shooting raw/jpegs

[alan_l1]

There are many threads about this subject but would like an answer that is more

updated. So I apologize for asking the same question. What are the main

advantages of shooting raw? Ive read that you can post-process RAW a lot

easier, what does that mean? I believe it means you can change white balance,

exposure, etc, but cant you also do that with jpeg? Does shooting RAW produce

higher quality photos? Any information would help..

THANKS

 

-Alan

[trunfio]

You will find not only lots of threads about this here, but lots of websites, books, etc. The

main advantage of RAW as I use it is that you can (in post processing): (1) adjust the white

balance at will, (2) adjust saturation to your heart's content, (3) fine tune exposure, and for

me most importantly (4) have better noise characteristics at high ISOs.

 

Now, you are correct that with a JPG file you can adjust exposure to some degree and

saturation, but this is limited. White balance you cannot fix as a JPG. Anything ISO 800 and

above, if you shoot RAW and use a good noise plug-in like Noiseware Pro, the images

come out quite nice.

 

You can batch convert RAW to JPG quite easily.

 

The advantage to JPG is that if you are shooting sports, you can burst shoot almost at will

(whereas at least on a D300, the buffer for 12-bit RAW is 17 images). For news, you don't

have to worry as much about noise.

 

So, it depends on your needs. Most always I shoot RAW. Once you get used to it, it is just

one more small step to convert and the control it gives you is worth it (in my opinion).

[lex_jenkins]

As Paul said, there are several discussions already all around photo.net and elsewhere. And the raw/JPEG issue hasn't changed so there's nothing to update.

 

I'll just summarize what I usually say...

 

I like shooting JPEGs when time is short because they're ready to go. No minilab I know of can print raw files. People I give CDs to don't know, care or want to know anything about raw. If I shoot JPEGs and do a good job, all I need to do is burn 'em to disc and I'm done.

 

But that's the tricky part. There's a tendency to think of JPEGs as "amateurish" and raw for "serious" photographers. Not necessarily so. JPEGs are unforgiving, like shooting slide film. Very little wiggle room for errors in exposure, white balance, etc.

 

And it's especially tricky with serious amateur and pro dSLRs. Manufacturers seem to gear these cameras for shooting raw. It's not easy to shoot good JPEGs with these cameras. I had to do a lotta tweaking with my D2H to get good JPEGs out of the box, whereas my cousin was getting excellent JPEGs in auto-everything mode with her Coolpix 8800.

 

If you shoot in fairly low volume and for fine art or best possible quality results, you're probably a good candidate for raw.

 

If you shoot in high volume, need quick turnover and know how to wring out the best possible results under the circumstances without editing, you may be a candidate for JPEGs.

 

Learn to do both. At some point you'll probably be glad you did.

 

And if the D300 allows shooting highest quality JPEGs and NEFs simultaneously, and you don't need the ultimate in continuous shooting speed *and* you have plenty of storage space and a backup system worked out, you might want to shoot NEFs and JPEGs simultaneously for some projects. I do that a lot.

[vrankin]

A agree with Lex about shooting RAW and JPEG together. You can best experience the

difference for yourself, and decide your preferences depending on subjects, time for post-

processing, etc. I often find that the in-camera jpeg sharpening and color/contrast boosts

are nice. Strangely, the jpeg versions always have deeper, more saturated reds and the reds

in RAW contain more yellow. I use an older D70. Your results might be different.

[michael_darnton1]

I shoot both, and use RAW for prints, jpeg for the web. The place where RAW stands out, in my experience, is in very fine repetitive texture, which any jpeg tends to want to wipe over--stuff like the plaster texture on walls. Regarding color and exposure--I tend to stay on top of those in shooting, and don't usually have to do too much later, so I don't benefit too much from that aspect, but it's always there if I need it with RAW.

[ilkka_nissila]

You <i>can</i> adjust the white balance of in-camera JPGs in post-processing. Because of the smaller bit depth and compression artifacts you may not get as high a quality result, but this can be done, e.g. using Adobe's current software.

<p>

Not that I ever shoot JPG in the camera - I wouldn't even think of doing that. I often shoot in high contrast light without reflectors or fill flash. With JPG it is highly problematic to open up shadows, something that is relatively easy to do with raw images as long as the original camera data has relatively low noise (low to mid ISO).

[dwight200]

I started shooting jpg with my D200. After a couple of errors forgetting to reset white balance, I switched to RAW/jpg. I used that for about a year. The RAW file allows me to do a better job on white balance corrections. On the D200, the RAW file is 12 bits and jpg's are limited to 8 bits. Those extra 4 bits provide a factor of 16 in tonal range which you can use in the postprocessing programs. That advantage is lost with jpg only.

 

I've now dropped the jpg. Not because I need to postprocess all my pictures, but because I'm having trouble keeping track of them. I used to download the pictures with some descriptive file name. With >20,000 pictures on the computer I find that method lacking. I'm now using Lightroom as digital asset management by tagging photos as I download them. Taking RAW only forces me to put the pictures through Lightroom (or some other conversion program, but I've settled on Lightroom for the tagging). If I had a jpg available, the temptation would be too much for my weak mind to skip the tagging, and 3 years from now the picture would be lost in the pile.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"What are the main advantages of shooting raw?"

 

The main advantage is that the photo you shoot is not developed by the camera's internal software. This means that you avoid the limitations imposed by those specifications whic hare first set at the factory and possibly customized by you. These include but are not limited to: choice of color space, bit depth per Red, Green and Blue Channel, sharpening, and noise reduction. So The main advantage of raw is the you assume can more precisely control development (raw to TIFF or JPEG formats) of your photos on a frame by frame, or batch basis t oget the optimum quality your camera and you are capable of. This is important since as your skill level goes up you can go back to the original data set and apply your refined skills to photos that you shot five years or five days ago. This helps avoid the Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO) syndrome. think of it this way: once a photo is in either the JPEG or TIFF form it is a developed negative. A "raw" file is more like a latent image on an undeveloped negative -- one that you can revisit and process repeatedly for different results.

 

"I believe it means you can change white balance, exposure, etc, but cant you also do that with jpeg?"

 

You can, but since in a JPEG or a TIFF the data has been rendered into a fixed form, each editing step you make including simply rotating the an image fro ma vertical to a horizontal , starts to affect the integrity of the data -- in other words these changes are destructive. With JPEGS, since the data has already been heavily manipulated in the compression process this damage starts showing up sooner.

 

"Does shooting RAW produce higher quality photos?"

 

yes it can but how much better is dependent on you. Yo u or whoever you choose to develop your raw photos are taking o nthat responsibility.

[d_syd]

Well, for what it's worth in this thread, I think I found a rather different reason to shoot raw over jpeg. I have a stuck pixel in my sensor and the raw convertor (either lightroon or the proprietary software) gets rid of it for me automatically so I don't have to locate and clone it out in every shot.

[dbcooper]

Only you can make better quality images. Shooting RAW will just give you greater ease of more intensive or in-depth post-processing than you're probably used to. It WILL make higher TECHNICAL quality images after in-depth post-processing, due to not being as prone to digital artifacts from PP adjustments, having greater dynamic range, etc. than JPG.

 

Not considering post-processing, the image quality is basically equal (no one I know can see any difference), and I'd give JPG the nod on convenience and economy.

 

My $.02: if you don't have the PP need for shooting RAW, then you won't gain a thing. In fact, you'll just lose storage capacity, both on your camera's memory card and in your computer's drive.

[philippartridge]

If you are the perfect photographer, and never suffer blown highlights or blocked shadows, never need to revise white balance, never want to do 'what if' scenarios for colour mode, contrast (tone curve), never want to change your output to another colour space, never want to take advantage of the amazing capabilites of RAW software, there are still a host of reasons to use RAW - many of these revolve around the tiny and fragile file size and bit depth of jpeg, which respond extremely poorly to almost any post-processing.

 

Take the large and challenging aspect of that destructive yet necessary action - sharpening...sharpen in-camera for jpeg and it cannot be undone. Cannot be revised, ever. If you think any camera body has sharpening algorithms anywhere near as good as many raw converters, or specialist software like PKS, think again. Same with noise handling. Matter of fact, your body's CPU is a miserable thing in comparison to your desktop and its software.

 

Another aspect - future proofing; if you think you will never make any mistakes or want any output other than a wimpy jpeg, by all means stay with that format. RAW files, being relatively giant 12/14 > 16 bit files, can be re-imagined and processed into a plethora of versions and output formats for a variety of needs. RAW is the best your camera can do, and is the best basis for your photographic work now and in the future.

 

For those users of Photoshop, jpeg is like working on the source image in 8-bit without using layers...it is pretty much akin to Russian roulette.

 

I understand for pros, they do not want to have the hassle of producing the best output for their customers; they effectively move the burden of small, virtually uneditable files onto their unknowledgeable customers becasue it suits them, not the customers. They need rapid frame rates, workflow, CD/DVD burns and throughput, and have relatively little reason to frequently revisit source files. Work it, then sell it.

 

It is grossly misleading to complain about labs not being able to print raw files, when a fast batch job will produce a set of jpegs for printing, complete with preset attributes, leaving the raw source files untouched and in pristine condition.

 

And, DB, have you checked out the cost per gigabyte of computer storage lately? It's pretty affordable, wouldn't you agree?

 

To answer the OP's major inquiry: yes, without exception, RAW will produce a higher quality image, simply because you are the one that decides all the attributes that go into making the image, using high powered software, and because you are using a re-editable 16-bit file.