Difference between RAW vs. JPEG

[sheryl_bury_michals]

If someone could clarify this for me it would be appreciated.

 

What is the difference between using RAW and JPEG images. I do sports

photography, which means lots of action shots. I know that if I shoot

in RAW format, I would have to process the shots in Photoshop (I

currently have Photoshop CS). Most of the time I save images for web

purposes in JPEG (at 180 dpi, which is what my camera shoots the

action shot at), as I put these images on a team website. I've yet to

shoot images in RAW, as I hear you can't get as many on a media card

as you would in JPEG.

 

However, if someone wants an enlargement of an action shot, what do I

do. Do I a)save the photoshopped shot in JPEG for webs stuff, and keep

the original shot (non-cropped, etc.) in RAW format on a CD in case I

want to make enlargements later (saving the image at 300dpi). Or - do

I take the RAW file and save it as a TIFF file. I know the lab where

I have enlargements made usually want the images in JPEG format. What

I don't want is details/clarity lost.

 

I'm a tad confused, as I'd like to give people qualilty images, but I

think I may be going about it the wrong way....

 

What I have done recently is to take the original images on the media

card and transfer them onto a CD in case someone wants enlargements.

Then I can retweak if need be - while my JPEG images for the web are

on a separate disk.

 

(FYI - I have a Canon 10D, at some point I may go up to a 20D, but

have been happy with the images I have taken so far.)

 

Any advice would be appreciated. Also, any advice on an at-home Photo

printer than can print up to 14x17 without taking up massive amounts

of space - and produce high-quality images. Thanks!

 

thanks - sheryl

[giles_lean]

<p>A good starting point would be to read this discussion:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml">Understanding RAW Files Explained</a>

</blockquote>

 

<p>Giles</p>

[Spearhead]

In addition to Giles' recommendation, you really need a better grasp of "dpi." See what Simon Meeds has written in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00EQUt">this current thread.</a>

[jim_doty]

The short list of high quality, archival printers includes the Epson 2200 and its successor, the 2400. Either would serve you well. They aren't small in size.

 

RAW files give you more image data to work with. If you need to do major editing of an image, you have less risk of banding, posterization, and other image quality problems when working with a RAW file. Jpeg files do have their place. Which you should shoot depends on several factors. I've written a lot more about this here:

 

http://www.jimdoty.com/Digital/Raw_vs_Jpeg/raw_vs_jpeg.html

 

Jim

[benbangerter]

From the way you describe your work, I would think that large, highest quality JPEGs would be suitable. In sports photography you take a LOT of shots, and generally do not know until you examine them later which ones are really good. So you are faced with shooting either RAW (or RAW with JPEG) or just JPEG. Your workflow with JPEG will be much easier. Just make sure your in-camera JPEG processing parameters are set the way you want them. If lighting conditions are difficult or extreme, think about shooting RAW for the after-the-fact white balance and exposure compensation you can then do. Use RAW for posed shots. And convert your RAWs to TIFFs. The most important thing when working with JPEGs is not to resave files in that format more than necessary to avoid the inevitable image degradation that will result from compression. Save as PSD or TIFF during your workup (cropping, levels, curves, color adjustment, etc) or for printing, and finally save a lower resolution JPEG for web use.

 

As for printing, are you SURE you want to print 14x17? An Epson R1800 ($550) or R2400 ($850) will make long lasting 13" x 19" prints. Next step up is an Epson 4800 ($2000), which prints up to 17" wide. This is a whole other world, and you will not want to go there! You are most likely to want glossy prints, so the R1800 is your best bet. Incidentally, for best results print at 360, 240, or (for large prints from cropped images) 180 ppi on Epson printers, using bicubic interpolation in Photoshop.

 

Good luck!

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Ben,

 

that makes sense - I shoot for a rugby team, and everything is fast-paced, and rarely posed (if they are,it's only for a second) - except for group shots.

 

The reason I asked about printers is that I'm thinking of getting one - that way I don't have to run to my favorite professional lab each time. Some of the guys on our team want 11x14's - especially in the case of a group shot. Most of the time I print 5x7/8x10s, but there's always the player with the really big ego that wants something bigger. Hence the need for a decent printer that does the business. $2000 seems pricey, and if it's fraught with problems, I'd rather go with an Epson 2400.

[sheryl_bury_michals]

To Giles, Jeff, and Jim,

 

thanks to you all also for your sage advice. I'm thinking of doing a photo archive website for our rugby team, with the option to have the guys purchase pics if they want. Hence the one question about the printer options.

 

RAW sounds like a more permanent storage option, but the thing is, is that I shoot for a rugby team, and the action is so fast paced, it's all about getting as many shots as you can. Which is why I didn't use RAW for that reason - I shoot over 100 pics per 1-2 matches (especially true if our team is winning!). But if I want to have the original untweaked shot saved for future use, JPEG may not cut it, is that what I'm understanding...?

 

Is saving in TIFF a possibility for the long haul as well as RAW? I also do some medical shooting for my husband (shooting MRI/CT/Plain film images), and he's doing a textbook, where all the images have to be in TIFF format.

[conraderb]

RAW makes large files, but for $250, you can get a hard drive that will let you reuse your files. it's called the wolverine - http://www.wolverinedata.com/.

 

I shot some soccer stuff for an educational client two months ago, and although it was annoying, it was good to know that RAW would give me a bit of flexibility in the contrast and saturation of the images in a way that JPG can't do.

 

CE

[benbangerter]

Sheryl, There is nothing wrong with the Epson 4800 printer. It is just that the size, weight and expense of the unit are such that only those with a serious need to make a lot of big prints would get it.

[jim_doty]

Sheryl:

 

I often shoot sports in jpeg-fine mode. I can shoot faster, buffer more, and use less memory card space. For sports photos I only need to do a minor amount of editing.

 

For landscape photos with a wide tonal range, RAW becomes more important.

 

If someone needs a nice print of a sports photo, I edit the image (usually with adjustment layers), save it for myself as a psd, and then make them a print or provide them a jpeg file. I think you are on the right track.

 

Jim

[sheryl_bury_michals]

Ben,

 

makes sense - overallI don't make enough prints to justify a $2000 printer, that's for sure. But Epson seems to make good photo printers (I'm certinaly happy with their 3170 photo scanner from my film prints!). Thanks for the info.

 

Jim - I'll probably continue to shoot JPEG then for the sports shots. I may be going to the South of France for some rugby games our team's playing in this coming summer, and RAW won't cut it for taking tons of shots, much as the quality is so much better. Also, you mentioned you save the shot as a PSD - what is the advantage of that form over a TIFF, especially since I'd like to archive the shots for making prints in the future.

 

Conrad - how many shots did you take for your match in RAW? I usually do 100-150 for 2 80-minute rugby matches, and I know soccer can move fast as well. I have a 1 GB card that gives me lots of large-format JPEG's, just never tried it in RAW.

 

sb-m

[conraderb]

Sheryl - for 45 minutes, I shot quite a bit - probably 350 frames!

 

Keep in mind that a) this was for an institutional client, so I wanted to have lots of options of stuff to show them and b) I'm fairly inexperienced with sports photography, so I probably WAY overshot.

 

CE