JPEG vs RAW

......and how do we know this????........

Can anyone recommend a free raw editor?
Or maybe a plugin for elements?
Basically all i think i need to do for the moment is colour balance.I'm curious how the interface works for that.....a simple cool-warm silder or a more advanced control like curves so as to correctly adjust discontinuous spectral light from certain flouro's,etc


I don't even know if the canon software can do it-must check sometime

And now for an alternative view...

DieselGirl - Since you described yourself as a "total newbie" and you say you shoot mostly friends and family shots, I would recommend that you stay with JPG for awhile. There are about 647 things (give or take a few hundred) that a "total newbie" needs to learn about cameras and photography. RAW format is way down on the list. Don't be intimidated by the "Cult of RAW" folks.

Disclaimer to the "Cult of RAW" folks - I'm a card-carrying member. I like RAW, I use RAW, I recommend RAW for the best image quality. But I think it's best that someone who's just starting out knows the simple joys of photography, and not get bogged down too soon in intricacies and technicalities.

You know, I think that SDommin has a point. If what you are doing works for you, why rock the boat? Like I said I still shoot JPG. I still shoot ALOT of JPG. Mostly because most of what I shoot belongs in the "something to shoot" and "total crap" categories.

It really is all about what you intend to do with the image. The right tool for the right job and all that hooha. And if JPG is the right tool, then by all means shoot it. Just keep in mind that sometimes RAW is an even better tool.

Man I didn't even realize that I was in a cult. Can we get a tax break for that? Are there dues!

- Digital Prophet -

DG,

The last 2 post sum it up very well. I too am a newbie (5 months) and have just now started to shoot RAW. Learn and experiment with your new gear, when you know it inside and out (my owners manual is all dog eared) then go for it, RAW that is.

Digital Prophet wrote:
Man I didn't even realize that I was in a cult. Can we get a tax break for that? Are there dues!

Oh yes! You should be getting your chant book and robe in the mail. You can send your dues to me. 8)

Don't forget the secret handshake...

I have to say I agree as well.. despite being somewhat of a high preist or Bishop in the "Cult of Raw"

Like all things of any complexity.. it is best to wade in slowly... and jpeg can certainly help with the growing pains...

That said.. I would recomend taking your frst RAW images asap.. and "toying" with it now.. it may "take" very quickly and it will help you avoid any regrets in the future .. who knows.. deiselgirl may be a RAW Guru in the making.. just born that way like a lama...

Also.. consider this.. even while shooting jpegs.. if you happne upon a scene or situation where you
A: Think this is definately a "keeper"
b: Have time to take both....

..go ahead and shoot some RAW pics too.

Even if you don't tackle the Post processing this month.. some time down the road you may be thankfull that you took the time to grab a RAW file f that trip to Niagra, Egypt, Cleveland .. etc...

I shoot RAW almost all the time but there are those who shoot only fine/jpg. I know of several nationally published photogs that only shoot jpg. I spent some time with one that has been shooting for chrysler for 2 decades and she stictly shoots jpg. Check out the magazine Digital Photo Pro, there are a lot of them in there. They are the types that get the shot exactly how they want right from the camera and it can work. I have refined my workflow to the point that I don't have to do a lot of post processing, but I still shoot raw just in case. Don't get too hung up on the "I can fix it later in PS" attitude because you will find yourself becoming discouraged at the amount of time you spend in front of the computer. (Unless you like it)

I have had 16x20 prints made from a jpg original that looked just as good as a converted RAW. The main thing to remember is to save those untouched jpg's as tiff or psd files before you do anything to them.

Cheers,
Bobby

Yeah, now if she (or one of the other photogs in that bunch) would learn how to clean their sensor before an important shoot, they woudn't end up with dust specks in the sky on that nice '04 Durango shot out in the country...

Sometimes a little Photoshop is useful, even if you always shoot in JPEG because you never fluff a shot... :P

I must say I love this forum.

Okay--I have a small outdoor wedding on Saturday and have never shot in RAW. The advice I received was to definitely shoot in RAW.

Anyone want to talk me back into JPEG, all my other weddings were in 35mm.

They want it in digital, and now I'm torn.

JPEG or RAW?

If you are accustomed to JPG then I think you should use it. Weddings are very important events. And you only get one shot at it. And alot depends on the photographer. That is why I have never had to the nerve to do it. Plus angry brides will and do sue.

But you know all that.

However, if you aren't comfortable with the JPG settings I say go RAW. Why? Because you will have more control over the image to correct white balance and exposure in post. Sure it might take a little longer to post process the bride walking down the isle pic. But look at it like this: A JPG will not give you all the raw pixel info from which to get the best possible image. And whats most important you don't get a second chance. So start on the best foot and let yourself have all the room you can right from the start.

But that is just my opinion.

- Digital Prophet -

Digital Prohpet sumed it up perfectly. I can't see spending this much money on a camera and not using every bit of information it gathers.

troll,er,duh 8)

theoldmoose wrote:
Yeah, now if she (or one of the other photogs in that bunch) would learn how to clean their sensor before an important shoot, they woudn't end up with dust specks in the sky on that nice '04 Durango shot out in the country...

Sometimes a little Photoshop is useful, even if you always shoot in JPEG because you never fluff a shot... :P

Well, I don't think it was her because she only shoots racing, but I would like to see the one you are talking about, where? I'll ask her about it.

I didn't say one shouldn't use PS, I was only trying to offer advice based on my own experience. As I said, I use RAW almost always and I don't think "don't worry about exposure and color balance because you can fix it later" is very good advice.

It was posted on a site for internal and press use only, so I can't repost the image. But, if you (or your friend have access) the picture in question is the one with the black '04 durango, shot in the country, with blue, hazy mountains in the background. Even in the reduced-size 1024x768 'desktop background' version, you can see dust motes on the left rear window, and several places in the nearby green hills background.

If you view the full-size digital original (it was taken with a Canon DSLR, although I forget the model -- it's in the EXIF information that is still attached to the original JPEG posted), the dust motes start to show like boulders all over the sky region, in particular. I was kind of surprised. For print publication, I would think they would show up quite easily.

For as much trouble as they went to, to set up the shot, you'd think they would have remembered to check/clean the sensor, or at least touch up the shot afterwards, before offering it for publication.