Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 29 Oct 2010 (Friday) 20:48
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

RAW vs. JPG

 
autumnrain
Mostly Lurking
Avatar
10 posts
Joined Oct 2010
     
Oct 29, 2010 20:48 |  #1

Can someone explain to a newbie the difference between shooting in raw or jpg. Which is better? Is one more difficult?

I tried googling first and I just confused myself.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
KurtGoss
Senior Member
453 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Oct 29, 2010 20:51 |  #2
bannedPermanent ban

RAW is for people who know how to use PhotoShop

JPEG is for people who don't.

I couldn't resist. :p




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Peano
Goldmember
Avatar
1,755 posts
Likes: 106
Joined Aug 2007
     
Oct 29, 2010 21:29 as a reply to  @ KurtGoss's post |  #3

When you take a picture, your camera's sensor captures a whole bunch of image data. If you shot in raw format, all of that data is included in the raw file. If you shot in jpeg format, the camera selected some of the data to include in the image and threw the rest away ... sometimes as much as 50 percent of everything the sensor captured.

The upshot is that when you begin editing with a raw file, you have all the image data to work with. When you begin editing with a jpeg, you have much less to work with.

One practical difference: If an image has blocked (underexposed) shadows or clipped (overexposed) highlights, you can often recover those details from a raw file. But with a jpeg, those details might be lost forever.

As to difficulty: I avoided raw for a long time thinking it was too difficult. But once I gave it a try, I found that it was just as easy to edit a raw file as a jpeg. I also discovered that I could get a lot more out of a raw file.


---
Peano
RadiantPics.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lauderdalems
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Oct 29, 2010 21:33 |  #4

KurtGoss wrote in post #11190758 (external link)
RAW is for people who know how to use PhotoShop

JPEG is for people who don't.

I couldn't resist. :p

I shoot raw 99% of the time and I use PS maybe on 1 out of 5000 shots. I convert with DPP or Lightroom.


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
silvex
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,306 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 42
Joined Sep 2006
Location: Southern California, USA
     
Oct 29, 2010 23:46 |  #5

RAW is your negative
jpeg a digital print.


.
-Ed
CPS Platinum Member.
Canon Gear
SilvexPhoto.comexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gjl711
According to the lazy TF, My flatulence rates
Avatar
55,175 posts
Likes: 2267
Joined Aug 2006
Location: Deep in the heart of Texas
     
Oct 29, 2010 23:58 |  #6

Welcome to the forum. This is one topic that has been discussed many time. Being new here I hearty encourage you to use the search function and take a peak around but here are a few threads to get you started.
https://photography-on-the.net …937666&highligh​t=raw+jpeg
https://photography-on-the.net …884923&highligh​t=raw+jpeg
https://photography-on-the.net …860581&highligh​t=raw+jpeg
https://photography-on-the.net …683&highlight=r​aw+vs+jpeg
https://photography-on-the.net …737094&highligh​t=raw+jpeg
https://photography-on-the.net …870872&highligh​t=raw+jpeg
https://photography-on-the.net …843503&highligh​t=raw+jpeg


Not sure why, but call me JJ.
I used to hate math but then I realised decimals have a point.
.
::Flickr:: (external link)
::Gear::

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Oct 29, 2010 23:59 |  #7

Raw files need to be processed into a JPEG or TIff file to be used. There is more you can do with a RAW file, but the downside is that you have to do it. JPEG is easier and ready to use right out the camera.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
KurtGoss
Senior Member
453 posts
Joined Sep 2010
     
Oct 30, 2010 00:04 |  #8
bannedPermanent ban

lauderdalems wrote in post #11190959 (external link)
I shoot raw 99% of the time and I use PS maybe on 1 out of 5000 shots. I convert with DPP or Lightroom.

There are tools other than conversion in PhotoShop... really, I swear.

Step 1: Learn how to use your camera
Step 2: Learn how PhotoShop can make your images look better.

By the way, I use LightRoom for archiving and tagging, and occasional web galleries.

Soft proofing for color works best in PhotoShop.

Before Adobe PhotoShop 1.0, the application was called ColorStudio... then Adobe purchased it and added a few more features. I was an original beta tester for Adobe... back in the Scitex era.

PhotoShop is the BEST image retouching and color correction tool for photographers.

It takes years to become very good at PhotoShop. If you are serious about photography, learn how to use PhotoShop.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
hollis_f
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,649 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 85
Joined Jul 2007
Location: Sussex, UK
     
Oct 30, 2010 07:22 |  #9

Jpeg is for those who get all the settings 100% correct in the camera, every shot. Raw is for those who don't.

Jepg is for those who are satisfied with 'Good Enough'. Raw is for those who aren't.


Frank Hollis - Retired mass spectroscopist
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll complain about the withdrawal of his free fish entitlement.
Gear Website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tzalman
Fatal attraction.
Avatar
13,468 posts
Likes: 195
Joined Apr 2005
Location: Gesher Haziv, Israel
     
Oct 30, 2010 07:43 |  #10

My favorite 'Why RAW?" sites:

https://photography-on-the.net …=245510&highlig​ht=dummies
http://www.ronbigelow.​com/articles/raw/raw.h​tm (external link)


Elie / אלי

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jwnnm
Member
Avatar
56 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: New Mexico & Alaska
     
Oct 30, 2010 13:01 |  #11

Hello,

I keep reading about how shooting RAW is the way to go for a better image.

I have been trying to do some research on this subject and one thing I have not seen addressed is where my hesitancy lies at. I am color blind, I can tell the major colors usually but not all the different shades or hues. In the post processing for RAW is there a huge need for being able to differentiate the colors and shades?

Thanks.


__________
John
60D, Canon EF 70-300 IS USM, Canon EF 28-135 IS, Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 ATX

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
lauderdalems
Senior Member
759 posts
Likes: 9
Joined Jun 2006
     
Oct 30, 2010 13:06 |  #12

Guess what, I am color blind also. May be one reason I do not shoot weddings, etc. But sometimes I will shoot raw+jpeg so I can compare my finished raw image. And I sometimes ask my wife her opinion. But for most sports I have not had any problems.

And shooting only jpeg, you can also have problems being color blind esp. if your white balance is off.
If anyone complains, blame it on the lights.


http://gamedayphotos.u​wa.edu/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
antifire
Senior Member
Avatar
667 posts
Joined Oct 2010
Location: Munich, Germany
     
Oct 30, 2010 13:20 |  #13

raw is better!



[Dan | Flickr (external link) | Facebook (external link) |www.HDLuk[COLOR="Black"].com (external link)]
Canon 5DmkII
Zeiss 2.8/21ZE | Zeiss 2.0/35ZE | Zeiss 2.0/100ZE MP | Canon 24-105L f/4 IS | Canon 70-200L f/4 IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,567 posts
Likes: 18
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Oct 30, 2010 13:34 |  #14

jwnnm wrote in post #11193785 (external link)
Hello,

I keep reading about how shooting RAW is the way to go for a better image.

I have been trying to do some research on this subject and one thing I have not seen addressed is where my hesitancy lies at. I am color blind, I can tell the major colors usually but not all the different shades or hues. In the post processing for RAW is there a huge need for being able to differentiate the colors and shades?

Thanks.

Can you see any color? If not, perhaps shooting monochrome would be a better fit and you can certainly tweak all kinds of contrast and gray levels in RAW with a monochrome file


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
60D | ELPH 330 | iPhone 5s

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonylong
...winded
Avatar
54,657 posts
Gallery: 60 photos
Likes: 542
Joined Sep 2007
Location: Vancouver, WA USA
     
Oct 30, 2010 17:36 |  #15

jwnnm wrote in post #11193785 (external link)
Hello,

I keep reading about how shooting RAW is the way to go for a better image.

I have been trying to do some research on this subject and one thing I have not seen addressed is where my hesitancy lies at. I am color blind, I can tell the major colors usually but not all the different shades or hues. In the post processing for RAW is there a huge need for being able to differentiate the colors and shades?

Thanks.

That's an interesting challenge! One thing to consider would be to always carry a "White Balance target" with you -- something that is truly a neutral shade of some tone of gray. If you are shooting jpeg, you can use it to set a Custom White balance, if you are shooting Raw you can do that as well or you can make sure to include it in a shot from a scene/lighting condition. I'd imagine that would be your best approach to color, and then you could get input for fine-tuning if it's available from helpful people.

As to the advantages of Raw, if you can address the White Balance/color issues like the above idea, you have what is another major benefit, and that is the ability to shift your tones in one way or another without the danger of introducing artifacts such as banding in your photos. This is important when you are working with shadows, for instance, but also for overall scene brightness and such. Plus, the Raw data has more highlight "headroom" that if you shoot jpegs gets "cut" when the camera produces the 8 bit file from the 12/14 bit file. This means that if your jpeg shows "blown" highlights it's impossible to recover that data, but you have a bit more to work for in a Raw file. You still can't recover something that is truly blown, but the 12/14 bits do give you more original data that can contain highlight detail.

That doesn't mean that an out-of-camera jpeg is "junk", it's just that part of the process of creating the jpeg is for the software to determine what is needed to produce an image, what will fall into the visible spectrum and whatnot, and to discard the rest. That means you will have less to work with if you want to adjust that image.

I don't know if you've seen our Raw Conversion thread, but it has a ton of posted projects by a bunch of members here with examples of the power of Raw and of our current bunch of Raw processors, and it has inspired a lot of people:

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=684360


Tony
Two Canon cameras (5DC, 30D), three Canon lenses (24-105, 100-400, 100mm macro)
Tony Long Photos on PBase (external link)
Wildlife project pics here (external link), Biking Photog shoots here (external link), "Suburbia" project here (external link)! Mount St. Helens, Mount Hood pics here (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,903 views & 0 likes for this thread
RAW vs. JPG
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is Paramveer
2759 guests, 260 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.