Raw or Jpeg

[alpine62uk]

I would like some advice on the use of Raw or jpeg.

I have photoshop cs so would it be best to always use raw and edit afterwards? what are the advantages on each format.

I'm using Eos 1-D mark 2

Thanks

Antony

[Bytes U]

Antony don't be afraid to use the search function on this forum. Raw vs jpg has been discussed numerous times. A couple quick external links for you... http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/ and http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1199

[alpine62uk]

Antony don't be afraid to use the search function on this forum. Raw vs jpg has been discussed numerous times. A couple quick external links for you... http://www.photo.net/learn/raw/ and http://www.sportsshooter.com/news/1199

Thanks, i'm new to this forum was not aware of the search facility

Antony

[jgbeam]

As you will soon learn, the answers will be all raw, all jpeg, some raw and some jpeg.....depends on what you are shooting...who will see the shots...will they be published...will you post-process...etc. If I had a bunch of 1G cards, I'd shoot raw + large jpeg all the time. But I don't so I shoot jpeg most of the time and raw for "important" shots. Shoot both way for a few hundred shots. It won't take you long to find out what is right for you.

Jim

[forrest64]

Alpine you are just gonna have to get use to the fact that there are a few snotty posters in here that feel they shouldn't have to repeat an answer more than once. Ignore them, they have forgotten why this forum was created in the first place.

[Pekka]

I use only RAW for these reasons:

- I usually am not in super hurry to deliver the photos.
- I have plenty of disk and card space (portable HDD backup)
- I don't want to spend time to do custom WB on every new lighting situation.
- I do not need to shoot 8fps continuously.
- I want full control on everything regarding WB, sharpening, colors, bit depth and curves.
- Capture One and Etcetera profiles gives really good output.
- I want a file format which retains unaltered reusable data from the sensor, not compressed and pre-set images.

[Yeager]

When I only had my G5, I only used jpeg. Now that I have the 10D, I love the abilibity to control the aspects of the photo afterwards. Its the greatest thing. Just know you will go out and buy at least 1 gig if not more in memory cards. RAW all the way!

[CyberDyneSystems]

Alpine you are just gonna have to get use to the fact that there are a few snotty posters in here that feel they shouldn't have to repeat an answer more than once. Ignore them, they have forgotten why this forum was created in the first place.

Forest,.. although I applaud your sentiment re: the purpose of the forum.. and I agree that being helpfull and answering questions is what we are all about..

I can't help but notice two things.

1: Bytes' response does not seem at all "snotty" in tone to me?
2. You were quick to jump on Bytes' response.. slamming him for not taking any time to answer the question.. but in fact at least he put in some effort .. even posting a link.

You on the other hand took time to post ONLY to critizize? You are the only one in this thread guilty of posting a response and NOT answering a question! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

The moral? I leave that to you to figure out :wink:

Alpine.
I shoot RAW for all the reasons Pekka lists....
I definately KNOW that I can get the best image quality from any photo I take if I shoot RAW.

I do admit to shooting jpeg occasionally.. but only when I am intending to giv the images to someone quickly.. or I am otherwise totally unconcerned with image quality.

[robertwgross]

I shoot RAW only, but for only the last reason that Pekka suggested.

Memory is too cheap, and disk space is too cheap to do otherwise.

---Bob Gross---

[Aylwin]

I remember that someone here has a signature that goes, "I shoot RAW. Memory is cheap, memories are priceless." Or it was something like that anyway.

I used to shoot mostly JPEG and only switched to RAW occasionally if I intended to shoot "keepers". I've since realized that you never know which ones will be keepers so everything might as well be shot in RAW. Plus, there's all the other benefits already mentioned.

[JZaun]

Antony
I only use Jpeg large fine. I tried Raw and found that with my ability in PS, I could not get any better results with Raw than Jpeg. Also I found that the included software that come with the camera was too slow and cumbersome to use. I haven't decided to spend the $$ for PSCS or other software so I can better deal with RAW. I needed more lens instead:) Better software may be the answer but for now I am sticking with Jpeg.

My reasons and thoughts only!!

JZ

[Keyser Soze]

RAW is king..... I used to shoot JPEG for ages and then when I learned how to convert the images properly the quality of the two really isn't comparable..... RAW gives you so much more control of the image and the end product is far more than I have ever managed to achieve with the Jpeg setting......

Don't get me wrong I have achieved great results with Jpeg, but the results seem consistantly better with the RAW.....

I think once past the inconvience of having to convert the images, people will see the benefits of the format and as such they they will learn to enjoy the processing......

LONG LIVE RAW.........I love it RAW!@!!!!

[Chris1le]

Copied from another thread I started in the "Talk About Photography" section.

What the article tried to dispel is the myth that RAW is a professional format and if you do not shoot RAW you are not a professional.

"Since many amateurs like to follow what top photographers do in this area, I become concerned, especially when some think that JPEG is an amateur format and RAW is a pro format... ...So these photographers have a delimma--they don't enjoy using RAW, yet they feel guilty if they don't shoot RAW, and that is a shame."

Rob Sheppard, Outdoor Photographer, Sept 2004

He then went on to say all his images in Outdoor Photographer and his books were shot JPEG including the April cover which was shot JPEG with a G3.

Yes, technically RAW is better. But honestly by how much? I think with the RAW vs JPEG debate we tend to loose track of what is really important. The image itself. I've seen some great images come out of some crappy cameras as well as some very crappy images (mine included :D ) come out of some very expensive cameras. :wink: To each his own. Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is right or wrong.

[aberdeen]

Hey!

If you talk to any well versed digital photographer, they will tell you to shoot in RAW. I agree...

Shooting RAW gives you much more flexibility over the actual data of the image than shooting in JPEG. If you are using PSCS and have used the RAW camera plug-in, you understand what I'm talking about...

Should you always shoot in RAW? Nah...

For instance, if I'm shooting a bunch of stuff for a one time presentation or proposal, I'll shoot in large fine JPEG. If it's a shot that won't matter in a year or even a month, I'll shoot in JPEG.

I shoot in RAW for my personal artistic work and for commercial clients that will be using the image on a regular basis.

Hope it helps...and keep shooting!!

Cheers...

Aberdeen

[drisley]

I agree.
Not necessary to shoot Raw, but I always do.

I found this from DP Review:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos300d/page15.asp

"As you can see there is very little resolution difference between the in-camera JPEG and that produced by Canon's FileViewerUtility, although sharpening artifacts are fewer and the image may be a little 'cleaner'. Phase One's superb Capture One Pro converter however managed to squeeze a little extra from the file and delivers visibly more resolution as well as no discernible sharpening artifacts"

[Big_B]

Copied from another thread I started in the "Talk About Photography" section.

What the article tried to dispel is the myth that RAW is a professional format and if you do not shoot RAW you are not a professional.

"Since many amateurs like to follow what top photographers do in this area, I become concerned, especially when some think that JPEG is an amateur format and RAW is a pro format... ...So these photographers have a delimma--they don't enjoy using RAW, yet they feel guilty if they don't shoot RAW, and that is a shame."

Rob Sheppard, Outdoor Photographer, Sept 2004

He then went on to say all his images in Outdoor Photographer and his books were shot JPEG including the April cover which was shot JPEG with a G3.

Yes, technically RAW is better. But honestly by how much? I think with the RAW vs JPEG debate we tend to loose track of what is really important. The image itself. I've seen some great images come out of some crappy cameras as well as some very crappy images (mine included :D ) come out of some very expensive cameras. :wink: To each his own. Both formats have their advantages and disadvantages. Neither is right or wrong.


I reckon thats a good quote and well worth listening to. If you are shooting in a rapidly chaning lighting situation or where the correct exposure is difficult to calculate, then RAW has some definate advantages. However I've shot some of my best pictures in JPEG and it is normally impossible to tell the difference.

Consider the below pictures - both of these have had an equivalent (fairly heavy) amount of play with the curves and contrase. Can you really tell which one was shot in RAW? Well perhaps you can, but I certainly can't.


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sam.blackie/Public/DSC_2942d.jpg



http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sam.blackie/Public/DSC_3531.jpg

[neil_r]

.... 4 more weeks of uni life.

My son is at uni in Nottingham, at the moment he is at home.... are you telling me he shouldn't be? :D

N

[Big_B]

.... 4 more weeks of uni life.

My son is at uni in Nottingham, at the moment he is at home.... are you telling me he shouldn't be? :D

N

Ha ha!! Uni is all finished for the summer except for those of us doing an MSc as we have dissertations to write...... or did he pay me to tell you that :?: :D

[DocFrankenstein]

I'd shoot raw all the time, but right now I simply don't have enough space. :roll:

Big_B, you never know what the other shot would've looked like in raw. If the WB was set "incorrectly" you lose a whole lot of info.

But jpeg is still ok for me most of the time. So far, I only printed about 40 4*6, and most of them are from S1 :lol:

[Cadenza]

It is very hard to explain RAW files and their advantage
sometimes. I've tried and failed, so let me try again.

The difference in RAW and Jpeg quality on any
single given image (say, like in dpreview's samples)
is really not the critical issue. It is the interpretive
latitude and flexibility RAW files allow you to apply
to an image -- like the "flavor" and "perfume" of a
scene, if you will.

Hence, if you let the camera make these decisions
for you, it does what it can to give you ready to
use images, and you're pretty much stuck with the
image the camera gives you. You gain convenience
and more storage space, but that's about it.


That said, if you're not the type that enjoys messing
around with digital filters (other than maybe contrast
and brightness) then maybe jpeg would be better
indicated. Of course, you can apply post processing
to jpegs as well, but since you have only 256 levels
of brightness to work with (as opposed to 4096 levels
with RAW), any photoshop tweak you do to a jpeg
image degrades the image very quickly.

Here is quick example: the first image is what the
in-camera jpeg processing parameters gives me,
and the other versions show the "interpretive"
latitude RAW processing gives you.

ORIGINAL in-camera jpeg:
http://tinypic.com/2r2vt

version 1:

http://tinypic.com/2r2w4


version 2:

http://tinypic.com/2r2w8


version 3:

http://tinypic.com/2r2wg


version 4:

http://tinypic.com/2r2wj


version 5:

http://tinypic.com/2r2xd

[Ikinaa]

Instead of providing an answer, let me ask a question to all you RAW-Shooters.
I have actually a G3. Sometimes when I really want to keep a shot, I shoot in RAW too (because of all your explanations...).
So when I'm at home, I see my 20 or so pictures I just shot, decide that 2 of them are really worth keeping, try tweaking them in PSCS to convert the raw to another lossless format so that I'm pleased with them.
Of the other 18 remaining, I'll probably throw half away.
The remaining 10 I want to keep, so I choose the standard raw-conversion, no tweaking, hoping that the result will be the same as a camera-JPEG so that I keep that for the future.
But the pics are flat, the cam delivers better JPEG that the standard raw-conversion of PSCS.
why? How do I do in PSCS a RAW2JPEG conversion so that the picture looks like it have been shot in JPEG with the cam? The RAW knows my WB, the exposure, etc, so why isn't the result the same as a camera-JPEG?

[Big_B]

That said, if you're not the type that enjoys messing
around with digital filters (other than maybe contrast
and brightness) then maybe jpeg would be better
indicated. Of course, you can apply post processing
to jpegs as well, but since you have only 256 levels
of brightness to work with (as opposed to 4096 levels
with RAW), any photoshop tweak you do to a jpeg
image degrades the image very quickly.


Ok so I think we can agree on that. If you don't do a lot of post processing editing then the difference between the two is marginal at best. However if you have to do some serious 'rescuing'/change the WB/other then RAW will give you a definite advantage.

Personally I don't do a lot of PP so raw just adds time to my workflow. Guess its horses for courses.

[taskerc]

I like to think of RAW like a negative. Then I use Photoshop as I would have used the darkroom or I can use the "flash card photo booths" or my HP 7260 printer with card slot as I would have used my local chemist/drug store for quick pics. With RAW you get the benefits all have mentioned. The biggest issue with raw is that it extends your workflows - of course you can "auto and batch" convert the RAWs and you then have virtually the same output as an as-shot JPEG. On my hacked Drebel, I am now getting a RAW and Fine JPEG so either way I have a quick pic and a "negative" - then negative gets archived to back up disk and CDR or DVD-R over time. Horses for courses I guess, but memory is cheap if you shop around.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Instead of providing an answer, let me ask a question to all you RAW-Shooters.
I have actually a G3. Sometimes when I really want to keep a shot, I shoot in RAW too (because of all your explanations...).
So when I'm at home, I see my 20 or so pictures I just shot, decide that 2 of them are really worth keeping, try tweaking them in PSCS to convert the raw to another lossless format so that I'm pleased with them.
Of the other 18 remaining, I'll probably throw half away.
The remaining 10 I want to keep, so I choose the standard raw-conversion, no tweaking, hoping that the result will be the same as a camera-JPEG so that I keep that for the future.
But the pics are flat, the cam delivers better JPEG that the standard raw-conversion of PSCS.
why? How do I do in PSCS a RAW2JPEG conversion so that the picture looks like it have been shot in JPEG with the cam? The RAW knows my WB, the exposure, etc, so why isn't the result the same as a camera-JPEG?

Because.. by converting from RAW without doing any "tweeking" you are in essence missing part of the point of RAW.

Here is one of the fundamental diferences between RAW and jpeg.

Jpeg images in camera have a certain amount of post processing applied to them in camera. Color, saturation, sharpening etc..

The RAW image lacks all of these post processing untill you apply them.

The advantage of the RAW is that you get to decide.

Now what you are doing,. arguably the RAW converter SHOULD apply your cameras settings to the converted file if you use the defaults.

There are two reasons why the results are the same.

1.. the Softwares "conversion" and post processing in undoubtably different from the onboard chip in the camera.

2. The Adobe one is not the Canon RAW converter.. I suspect if you used EOS file veiwer or Breeze Browser the converted images would look more like the finished camera jpegs.. but still not identical.

But again.. the point is that you can with ANY RAW coverter software make a conversion that will look BETTER than those that the camera produces.

The thing to do is to take some time.. perhaps a lot of time.. to take some really nice RAW images of yours and seriously toy with them in your favorite RAW converter.. In PSCS I find that with just slight tweeeks to "shadow" Saturation, contrast, and white balance you can often see a WORLD of difference.

Give it a try.. play with it.

[aam1234]

Jpeg images in camera have a certain amount of post processing applied to them in camera. Color, saturation, sharpening etc..


Is that an advantage or disadvantage. For some it's an advantage.

The RAW vs. Wade...opps, I mean Raw vs. Jpeg discussion reminds me of a similar thread we had recently. A nice German gentleman (sorry, I forgot your name Sir) showed a very dark pic in raw then he showed the same pic processed. The processed pic looks as if it was taken in daylight. Very impressive indeed.

However, yesterday, while going through some pics, I found a totally dark photo. You couldn't even tell what the subject was.

After spending a minute or two with it, it turned out OK, not great, but acceptable to most people. Keep in mind that it was shot at a medium (I think, but not large/fine for sure). Also, my PSE skills are a lot worse than my photographic skills.

Note: I didn't read all the posts in this thread. So if what I said is a duplication, my apologies.

[alpine62uk]

Thanks for the reponse to this question, it's been very helpful, I'll think I'll go down the RAW route.

Thanks again

Antony :wink:

[aam1234]

I'll think I'll go down the RAW route.

Do it at your own risk, we have warned you :wink:

[Ikinaa]

Instead of providing an answer, let me ask a question to all you RAW-Shooters.
I have actually a G3. Sometimes when I really want to keep a shot, I shoot in RAW too (because of all your explanations...).
So when I'm at home, I see my 20 or so pictures I just shot, decide that 2 of them are really worth keeping, try tweaking them in PSCS to convert the raw to another lossless format so that I'm pleased with them.
Of the other 18 remaining, I'll probably throw half away.
The remaining 10 I want to keep, so I choose the standard raw-conversion, no tweaking, hoping that the result will be the same as a camera-JPEG so that I keep that for the future.
But the pics are flat, the cam delivers better JPEG that the standard raw-conversion of PSCS.
why? How do I do in PSCS a RAW2JPEG conversion so that the picture looks like it have been shot in JPEG with the cam? The RAW knows my WB, the exposure, etc, so why isn't the result the same as a camera-JPEG?

Because.. by converting from RAW without doing any "tweeking" you are in essence missing part of the point of RAW.

Here is one of the fundamental diferences between RAW and jpeg.

Jpeg images in camera have a certain amount of post processing applied to them in camera. Color, saturation, sharpening etc..

The RAW image lacks all of these post processing untill you apply them.

The advantage of the RAW is that you get to decide.

Now what you are doing,. arguably the RAW converter SHOULD apply your cameras settings to the converted file if you use the defaults.

There are two reasons why the results are the same.

1.. the Softwares "conversion" and post processing in undoubtably different from the onboard chip in the camera.

2. The Adobe one is not the Canon RAW converter.. I suspect if you used EOS file veiwer or Breeze Browser the converted images would look more like the finished camera jpegs.. but still not identical.

But again.. the point is that you can with ANY RAW coverter software make a conversion that will look BETTER than those that the camera produces.

The thing to do is to take some time.. perhaps a lot of time.. to take some really nice RAW images of yours and seriously toy with them in your favorite RAW converter.. In PSCS I find that with just slight tweeeks to "shadow" Saturation, contrast, and white balance you can often see a WORLD of difference.

Give it a try.. play with it.

hmmm... I guess I'll have to invest more time in this whole stuff (20D is waving at me... I can see it in the christmas region :P )

And I have to try the canon raw converter for 'just keep em, but no more...'

Thanks for the answer

[Andy_T]

The RAW vs. Wade...opps, I mean Raw vs. Jpeg discussion reminds me of a similar thread we had recently. A nice German gentleman (sorry, I forgot your name Sir) showed a very dark pic in raw then he showed the same pic processed. The processed pic looks as if it was taken in daylight. Very impressive indeed.

However, yesterday, while going through some pics, I found a totally dark photo. You couldn't even tell what the subject was.

After spending a minute or two with it, it turned out OK, not great, but acceptable to most people. Keep in mind that it was shot at a medium (I think, but not large/fine for sure). Also, my PSE skills are a lot worse than my photographic skills.


Aam,

now that I read this thread the first time I understand your remark in the other thread about your forgetting my name and remembering it again. That thing surely had me puzzling :lol:

A difference is that RAW conserves 12 bit of data for each colour, while JPG only conserves 8 bit. It doesn't matter much if you convert it to 8 bit TIFF to work in PS LE, but if you can work with 16 bit TIFF, the picture will retain more information.

Also ... if the picture is too dark, then it is far from optimal to tweak the levels with the RAW converter. But it might help you a bit to salvage it.

I also only shoot RAW. And that on a G2 with it's 5 SPF shooting speed ... no, that's not a typo ... you have to wait for about 5 seconds after each shot to write it to the CF card :cry:

Best regards,
Andy

[jukas]

From my own understanding, Raw vs. JPEG is a lot like Negatives vs. Transparancies with film. You have a lot more latitude in print film for exposure errors and a lot more can be corrected in the developing of the image. With Transparancies (and JPEGS) you have to be sure you get the exposure and white balance right as you have a lot less "play" with which to fix them afterwards.

I've read quite a few of these Raw vs. JPEG discussions, and started at least one of them :shock: and what it all seems to boil down to is try both, and do what works best for you. I've read comments from pros who say "I only shoot RAW, it gives me the most control possible" and you've heard pros who say "I only shoot JPEG, I make sure I get my exposure and white balance set correctly before I take the image"

I myself have settled on a mixture of both. I shoot RAW probably 80% of the time, and JPEG the other 20% of the time. Pekka summed up my reasoning for shooting raw very well.

When I do shoot JPEG, it's usually in a setting like taking pictures of my girlfriends kids at the park, in the pool etc, when either I know I can nail the exposure/whitebalance or quite frankly, I'm looking for nothing more than a snapshot, to be printed on a 3x5 or 4x6 and put in a photo album of them growing up.

In the end, I've found not everything has to be technically perfect with the end image, for it to have been worth pressing the shutter :D