Raw or JPEG

What is the big difference that I?ve been hearing about shooting Raw compared

with shooting jpeg? is better or what is the best? Thanks in advance Juan Carlos

Vindas

RAW is better, since you have much greater control during post processing over some very critical parameters, like white balance, that you can't do with JPEG. Shooting RAW has two disadvantages: you MUST post process; and the files are larger and will fill your memory card quicker. For me, neither is a concern. CF cards are cheap. Buy bigger ones. And post processing can be automated to a great degree using some of the newer tools available, so that's not as painful as it used to be, so that doesn't bother me. I always shoot RAW. I don't see any point of spending thousands on a camera and then saving my images in a crippled format.

The eternal question! ;-)

 

Basically, raw gives you the data recorded by the sensor. It's up to you (and your post-processing tools) to make it into a final image.

 

With JPEG, the camera's internal processor applies a set of processing parameters to the raw data and generates a "final" image for you.

 

The big downside of Jpeg is that the original camera data is about 10-bits per pixel (about 1024 discrete values). JPEG can only hold 8-bit (about 256 values), so there is some unrecoverable loss of information in the processing step.

 

If you can nail the exposure nearly perfectly and find a set of processing parameters in the camera that you like, then JPEG can be all you ever need (and the post-processing is greatly reduced); many people swear by this process. On the other hand, shooting raw allows (requires) you to play around more with the image in post-processing, and can allow you to "save" an underexposed image.

 

In some respects raw is a bit like processing and printing a negative in your darkroom, while JPEG is like shooting slide film. Both can yield good images with the right technique.

 

If you do decide to shoot raw, you should search on the phrase "expose to the right" for some insight into the differences between an electronic photo-sensor and film.

 

FWIW, I always shoot raw. Sometimes I'll shoot Raw+JPEG, but the JPEGs are only there for quick turn-around work.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Cheers,

 

Geoff S.

RAW is far better, although you must process the image once you import the raw file, the raw file retains much more info than a compressed jpg

Guys, the reason why I post this question is because I have been shooting Raw instead of Jpeg, and just wanted to make sure that by doing it my images could be better, now I am more than sure that is better to shoot Raw, the post processing is not a problem if I know that it can yield better images, I also heard that by shooting Jpeg I loose data every time I open the file, so thank you both for all your time and big help. jc

Despite what others say, shooting RAW is not better than JPEG, it's just different. They're both a means to an end and they both come out of the same printer. Many claim that RAW gives you better quality which is simply false.

 

If shooting JPEG works for you, stick with it. If you need the flexibility that RAW gives you, go with that. It's a matter of workflow rather than quality. There's no right answer to this one so to each their own, but I must admit I'm amused by those that think RAW is better but can't really say why.

JPEG is a compressed format and you loose some information every time you reopen it including the file from the camera to work in photoshop. If you can make a perfect image every time, use JPEG

 

JPEG has some flexibility in processing, raw has huch more.

I agree with Michael, shoot what works for you. If you get the color/white balance right and

the exposure (near) right, jpeg has a lot of advantages with post processing, especially

shooting hundreds of images or more on a photo shoot. And jpeg allows you faster shooting

for some types work where speed is necessary.

 

I would suggest shooting raw+jpg for some types of work and compare the results for

yourself, and then decide. For fine art, lots of editing, or large prints, you may use raw, but

jpeg will work for a lot of photography no one can tell the difference and save time.

Juan,

 

as I've personally only shot in RAW once on my 30D, I usually shoot in jpeg - most of my pics end up on our rugby team's website, so I'm more in a time crunch in the post-processing dept., as deadlines are usually involved.

 

I know people extol the virtues of RAW, some prefer JPEG, but I think it's a personal preference - I may try it again at a rugby match to revisit the process. I think there are perks to both formats.

 

Sheryl

great thread - still feels a little unresolved. i had the same question. I tried RAW but i have not found the "batch processing" tools mentioned here. I like RAW, it clearly gives you more info to process.. but its the TIME it takes to process. Can you tell me how you go about automating RAW processing? specifically WHICH tools. thanks!

Well, to start let me tell you that I am not a professional in this, but I like to ?ply? with PS some times, just to see what happens, but the tool you can find in some other software programs could be just right for you, and like I say, just like to play with the tool PS have but it is up to you if you want to use them. May be some good shots could come up. jc

I used JPEG once with my 30D, and was not happy with the results, the images were not good and needed to be messed around with, I was annoyed that although I could correct the lack of experience a bit with JPEG's, I had lost a good picture that could not be taken again, since then I have obviously improved, but on the times when I still get it wrong, at least with RAW files I can 99% of the time sort out the mess, yes it means more time stuck in front of the computer, but on the up side it means less time with the misses, which is always a plus.

 

Another thing to mention is that most of the magazines that I now take photos for prefer RAW files to TIFF, and I know none that would except JPEG's, however big they are.

With jpeg it helps to get settings right in camera including white balance and exposure as after the fact there is little you can do to recover lost detail and large shifts in color balance can reveal noise, etc.

 

I'd prefer to spend less time fiddling with menus and more time shooting so I only shoot RAW with my 20D and process in Lightroom.

<i>"...still feels a little unresolved"</i>

<p>

it's the difference between an original negative and a dupe of the original negative. i don't know how much you spent on your outfit, but i know that for what i spent on mine, i want the original, not a copy.

<p>

see: <a href="http://photodoto.com/index.php/2006/08/03/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout">http://photodoto.com/index.php/2006/08/03/raw-vs-jpg-print-shootout/</a>

"JPEG is a compressed format and you loose some information every time you reopen it including the file from the camera to work in photoshop."

 

I am SO FED UP hearing this BS. You do not lose ANYTHING opening a jpg. You will lose information if you open, manipulate and re-save more than a few times. The link in Gaetano's post shows 10 re-saves with very little degradation. If you open, manipulate/print and do not re-save, you lose nothing.

 

Another link is here for a fair comparison from Ken Rockwell. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

 

I have no problem with people shooting whatever they want, let's just get the facts straight.

 

Doug

Guys, guess what? I was playing my my camera while you were posting and this is what I got. the two images were taken with my Canon 30D, standard shooting mode, 50mm lens at 1.4 ap. and this is what I got. tell me what you think.

JPEG file

Ok, those files are too heavy but check these ones out, is the same shot, but is at the same time very different, look at the colors too.

Ken Rockwell has some great information. he also has a reputation for having tunnel vision on certain issues. with all due respect to him, when in doubt i'm going to believe my own eyes -- <a href="http://www.pbase.com/juergenkook/jpg_vs_raw">http://www.pbase.com/juergenkook/jpg_vs_raw</a>

<p>

if i shot sporting events, i'd probably use jpg-only, for the sake of greater speed. however, as a wedding photog, i sometimes do extreme cropping. in such cases, i didn't spend $4000 on a 5D and a 24-70 f/2.8L to capture images that are "almost as good" as the best my system will do.

<p>

no "bs"; just the facts.

Now, this is the JPEG FILE.

Juan, you're a funny guy. RAW JPEG's ... LOL!

JPEG is a compressed format and you loose some information every time you reopen it

 

Thanx Doug Axford, this BS was annoying me as well, once the Jpeg is finished you can open & close as much as you like with NO loss. RAW is just like a negative with plenty of lattitude, Jpeg a slide but with some room for error. Most convert RAW to 8bit compressed jpeg to print, where is the difference then?

The answer is so simple. Unless you need to shoot at 3+ frames per second or you are limited on CF storage, shoot both. Then check out the JPEG version of the photo. Most of the time it will be what you need then you can delete the RAW. There is NO loss in a JPEG file when you transfer from your camera or burn it to a disc or back-up HD. It is just a file like any other file. You should however, always keep an original, unedited version of your JPEG to start from in the future and do a "save as" with a new name if you make ANY changes. It is at this point that the JPEGS start to degrade. You will not see it on 2nd or 3rd generations but they are degrading. I save my originals to CD or DVD media which as you know are "read only" so they are protected. On the rare occasion that I was not happy with the JPEG version, it was nice to have the RAW as a back up.

Thank you all guys for taking time to help me with this big thing, now I am a little worried because I got a CF card from Sandisk Extreme III 2GB and I suspect is fake, when I got it I paid $90, and now they went to $50, they look so different on the seller page. Bad experience.

The BS refers to the constant posts on this forum about jpgs losing data every time they are opened. Or a few months ago, a guy who insisted that jpgs deteriorated while on your hard drive. It's time to cut the myths on this.

 

I have no problem with people choosing to shoot either way, it's the continual posting of stuff that is not true that bugs me.

 

On a related problem, every comparison I've seen has to have some manipulation done to it. After all, that's what raw is all about. You're comparing one wine to another. Everyone can have their own choice, just keep posts free of lies is all I ask.

 

Doug