Raw or Jpeg

I dont get the effects of shooting raw... what does it do to help and what is the difference in jpeg and raw?

there's alot of threads regarding this topic. basically raw enables you to adjust white balance later on pp, while jpeg can't. raw total control, jpeg lost of data and IQ. so goes the list

Hello! I would suggest you use the search feature and look at the threads on this same question. But to give you a quick answer RAW is a format like a digital negative that does not change the quality of the original. This means that you can change the lighting and color etc--- to extremes with RAW where you cannot with jpeg.
Try playing with RAW files in something like photoshop elements-- and you can begin to see the possibilities of RAW.

Raw saves more information than Jpeg allowing you to do more in PP.

The search function is your friend

Here's a thread on the same subject:
https://photography-on-the.net …ghlight=advanta​ges+of+raw

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/raw.htm

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=ij63bdSIBuU
that vid is about a nikon, however it still explains Jpeg and RAW


Those will explain it better then i could anyway.


However someone here i know can explain it better still.

Shoot RAW all the time, even if you don't understand it yet. You won't be sorry and you will eventually understand the benefits.

That said, RAW files hold all the data your camera was capable of catching and saving, exactly like a film negative. You can then open the RAW file in the proper editor, either the one that came with the camera, DPP, or something like CS3 Adobe Camera RAW. A RAW file is Lossless. meaning unlike a jpg, you can open it a million times, copy a new jpg or tiff from it and it always stays as good as the day you shot it. A jpg, loses pixels and data every time you open and save it. You don't want the kids pictures to end up one pixel by one pixel ten years from now do you? Just kidding, but they will look worse over time. Just like film.

RAWs hold more data to start with and, with a good editor, you can fix so many more light problems in RAW than you can on a jpg, cause the jpg is missing data to start with.

canonloader wrote in post #6057423
A RAW file is Lossless. meaning unlike a jpg, you can open it a million times, copy a new jpg or tiff from it and it always stays as good as the day you shot it. A jpg, loses pixels and data every time you open and save it. You don't want the kids pictures to end up one pixel by one pixel ten years from now do you? Just kidding, but they will look worse over time. Just like film.

Only if you overwrite the original JPGs. Obviously, when post processing, you should save the processed image somewhere else. Then the original JPG will be just as fine as before in 10 years. Provided your storage system hasn't failed on you of course...


I've been shooting RAW for quite a while now, and still I don't really get the 'wow, this really helps me' feeling. But that's mostly I think because I lack JPG expience. It didn't last for long after I got the camera. I do have a feeling of control over my pictures though, and in the end, quality can only benefit from it.


There are reasons for shooting JPG however. The most important one being time. RAW files have to be developed. JPGs are ready to publish, straight from camera. Provided the camera PP settings are good. Those can be changed to your liking, before shooting the picture (as opposed to RAW, where you do it afterwards on the big screen).

RAW and JPG each have their place - many photojournalists will often shoot JPG. I shoot in RAW 99% of the time because of the reasons mentioned above.

There has been so much written about JPG format and not all of it says the same thing. I understand that just the act of say, dragging the jpg from your C/: drive to an external drive, is saving it. Therefor, it loses some quality in the move. Not sure about this one. But I am sure, no one is going to remember every single time, to save as, a copy. Certainly not me, and then there are the program options already set to save open files automatically ever 10 minutes or every edit.

Mark_Cohran wrote in post #6057511
RAW and JPG each have their place - many photojournalists will often shoot JPG. I shoot in RAW 99% of the time because of the reasons mentioned above.

We only shot in jpeg when I worked for a newspaper for a number of reasons.. Its much quicker to process jpegs especially when you have a hundred or so images to process,, our imaging department ( the guys who did all the heavy post processing) only worked in jpegs..

What do I shoot in now?? Jpeg for 90% of the time..

Unless you know exactly what you are doing, start out with JPEG.

If you feel adventurous, shoot JPEG + RAW. This way you have RAW to "play with", but if you make a mess or get lost, you can always print your JPEG. RAW files are much larger so will probably decrease storage on your card by at least 60%. This was acceptable to me, but to each their own.

From my understanding ...
RAW is the format before camera apply it's process to give you JPEG.

I've been shooting for about a year and just recently started to seriously looking into batch processing RAW myself. I figured, worst case, I can print my JPEG or duplicate camera settings. Also, I like my prints a little sharper then what camera has been giving me - my photos are only for family/friends, not for income so not as much pressure to "get it right".

To answer OP - RAW gives you ability to control how you want photo to turn out instead of letting camera make that decision for you. RAW data has ALL DATA untouched unlike JPEG which is camera processed data. JPEG, you can take to WalMart, pop in your card and get a print. RAW, you need to process into JPEG/TIFF or something else (?) before you can print.

Before messing around with RAW or JPEG, make backups, and a backup of that (external HD), then copy to DVD/CD.

canonloader wrote in post #6057547
I understand that just the act of say, dragging the jpg from your C/: drive to an external drive, is saving it. Therefor, it loses some quality in the move.

No, this isn't true. Merely copying a JPG from one place to another does not degrade the quality.

The concept of "bit rot" in JPGs is a result of the fact that whenever a JPG is recompressed, it uses a lossy compression scheme, so some data is thrown out. However, data is only lost when the JPG is recompressed. Opening up a JPG to display it only decompresses it, hence no quality loss. Moving or copying the file doesn't recompress it either. The only time a JPG is recompressed is if you open it in a program like Photoshop, make a change to the contents of the file by actually changing the pixels, and then save it.

That makes sense to me, but I have followed the jpg format articles for 10 years and you wouldn't believe what some of them claim about the format. Also, different editors use slightly different compressors to create a jpg. I am guessing that might have something to do with them also. But beside the point, a lossless format is not the best to start out with if you want long term storage of your memories, without dgradation over time.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=138533