RAW vs JPEG fine

<p>Jeff, my "that's it" included:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>and a smaller file than the Raw file it came from</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>which is basically the point you're making.</p>

<p>So that <em>is</em> it..</p>

<p>Maria said:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Yes, I have a storage problem, I cannot run all software anymore because my computer, 5 years old, is getting filled with photos and the DVD drive is damaged, so I cannot burn anymore ... My photos from the last excursion I had not place to download them anymore ...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maria, get an external hard drive to free up your computer. Terabytes are available for a small investment. DVD storage is a poor substitute for a HD, IME. Use DVDs to send images to others, but archive for yourself on a HD.</p>

<p>Also, you ideally need offsite backup. Although store only JPEGs, Flickr offers 1TB of storage for free. It sounds like you could back up your entire JPEG library for free, at least for the time being. Then you'd have truly secured your images.</p>

<p>These images seem important to you, so seriously think about shoring up your archive and backup. I have two friends that lost their live's work in the last two-years, one by fire and one by flood. You need offsite backup for important stuff.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff, my "that's it" included:</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

You went on to say:</p>

 

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>Unless you're (say) a pro sports photographer that needs to get images to a newspaper as quickly as possible (which is where a jpeg straight from the camera can save time), I can see no case whatsoever for using - and saving - any other format than the Raw file.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>So "that's it" didn't include the issue with buffer size.</p>

 

 

 

 

 

<p>"I" think the "need" to shoot in raw is overstated.<br>

Granted, the ability to fine tune an image to it's maximum potential is there in raw, and not in jpg, and is probably necessary for for fine quality exhibition work (if that's what you're into). BUT there ARE prices to be paid. Jeff mentions buffer issues. The OP specified storage issues, and buying (and managing) more storage is not cost free. <br>

Modern cameras have pretty damn good conversion engines built in; the advantages of raw are not automatic. Choosing and learning the use the conversion program(s) of choice, can easily become a black hole for energy and focus. This price can be serious, depending on the individual, nobody has an endless budget of either time or enthusiasm. Budgeting time and focus for the learning curve is bound to detract from actual shooting practices that go into good pictures.<br>

Yeah.....it's maybe just a repeat rant of "get it right in the camera", but it comes from looking at my own photography. Proper raw adjustments are hardly (not even close!) to being my weakest link. Technique is no substitute for vision. Having said that, I do shoot in raw for the potential that it offers, but I would guess that over half get no raw adjustment that couldn't be effected in jpgs.</p>

<p>Due to the limited dynamic range in digital cameras and the need for many of us to ETTR (expose to the right), "getting it right in the camera" just ain't gonna happen all the time. However, if you're happy with your camera's in-camera rendering of JPEG and you don't mind blocked shadows and blown highlights here and there (Many don't have a camera that can do in-camera, multi-shot HDR, or shoot moving subjects where HDR will not work), then you should be happy with in-camera JPEGs. That's really a substantial number of people. If you had no idea what I was talking about, then JPEG will likely serve your purposes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Granted, the ability to fine tune an image to it's maximum potential is there in raw, and not in jpg...Modern cameras have pretty damn good conversion engines built in</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's a bit more to it than that, depending on what you, as the photographer wish to express photographically. The JPEG is a baked rendering (color and tone appearance). I think of it not even like a transparency versus a neg, I think of it more like a Polaroid. Anyway, depending your goal for expressing your vision, raw provides the ability to "render to a print" as expressed in this long but excellent article on the subject of the two possible processes:<br>

http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/family/prophotographer/pdfs/pscs3_renderprint.pdf<br>

On top of that, what David Stephens just wrote (+1). <br>

It isn't that JPEG is wrong or bad, it is about how you want to control the image. In-camera JPEG isn't about this. Further, looking at where I go with my images, and I suspect many other shooters, the final often is vastly visually different from what the camera provided as a JPEG which we get to see on the back of the LCD. IOW, my finals don't look anything like what the camera showed me, that's rarely what I want. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Technique is no substitute for vision.<br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>And JPEG limits severely the vision. Color, tone, those attributes are a rather important part of the vision and the JPEG forces to a very large degree, that vision on the image. </p>

<p>While for most subjects I shoot RAW + JPG, for birds in flight, college football, and professional surfing contests, I use only large JPG fine. I may need to shoot fast and long with these subjects and the buffer size in my current Nikon cameras (especially D7100) simply can't do this. In action photography, catching peak action trumps pixel peeping. (I have seen Keith's excellent BIF images shot with RAW.) I believe the Nikon D4 is the only Nikon body that can do this which I do not own. I'm not holding my breath that Nikon will introduce a D400 (D300 replacement) that can do this. </p>

<p>Michael, I can't imagine BIF without Raw. Lifting underwing shadows, bringing up feather details, sharpening, etc. I shoot Canon and don't have buffer problems shoot 6 and 8 fps. I understand that Canons and Nikons behave quite differently as their buffers fill, but I'd shoot in smaller bursts, rather than give up Raw.</p>

<p>David, interestingly, when I do shoot BIF, surfing, or football, there are a lot more Canon DSLRs being used than Nikon. As a Nikon shooter for decades, many of us are waiting for a D300 replacement but it doesn't appear that Nikon is interested in competing with Canon in the advanced amateur sports market. The D7100 is an excellent camera, it's just slower and has a smaller buffer than the equivalent Canons. </p>

<p>For as long as I have been interested in photography I can remember reading things about RAW images and JEPG. As a youngin I never really cared so I did not feel the need to explore this topic. Since I have gotten older I have realized that this is a relevant question to photographers all over the world. The debate between weather taking photos in either RAW or JEPG is better, has gone on for long enough, tonight we come to a conclusion.<br>

Frist of lets decipher what the difference is between a RAW and a JEPG file. As said by slrlounge.com “Raw files are uncompressed and unprocessed snapshots of all the detail available to the camera sensor”. Now a JEPG is a type of computer file that only collects the “ color tempter and exposure that are set based on your camera settings when the image is shot” (Slrlounge.com) What this means is RAW files take in absolutely every bit of data it possibly can, to give you the most to work with. JEPG files on the other hand, only collect what the camera tells it to. You may be reading this thinking oh the answers clear, use the RAW setting, but it is not that simple.<br>

RAW images involve more steps than taking a great photo and sending them all to your friends. These types of images involve work. RAW images cant be opened just by double clicking. They have to be open and viewed with editing software. I personally use Lightroom by Adobe. It is great for editing and storing your images RAW or not. Editing can be looked at as dreadful and time consuming but with the right software and the basic knowledge of editing you can whip out some great images in a short amount of time. When you are done editing your photos you have to then convert them to a JEPG if you want to use them else where. But if you just have to convert the image to JEPG what is the point in taking photos in RAW? Like I said earlier, RAW files take in all the information they possibly can, thus making editing much more enjoyable. It can take an over exposed photo and make it look brand new! Another benefit of taking photos in RAW is that the changes you make to an image are saved but you can always go back to the original image you photographed, rather than when you photograph using JEPG once you make a change to an image you are stuck with it.<br>

Using JEPG files is easy and simple. This type of file is processed in the camera so there is no need to convert your images when using a JEPG. Since JEPG files are smaller, they take up less room and are easier to work with. When it comes to editing, you can practically use whatever editing software your heart desires. The downfall of having a JEPG file and wanting to do some editing on your prints is that, since this type of file only collects the data the camera tells it to, you have a very small range to make corrections to your photo. Thus meaning if you take a photo that’s under exposed you have a very small window editing wise to make adjustments. It is not just exposure that has little fixing ability but most if not all editing.<br>

In conclusion, weather you choose to take photographs in RAW or JEPG great images are achievable with some practice and a good eye for angles and composition. If your main purpose is to take snapshots, just for fun and do not feel the need to do major editing on your images JEPG is recommended for you. It is easy to use with no need to convert your images or have special software for your pictures. If you want to use your photos professionally or want to start dabbling in serious editing, taking photos in RAW format is the way to go. It involves a bit more work but it may be worth the trouble. The nice editing software and the higher quality images gained from using RAW format. Weather you are taking photos for fun or professionally the choice to shoot in RAW format or JEPG is ultimately up to you. </p>

<p>The weather is nice in Denver today, whether you care or not.</p>