What to shoot - Raw (NEF) or JPEG

[debiasir]

I own a D50 and am an amatuer, What should I shot in RAW (NEF) of JPEG Fine. I

am not the best photographer. I also have Photoshop and Picasa for editing.

 

Is there any visual difference between RAW (NEF) or JPEG Fine.

 

Can JPEG Fine be edited like a RAW (NEF) image?

[leicaglow]

The big difference is when you go to print an image. RAW (usually converted to TIFF before printing) gives very accurate color and sharpness. RAW images look a little ugly at first, but handled editing in Photoshop (or whatever program you use) to produce superb results. JPEG colors are often exhaggerated and off. There's not much difference in the way either file is edited, but RAW has more data to work with, and thus the results are usually better.

[marc_rochkind]

This question comes up over and over, so you can find lots of answers if you search this

and other forums. You'll get lots of answers here, too.

 

To make raw convenient and to really gain from using it, you need some extra software

beyond what came with your camera. The goal is not just to convert from raw to whatever

your image editor can handle, but to actually process the image (setting color balance,

exposure, cropping, etc.) with the image still in raw. To do that you need the Adobe

Camera Raw plug-in for Photoshop, or one of the several other extra-cost image editing

programs available (e.g., Nikon Capture).

 

One aspect of working with raw I like best is that edits are "soft." (Most raw-processing

programs do this, but I don't know about Capture, as I've never used it.) You can go back

and tweak the edit over and over without ever changing the original pixels. Also, you have

a much greater range of possible edits in the raw domain, as opposed to the fully-baked

JPEG domain. For example, you can recover seemingly blown-out highlights.

 

I strongly recommend that you not only do this, but also adopt an Adobe DNG workflow

(no extra cost beyond the Photoshop cost). DNGs can hold a full-size embedded JPEG

preview that is updated as the DNG is edited, and this makes it extremely convenient, as

you often need just one file for the original, the edits to the raw, and the JPEG, instead of 3

or more.

 

Using appropriate software, I find working with raw faster and more convenient than

working with JPEG, not less, which is what most people seem to say.

 

Lots more detail about the advantages of a DNG workflow at thedambook.com.

 

--Marc

[Peter_in_PA]

All images you shoot start as a raw image. Then two things can happen.

 

1. Your camera processes the raw image using the in-camera white balance, color

adjustments and sharpening. Then you have a jpeg.

 

2. The raw file is saved directly, although with the instructions as to how the camera

WOULD have handled it. Then you make those adjustments on the PC or Mac, changing

them if you wish. It takes longer.

 

I would HIGHLY recommend you do what I did, which is... do your own tests. Shoot the

same, well-lit scene all different ways your camera lets you. I found that shooting RAW for

landscapes and other critical work and then working on the adjustments in photoshop,

even on the "lowly" D50, was noticeably better than shooting jpegs.

 

However, for candids, especially "flash" candids, and fun, non-serious stuff. I shoot jpeg to

save time. Also for stuff I'm shooting and just "handing off" I shoot jpeg.

 

Here's an interesting article by Ken Rockwell.

 

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

 

He advocates for always shooting jpeg, and some of his reasons are good. BUT... as much

as I think he gets it right a lot, and I like this article, upon doing my OWN testing, I

decided to shoot raw whenever I can. I see the difference.

[andy m]

I'm a computer programmer and would rather not spend even MORE time in front of the computer twiddling with RAW files.

 

I approach digital photography as ultra-cheap slide film. I hardly ever even crop. What I capture is what I get and if it sucks then I need to do better next time; use a custom white balance, or a tripod, or better lighting, etc. I think my technique improves faster this way.

 

Now, if I were getting paid and I needed to get everything right, I would shoot RAW.

 

If I wanted to spend even more time on my computer (and $600 for Photoshop, and a bunch for larger backup disks) I would shoot RAW.

 

If I did a lot of post-processing to make my photos look painterly or deal with huge dynamic range issues, I would shoot RAW.

 

But I'm happy with the results I get from my JPEGs. And I avoid a lot of the headaches that people seem to have with software and color profiles (sRGB 4 EVA!) ;-)

[j_sevigny]

Lots of good information so far.

 

It all depends on what your intentions are, I think. If you plan to do a lot of lightening and darkening in Photoshop, RAW is probably your best bet. RAW images can "take" a lot more fiddling than jpgs because as someone said earlier, they contain more information. As a result, they're also bigger. You have to remember also that it's not so much that RAW files CAN be altered, rather that they MUST be. They come out of the camera looking kind of dull and often completely different than you thought they would look.

 

On the other hand, if you're shooting a lot and not doing too much editing, the jpg format might be your best bet.

 

See what works best for you.

[Ruben Silva]

shoot RAW, and preserve your digital negatives for any further post processing you may like, and for the future...

Besides having less sharpness, JPEG can not be manipulated without tones loose.

[matt_needham]

Shoot RAW if you want to have more control over the file in post-processing. Shoot JPEG if you want the file to come out of the camera pretty much ready to go.

[fhmillard]

PS can read Nikon and just about any camera's RAW files. It is my understanding that RAW format is the digital negative, since it is the "raw" and uncompressed sensor information. I always use RAW when shooting

[darrengold]

If when you shot film you asked for your negatives back to print them yourself, or gave the lab specific instructions on how to print them - shoot RAW.

 

If you sent away your film, never looked at the negatives and just got back your prints, and most of the time you were happy with what you got - shoot JPEG. And you can still tweak it if you want to.

 

Regards.

[Ruben Silva]

RAW = Digital Negative; JPEG = digital print to a file

imagine the rest.