, so this is quite relevant to me).

Storage is cheap. A Hyperdrive Colorspace is £135 - a 320GB hard drive to stick in it is £40. That's enough storage for over 12,000 7D raw images for £175.

 

[Roy C]

For anyone who is interested in learning RAW there is a nice little video tutorial HERE. It also gives a few pointers as to why RAW is preferred over jpeg.

 

[MSA]

Thanks Frank, a timely bit of advice!

 

[Pluvius]

Here is a guy that has a different perspective shooting only jpeg. http://www.MikeMoatsBlog.com/ scroll down to his piece on raw ot jpeg

 

[Mono]

RAW is fine if you like playing with your pictures, if you just want to look at them stick to Jpeg. Most bad photos are bad for a reason that cannot be corrected by RAW processing; they have the wrong focus point, the wrong shutter speed has caused motion blur or the subject is just looking the wrong way (or dived underwater). There is a subset of ,mainly exposure related, errors that can be corrected with RAW but not Jpeg. If you like spending ages in front of a computer tweaking a photo to get that extra 1% out of it, or you are selling photographs for a living, then RAW is ideal for you. If you like being outside looking at birds and take pictures to record what you see then bang away in Jpeg and be happy.

 

[paul goode]

Well I certainly don't agree that shooting raw will end up with better pictures. As others have said shoot jpeg and get the exposure and WB correct and you'll have fine images and more time to do other things with your life :t:

However....

Sorting out a screwed up white balance on a jpeg is trickier and less likely to succeed than with a raw file. And, in my experience of using AWB on Canons the WB is often wrong. Mainly for that reason I shoot raw, well that and recovering the details in brides dresses when things have gone a little awry 8-P

 

[fugl]

I'm not sure this is valid; as long as you save the processed file under a different name, surely the original jpeg will be unaltered?

True, but in that case why not shoot in raw to begin with & get the other advantages it has to offer as a bonus? If you do any post-processing at all, I really don't see a downside to raw given today's myriad inexpensive storage options.

 

[MSA]

True, but in that case why not shoot in raw to begin with & get the other advantages it has to offer as a bonus? If you do any post-processing at all, I really don't see a downside to raw given today's myriad inexpensive storage options.

The main reason is that I do not (currently) have a portable storage device, so whilst on holiday I would be relying on memory cards, which fill up rather quickly with raw files!

 

[hollis_f]

shoot jpeg and get the exposure and WB correct and you'll have fine images and more time to do other things with your life

And, as I've said before, the day I know I'm going to get it right in-camera every single time is the day I'll switch to shooting jpegs. And the first shots I'll take will be of the squadrons of piggies flying past.

 

[Roy C]

And, as I've said before, the day I know I'm going to get it right in-camera every single time is the day I'll switch to shooting jpegs. And the first shots I'll take will be of the squadrons of piggies flying past.

Snap! I am in the same boat Frank, certainly not good enough to shoot jpeg.

 

[paul goode]

Snap! I am in the same boat Frank, certainly not good enough to shoot jpeg.

Nope nor me.

I must admit its been an eye opener at BIPP meetings the number of wedding togs who do shoot jpeg. Brave souls! And we're talking seriously good photographers here, they must be supremely confident in their ability. Saying that I attended a seminar by one of them and he would look at a scene and tell us the exposure without recourse to any meter and he was right every time :eek!:
So, shoot jpeg, work one day a week because there's no pp'ing to do and earn a bucketful :king:

 

[Roy C]

Nope nor me.

I must admit its been an eye opener at BIPP meetings the number of wedding togs who do shoot jpeg. Brave souls! And we're talking seriously good photographers here, they must be supremely confident in their ability. Saying that I attended a seminar by one of them and he would look at a scene and tell us the exposure without recourse to any meter and he was right every time :eek!:
So, shoot jpeg, work one day a week because there's no pp'ing to do and earn a bucketful :king:

Yep, I went to a wedding a while ago and got talking to the photographer (one of the most popular wedding snapper in the area) and he laughed when I asked if he shot in RAW, he had never used it in his life. Also he was shooting with a Fuji which surprised me as I assumed all the pro's would use a Nikon or Canon.

 

[paul goode]

Yep, I went to a wedding a while ago and got talking to the photographer (one of the most popular wedding snapper in the area) and he laughed when I asked if he shot in RAW, he had never used it in his life. Also he was shooting with a Fuji which surprised me as I assumed all the pro's would use a Nikon or Canon.

I think that the Fuji dSLRs were used a lot by social photography togs
because of the extended dynamic range the sensor offered

 

[RJM]

I think it depends on which camera you shoot. Nikon shooters have a much easier time getting great jpegs right out the camera.

Nikon's LCD screen going back to the D40 is known for being VERY color accurate, while Canon's LCD is less so. Also Nikon allows excellent tweaking of the in-camera JPEGs through the use of Custom Picture Controls. Takes lots of test shots, but once the Nikon shooter has the Picture Controls dialed in for the environment they are shooting, then it is just a matter of reviewing the jpegs every dozen or so shots for exposure. Because Nikon's superb Matrix metering is also fairly reliable, the camera LCD allows reliable exposure/color feedback so you can "fix" your pics in the field when your subject is hopefully still in front of you.

If I do any PC post processing, it is usually just turning over-exposed sky background blue or airbrushing out distracting twigs. Nikon's Capture NX2 makes this super easy.

cheers,
Rick

 

[Roy C]

Also Nikon allows excellent tweaking of the in-camera JPEGs through the use of Custom Picture Controls.
Rick

Canon also have tweaking of the in-camera JPEG's through the use of custom picture controls so this is not unique to Nikon.

 

[senatore]

Thanks for all the comments.I must give it a go.

Max.