RAW vs. RAW+L

<p>What is the difference between RAW and RAW+L? It can't be that big of a difference...can it?</p>

It is a RAW image and a JPG, so you do not have to use a process to get the image on the computer, but you still have the RAW for full post-processing. You probably have other, scaled down, JPG sizes available as well. It does take a bit more space on the memory card.

<p>So, what would be better to use?</p>

<p>The RAW. There's no use making it if you'r not going to use it.</p>

<p>Google "RAW processing" for info on how to use it.</p>

<p><Chas></p>

I take everything in RAW unless I have a very good specific reason to do otherwise; it maximizes the possibilities.

<p>RAW plus Large jpeg is just a safety net, which may or may not matter to you, providing you with an immediate jpeg, processed by the camera. It's handy if you have no RAW processing on hand, say on vacation. It also shows the camera's interpretation, giving you some feedback.</p>

<p>I used this mode for my first card full, on my first dslr, and then switched to just RAW.</p>

I take everything in RAW (as I said, unless I have a specific reason to do otherwise), then in the computer convert them to DNG, then to JPG if needed.

<p>It all depends on how you look at it. If your pretty comfortable with your Jpegs straight out of camera the shooting RAW+L just means that you would have your Jpegs for most of what you do, and then have the safety net of RAW for those few that need more work. If your on location and you'll need to hand over jpegs on the spot but want RAW later this is the way to go. I myself just shoot RAW.</p>

<p >Camera RAW files contain more digital information, which allows for more detailed post processing. They are not compressed. JPEG files are compressed even if you chose the max size, the least amount of compression. After repetitions of opening and closing (decompressing and compressing), on your computer, the image can begin to lose data.</p>

<p >Here’s part of what I learned in my research on producing professional quality prints. </p>

<p >1. Always shot in RAW…RAW +L is a waste of memory space.</p>

<p >2. Use the Adobe RGB camera color setting (profile); it has a wider color gamut than sRGB. Most professional and pro-sumer cameras will shoot in Adobe RGB. Convert the Adobe profile to sRBG for web posting (google it).</p>

<p >3. Do your post processing on the RAW format image and do a ‘save as’ and convert it to a Tiff file…no compression and it maintains layer integrity. I do zip the layers if present. <br>

Export or save your Tiff file with the widest color gamut profile your printer will support.</p>

<p>I am not sure that setting the color space in camera when shooting RAW makes a difference. Isn't RAW just RAW?<br>

Of course, when exporting the file to any editing software as TIFF, Adobe RGB has the edge over sRGB.<br>

Correct me if I'm wrong.<br>

Me myself always shoot both RAW and the smallest JPG, which then can be used for quick emailing to friends or so. <br>

But there is no arguing about the flexibility RAW gives you. And with the batch processing possibilities in software such as f.i. Adobe Lightroom, it can be made reasonably easy.</p>

<p >Yes, RAW is RAW and I didn’t completely understand RAW. So I went and did a little closer reading. I found <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/prophoto-rgb.shtml">this</a> on color management.</p>

<p >I do convert my RAW files to ProPhoto RGB because I had read some place else about it’s wider gamut and 16bit because my printer will support them.</p>

<p ><br>

As far as shooting RAW plus anything…it’s not that big of a deal really. If you’ve got the memory cards to handle it. I was thinking in the context of going on a photo shoot and shooting dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of exposures. I don’t shoot to send emails to friends, I shoot to get one descent exposure which may take dozens of shots of the same thing to get that one. All depends on why and what an individual is doing.</p>

<p>Craig, RAW files actually do use compression, <em>lossless</em> compression, coupled with a very efficient format that somehow bundles the 3 color channels. The compression is evident in variation in file size: busy images don't compress as well as images with expanses of plain monotones. I think higher ISO RAW files as a rule tend to be bigger, due to more noise.</p>

<p>Some cameras, for example Nikon's D50 and D300, embed a full resolution JPEG in the raw file which can be extracted by downloading a free program called instant jpeg from raw. So you get the same benefit of shooting raw + L without the added disk space consumed. simply do a google search for instant jpeg from raw.</p>

<p>Timothy</p>

<p>As has been said the 'L' part is 'large JPEG' - in other words the best-quaity JPEG the camera software produces. RAW is the data from which the camera produces that picture. All RAW files will have to be converted to JPEG before printing (OK, I know you can print from TIFF nowadays but that is for people who are really confident in their abilities) so you may wonder why we bother.<br>

The RAW contains muchmoer detail than you will ever see in a JPEG and experienced people shoot RAW because they know how to process a RAW image to get a good print at the end of it and they can do remarkable things to achieve specific effects. So if you are a relative beginner, I would suggest shooting RAW+L and that way at least you have a processed picture that you can print and (most times) be happy with. If there is somethign about the picture you don't like then you can process it to what you want. Examples would be:</p>

<ul>

<li>using the wrong white balance eg 'cloudy' on a sunny day or 'daylight' under tungsten lights</li>

<li>undersposed/overexposed</li>

<li>poor detail in shadow or highlight that you may be able to recover from a RAW file - for this you can adjust curves, contrast or brightness (or all three)</li>

<li>add extra local sharpening, either local or global</li>

</ul>

<p>And before you ask, yes, the JPEG adds memory but CF cards and computer memory are so eridiculaously cheap at the moment that people don't really worry about it.</p>

<p>Thank guys! I'll just shoot RAW.</p>

<ul>

<li>A jpeg in a not too difficult lighting situation can be good enough just from camera if you expose it right and use the right settings. </li>

<li>If the light was very difficult or there was a user error, RAW can help. </li>

<li>If image quality is critical, RAW will help. </li>

<li>Developing raws in a batch process with the same settings for all often won't significantly add to in-camera processing</li>

<li>Developing raws on a per image basis takes time and effort.</li>

<li>A 3MB jpeg relatively doesn't add much space to a 14MB raw.</li>

</ul>

<p>Those are my reasons to shoot RAW +JPG. Keep the camera-generated JPGs that are good, use the raws when needed. The usefulness of camera-generated JPGs strongly depends on the camera, of course.</p>