RAW or JPEG

[tony723]

Hi,

Sorry to ask a maybe stupid question. Except for setting white balance in post-processing and the lossless compression, what other reasons to use RAW instead of JPEG? Anything cannot be adjusted afterwards if using JPEG?

Thanks!

[vvizard]

I've only owned a pseudo-slr cam from Minolta. But shooting RAW gave me a whole lot more options than if I'd shot them jpeg. Post-tuning of sharpness, saturation, light(daylight,tungsten,etc) which you can't do easily with jpeg.

[defordphoto]

I used to shoot only RAW. Now I vary from JPEG to RAW. With my sports photos I have been shooting exclusively JPEG (large/fine or course) and have not had any issues.

Also, in spite of what RAW-only advocates say, you can make major adjustments to your photos after-the-fact with JPEG and not lose ANY quality whatsoever.

You can set white/black/grey points and many other adjustments to correct for improper white balance. No, you can't adjust the "K" factor, and yes, it is more difficult to get it right, but it can be done.

A fellow sports shooter once told me: "If you're that far off that you have to shoot RAW, you shouldn't even be out here," when I questioned whether he shot RAW or JPEG.

To avoid any JPEG artifact problems when editing a JPEG photo, just save it as a TIFF and then you can edit and edit and edit with no loss whatsoever.

I have printed some of my sports JPEGs up to 30x40 with excellent results.

But, with that being said, when I shoot landscapes. portraits, etc. I always shoot RAW.

The reasons for shooting JPEG when shooting sports are:

1. Speed. CF writes are much, much faster
2. More photos per CF before having to dump cards to laptop or portable HD
3. Less post-processing and speedier post processing

The reasons for shooting RAW for my other photos:

1. Color and WB accuracy
2. More information within the photo to work with when processing. Makes for better enlargements than JPEG
3. Recover +/- an f-stop or so

[Rob Larsen]

In addition to the advantages already stated, you can recover a stop or so of light from an over-exposed image in RAW. I've found this valuable even on pictures who's in-camera histograms looked good initially.

Using C1LE to process the RAW files, there are other advantages to be gained:

1. The workflow is MUCH faster compared to Canon File Viewer. Although it's not hard to top that....

2. C1LE also has sharpening algorithms that, IMHO, are superior to PS USM. The more data available during processing the better.

There are other programs such as BreezeBrowser that also offer RAW workflow options superior to the bundled Canon options.

Although, the RAW vs. JPEG decision has other considerations. If you are not post-processing your images or if it is more important to get the maximum number if pics on each CF card, then JPEG may be the way to go. RFMSports' high volume workflow and high quality initial capture (i.e., minimal post-processing) is a good example where JPEG works.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob

[Rob Larsen]

Jim, you snuck your post in while I was adding mine. You addressed the subject much better. ;)

[defordphoto]

Rob: Yeah, but then I added #3 for RAW :)

[Rob Larsen]

RFMSports wrote:
I have printed some of my sports JPEGs up to 30x40 with excellent results.


Jim, what image resolution and printer are you using to produce 30x40 prints? Do you upsample in hardware or software?

Rob
Erie, Colorado

[henkbos]

Another advantage is, that software to convert RAW is still being developed and improved, which might benefit you in the future. Once Jpeg, that's it.

[Webster]

Generally, I agree with those who advise using JPEG where lots of images are called for and RAW when ultimate image quality is desired. That said, I recently shot a friend's blues band in a night club where the lighting was horrible. I used the 50mm 1.8 lens, set the ISO to 1000 (this with a D60 - that's as high as it would go), set the shutter to 1/30 sec and let the exposure fall where it would. Most shots were at around four stops underexposed. The exposure on all of them was good after adjustment using the PS Camera RAW plugin. Image quality was not the best - they were very noisy and camera and subject motion ruined a lot of them. But the band members loved them. There is no way this could have been done shooting JPEGs.

Use the mode that's right for the situation.

[defordphoto]

Rob Larsen wrote:
RFMSports wrote:
I have printed some of my sports JPEGs up to 30x40 with excellent results.


Jim, what image resolution and printer are you using to produce 30x40 prints? Do you upsample in hardware or software?

Rob
Erie, Colorado

It was printed using a 60-inch inkjet printer. I forget the name of the printer. The photo was upsampled by the printer software and ulitmately printed at 600dpi I believe.

[lightandlife]

Perhaps it would be a good idea to take poll, RAW or JPEG.

I use pics for Internet and never bothered with RAW.