Raw versus Jpeg

[albertogomez]

Raw is the way to go!

Get you RAW converter software (Adobe converter/CAPTURE NX) and you will see the advantages of it.

Since you are fairly new in photography (As I am) most likly you are going to "miss" the correct exposure/white balance etc. in some of your shots, Fix your "miss shots" with the Raw software until you feel confortable with it, And learning the use of software and manipulation of images are another things you LEARNED in your trip to Europe.

 

Good luck!!

 

By the way, somebody has mentioned that you can change your ISO with a software? How is that posible? I dont think it is...DOES anybody have a comment about this????

 

"I think it's a very obvious choice. If you shoot RAW you can change the ISO, white balance and a number of other settings after the fact, and save shots that would otherwise be lost."

 

Thanks!

 

Best regards and good look in Europe!!

 

Alberto

[kirk d]

I don't get it. I have been shooting jpg for years and occasionally shot RAW because so many people say it is the way to go. When I do shoot it, I find I am limited so much by the adjustments I can make in CaptureNX compared to the fine tuning I can do to JPGs in Photoshop. In PS, I can adjust exposure, contrast, white balance, color correction, noise reduction, lens distortion, chromatic abborition, dodge and burn with layers, and the list goes on...

I still shoot RAW on a lot of stuff because so many people say it is the way to go and maybe one day when I find out why, I will have my RAW files to come back to. For now, I just batch convert my RAW files into JPGs in CaptureNX and go to town in Photoshop with fine tuning adjustments not possible with RAW files in Capture.

I'm open to suggestions, please convince me otherwise so I can reap the benefits of shooting RAW.

 

Kirk

[gaby]

I'm for raw! The quality is high and the colours are way better than jpg. The raw is the negative and you can start from that point. There's not much to change or to edit when you start from jpg. This is my opinion. I might be wrong.

[scott bulger]

I also shoot both simultaneously.

[vrankin]

If you follow the advice of all of these people voting for RAW, I hope that:

1. You have a good RAW converter that saves your in-camera settings, or your RAW images will look very flat

2. You know what you're doing with post processing

3. You have LOTS of time to post process all of those images.

 

As a D70, iPhoto and Aperture 2.1 user, I still don't see what all of the hoopla over RAW is about. My jpegs look as good

or better. And I can do any of the adjustments mentioned above to jpegs, in iPhoto and Aperture.

[emiliogtz]

As anyone can see, this has become mostly a matter of personal preference.

[kirk d]

On second thought, I think there are a couple advantages in RAW. One option is in changing the color space from sRGB to the others if you have a printer that supports the additional colors. Another, I guess is saving to TIFF to have a wider range of bits to work with (those options are mostly utilized by professioanls).

I'm still not getting rid of Phototshop, the number of photos I've saved using the healing brush and clone tool are alone worth the price of admission.

 

Kirk

[russ_konrad]

<b>"... I find I am limited so much by the adjustments I can make in CaptureNX ..."</b>

<p>

Start using the white and black control points in Capture. Simply amazing results with just one click!

<P>

Additionally - the latest version (Capture NX - 2.0) now has a healing brush that actually does a better job than the one in Photoshop.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"1. You have a good RAW converter that saves your in-camera settings, or your RAW images will look very flat"</b>

<p>

Capture NX does it perfectly!

<p>

<b>"2. You know what you're doing with post processing"</b>

<p>

The learning curve with Capture is not bad at all - actually much easier to learn than Photoshop!

<p>

<b>"3. You have LOTS of time to post process all of those images."</b>

<p>

I normally will sort and process 1000 to 1200 wedding images down to 300 to 400 images for the bride and groom using Capture NX for about 95% of all the necessary adjustments in under 12 hours. MUCH faster than using Photoshop or any other program I have tried.

[david.elliott]

"By the way, somebody has mentioned that you can change your ISO with a software? How is that posible? I dont think it is...DOES anybody have a comment about this???? "

 

You cannot change your ISO setting by editing a raw file. Maybe he was referring to high ISO images yielding noise, which can be reduced with software? I dont know. At any rate, you cannot change your ISO setting.

[david.elliott]

I suppose I will throw my two cents into the pile. First, note that I am a beginner. So, take that into consideration I guess.

 

Please note that these are my feelings on the raw vs. jpeg issue. I am offering them in hopes that they help you, but this really is an individual choice. And your choice may change at some point - nothing wrong with that at all! What works for one person may not work for you. Experiment with both formats by shooting raw + jpeg and see which you prefer. Maybe you want to keep shooting in both. That is fine too. Just have fun!

 

I take my photos in raw format, not jpeg. I use raw mainly because I enjoy flexibility. There are adjustments I can make in raw, that I cannot make in jpeg, whereas the reverse is not true. Given my inability to capture exactly what I want each and every time I take a photo, I feel that raw really helps me.

 

There has been mention of some drawbacks that using raw entails. I will try to address them all individually. If I missed something and you want me to comment on it, just let me know. Or if something is not clear and requires a followup, just let me know. Oh and if I say something that is flat out wrong, hopefully somebody will correct me. :)

 

(1) File Space Concerns.

 

File space is not much of a concern to me. On my d70, I can fit ~700 photos on my 4gig card. That is plenty for one outing. When I get home, I just import the photos to my computer and then reformat the card, ready to go for the next trip.

 

(2) Need for a raw converter that applies your in-camera settings

 

I use Adobe Lightroom as my photo software. It does not apply in-camera settings. If you want your photo to immediately look like it did on your camera's LCD screen, you should shoot in jpeg or use Capture NX as your raw processor.

 

Basically a raw file is "raw" in the sense that it is a collection of information that you get to work with and make adjustments to. Nothing has been done to it (unless in-camera settings were applied of course). jpegs are processed by your camera. What you see on the LCD is a photo that has already been processed in-camera. With raw, you do the processing on your computer. Either way, you are making the choices. Either you choose 'vivid' in your camera options or you adjust the colors on your computer in your raw photo editor.

 

With any raw file you can get the photo to look like the processed jpeg. However, if that were all that you could do, I dont think the format would be so popular. You can go beyond that and make additional changes, i.e. exposure adjustments.

 

Now, getting back on track, not having in-camera adjustments applied by Lightroom doesnt impact me. I have a few presets that I use to get around that. I have basic adjustments that I make every time and that I apply on import to all my photos. When I am reviewing the photos, if I dont like the look of the photo with that preset, I just click 'reset' and it is back to the unadjusted raw file. Or I just make further adjustments, whatever I see fit. No big deal - no huge time investment. Note: I do sharpening and noise reduction at the very end.

 

(3) Amount of time required to post-process raw files

 

I already mentioned presets. I use them frequently. It is one of many timesavers in most professional photo software applications. Another tool I use frequently is Lightroom's 'sync' button which lets me apply changes from one photograph to many other photographs of my choice. Basically, post processing does not have to take a long time. It can if you want it to, but if you dont, it can take only minutes.

 

(4) Necessity of experience with post processing

 

I have never used Aperture, so I cannot speak to that program. I used Capture NX a little, but not extensively. I found it's user interface less intuitive than Lightroom's, but choosing your software is mainly personal preference. I like Lightroom's user interface. I dont think you really need any experience with photo editing software to get going. The manual is good and there are dozens of online tutorials (for all software options), video as well as text, to help you out. If you know what terms such as white balance, exposure, noise, sharpening, contrast, etc. are, then I dont think you will have problems. You adjust sliders to your liking. Nothing more complicated than that.

 

(5) Using raw is cheating

 

Hopefully this wont open up a can of worms. My feeling is that post processing in software is no different than making adjustments in the darkroom, or having a photo lab correct your film. But, hey, to each his own.

 

(6) Price of software

 

Lightroom's education discount brings the price to $100. That is pretty cheap. Some software costs more. Education discounts help, if you are eligible of course. I certainly dont regret spending the $100.

 

Photoshop costs one heck of a lot more, is more difficult to learn (in my opinion), and doesnt have the management capabilities that Lightroom has. You can do some things in Photoshop that you cannot do in Lightroom, but for me, Lightroom does everything I need.

 

So while I am on the subject of software and price, please dont buy anything without trying the FREE trial versions of the major software options - Capture NX, Lightroom, Aperture, Bibble, DxO, and I suppose Photoshop. Find out which one fits you best and go with that!

 

(7) Post processing is a chore

 

I am sure it is for some people. For me, it is not. I dont spend too long post processing, but I ENJOY it. It gives me an opportunity to closely examine my photos and make adjustments as I see fit. I feel more connected to my photos after I post process them. Maybe I'm just the oddball in the group? I dont think anybody else said they enjoyed post-processing. :|

 

 

 

I guess that it is about it. Hopefully that helped. I know I rambled quite a bit haha. By way of closing, just experiment with the formats, but dont get hung up on it. The most important thing is to have fun taking photographs.

[craig_shearman1]

"Craig, How do you adjust ISO after the fact in RAW? I don't think that's possible." -- It doesn't show up as changing the ISO as such but you can vary the exposure by plus or minus a couple of stops. That gives you the exposure equivalent of changing the ISO after the fact. Whether it affects noise levels commensurate with the ISO setting I'm not sure. But it's still more flexibility than raw.

[michael_kuhne]

I would shoot JPEG, but use JPEG + RAW when unsure of the exposure situation. I think RAW can sometimes be an asset, but that high-quality JPEG use is often under rated. Quality can be excellent, and even some degree of touch up work can be successful. One reason I believe some people have found RAW to provide clearly superior imag quality, is that for them it is true. I have found tests indicating that many camera models, some of the best, in fact, have out of camera JPEG quality that is rather soft. The D200 is a case in point. So then it makes sense to shoot RAW, then batch process to JPEG. Fortunately, the D80 provides uncommonly high JPEG quality right from the camera. In fact, even better than the very good JPEGs from the D300, from what I've seen.

 

I'm an old film shooter with plenty of slide film experience. Shooting JPEGs with a DSLR is similar. Fortunately, I also have a DSLR that produces excellent JPEG images. But I do go to RAW when I may want to do more in the way of extensive "dark room" efforts, or encounter a very high-contrast situation- very bright areas and very white whites. Otherwise, I spend little time at the computer with 95% of my images. I just get the shot right in JPEG and enjoy the results- just like film! I still have many advantages a DSLR offers- instant preview, digital storage, easy sharing, deletion of rejects with no cost, etc. Your D80 also has some very nice in-camera touch-up features. I know for JPEG use, but I don't know if that works with RAW.

 

Shoot some of both before your trip and see how well you are served according to your own experience. Good luck, and enjoy your trip!<div></div>

[michael_kuhne]

BTW, to examine a very detailed and thorough review of your D80, check dpreview.com under reviews/previews. go down to "more", then to alphabetical listing to find your model. You can use the drop down page menu at the top to bring up any page. I think on page 15, "features" they outline available in-camera touchup capabilities, and provide a fine example of the D-lighting feature. You can open up shadow exposure without affecting highlight areas. Remarkable, and potentially very useful.

 

I have seen other sites providing even more info as to visual image assessments.

[kirk d]

Russ, I've used the White/Black/Grey pointers and often get extreme results, I just began fooling with the opacity of those selections and have not gotten the hang of moving points and the like. I just got the most current version of NX.

 

David, I think I have a gap in my understanding of RAW displaying in editing software. I hear of the camera making adjustments for the JPG version and CaptureNX making an adjusted image for display in its working space and then about RAW images being just data in Lightroom. How does that look? Are the files one big white or black image or a bunch of multi-colored dots that change and take shape as you adjust settings? I would think editing software would have to make some assumptions in order to display the image for you to view and have a place to jump off. Even a negative is an image albiet, opposite. Does my lack of understanding make sense?

 

Kirk

[silverfox]

Unless you are used to editing raw files i would be tempted to shoot in jpeg. You state that you are new to photography, so my advice is shoot jpeg for the trip and get used to editing raw files when the shots are not as important.

[david.elliott]

Hopefully this will clear things up for you Kirk.

 

(1) You push the button, the shutter fires, and the photograph is taken.

(2) Your file is recorded. If you have chosen for it to be recorded in jpeg, that is is what it will be recorded in. The same holds true for raw and raw+jpeg.

(3) The camera processes the image using your in-camera settings. (The raw file is the same image, just unprocessed.)

(4) You see the in-camera processed image on your lcd. This is basically what the JPEG will look like.

 

Your raw files are NEF's (that is the format name, .NEF). Capture NX, made by Nikon, applies -to the raw file- those same in camera settings that were applied to the jpeg. Other programs do not do that. So Capture NX processed raw files will look most like your JPEG initially.

 

In lightroom, those in-camera settings are NOT applied automatically, BUT you still have an image. You just have the image without the, for example, in-camera-set custom sharpening levels. You will apply the sharpening yourself to your tastes. Note, you can of course adjust sharpening in Capture NX - just the in-camera choice of sharpening is automatically applied to start with.

 

So, as an example, I take a photo of a garden with colors set to 'vivid.' Assume I have no other in-camera settings.

----In a jpeg, that 'vivid' setting is applied and the camera's processor automatically makes other adjustments to the photo.

----In a raw file processed by Capture NX, that same 'vivid' setting is applied. You make further adjustments as you process the photo on your computer.

----In another raw processor, e.g. Lightroom, you still have the photo, but without the 'vivid' setting applied. You cannot apply a 'vivid' setting identical to the one in your camera. You adjust the colors and make other adjustments as you process the photo yourself.

 

Did that make sense?

 

I recommend trying an experiment. Take a photo with the 'vivid' setting on. Take it in RAW + jpeg. Open on your computer (1) the jpeg, (2) the raw file in Capture NX, (3) the raw file in Lightroom. Look at them side by side. You can use the free trials for the programs. That should help you understand what I said (in case it did not make sense).

[kirk d]

That makes plenty sense; finally, I see! I forgot about the camera doing auto sharpening and possibly other things.

 

Funny of you not to take anything for granted and start at the beginning so as to not underestimate my lack of knowledge by starting off with "push button, shutter fires, picture taken".

 

I wonder if Lightroom gives the education discount to teachers...thinking out loud.

 

Thanks David,

 

Kirk

[ellis_vener_photography]

Raw processing in the computer after you've gotten home is no different than having the camera's on board computers do the raw to JPEG processing --except that you have a lot more control and you come home with more real information.

 

Post processing (manipulation in Photoshop or other digital darkroom programs) is another thing entirely andnot all the same thing as raw processing.

 

Shooting JPEGs + raw files, unless you are an extremely tight deadline, is inefficient and wasteful of memory space on the media you record on. It also wastes your time too.

[www.philwinterphotography.]

Raw does offer some advantages as many posters have said. But the trade off is much more storage space required and more time in post processing. When I'm on vacation, as I was last week in Charleston SC, walking the streets, I shoot jpegs. I'm pretty good at nailing exposure, but if I'm not sure, I'll bracket +- 1 stop using the AEB feature. The three jpeg files are about the same size as one RAW file, in my camera at least. Finally, I like the look of jpegs out of the camera better than my post-processed RAWs into jpegs. Perhaps my post skills are lacking.

 

Now, when exposure gets tricky or the white balance is weird, I'll switch to RAW.

 

RAW files do contain more information, but unless you convert them to 16 bit tiff files (huge!) that extra information is lost in the conversion to 8 bit jpeg. From my own experience, I can't tell the difference between a print that started off as a RAW file on one that started as a jpeg.

[david.elliott]

Kirk-

 

Glad I could help. I started at the beginning to help anybody reading this thread now, or five years from now. :)

 

"I wonder if Lightroom gives the education discount to teachers...thinking out loud."

^^You just have to meet this requirement: "A full- or part-time faculty or staff member employed by an accredited K-12 or

accredited higher education institution." (adobe.com)

[kirk d]

David, I kind of figured that was your approach. Thanks for the tip for educators and you and all for the RAW education.

 

Kirk

[bernardwest]

<i>Pankaj Purohit , Jun 18, 2008; 05:29 a.m.<br><br>

 

I want to know too....<br><br>

What is basic difference in RAW and JPG? If I scan a negative in RAW and same in JPG, after that I will do some posprocessing than what I can or cannot do perfectly in JPG/RAW ....? <br><br>

 

I too want to know <br><br>

 

After much experiments I am still unable to find any diffrence. <br><br>

 

Tell me how can I test the difference....?</i><br><br>

 

Ellis, do you know the link to Andrew Rodney's test between jpg and raw. It's a good article for anyone not understanding raw, and I'd recommend anyone whose confused by raw to read it. Sorry, I can't remember the link, but if you do a search for 'digital dog' on photonet look at anything he has posted about raw, as it will be spot on.<br><br>

 

<i>Wayne Campbell , Jun 18, 2008; 08:10 a.m.<br><br>

 

As far as the claimed advantage of adjusting the white balance after the fact in Raw, iPhoto allows you to adjust the color temperature and does it on JPEGS, Photoshop does the same. You can also adjust the sharpness, etc., on JPEGS in both. So what's the difference? Why shoot RAW?</i><br><br>

 

White balance adjustments aren't as accurate when done on jpg's. Jpegs are demosaiced gamma corrected files. Raw adjustments are performed on the linear un-demosaiced data, and hence the linear white balance scaling is 100% accurate. The other aspect of jpgs is that one or more channels may be clipped, whereas in reality in the raw data they may not. Adjusting white balance on jpgs in this case will give a strange result as the clipped channel can't be scaled correctly. In the raw file, this problem doesn't exist. The other issue, of couse, is that raw works on the native 12 or 14 bit data (in fact converted to 16-bit space), and jpg only 8 bit. Therefore, any large adjustments to whitebalance or exposure etc can start to leave holes in your histogram in jpg.<br><br>

 

<i>Craig Shearman , Jun 18, 2008; 03:59 p.m.<br><br>

 

"Craig, How do you adjust ISO after the fact in RAW? I don't think that's possible." -- It doesn't show up as changing the ISO as such but you can vary the exposure by plus or minus a couple of stops. That gives you the exposure equivalent of changing the ISO after the fact. Whether it affects noise levels commensurate with the ISO setting I'm not sure. But it's still more flexibility than raw.</i><br><br>

 

These are different things. ISO changed in-camera via boosting the CONTINUOUS analogue signal the appropriate amount. If you boost the signal after capture (ie. in raw convertor or photoshop), you are boosting DISCRETE digital data. Because it is discrete, any change to that data will lead to rounding errors. It will always be more noisy boosting exposure in post-processing as opposed to at image capture (although, we had a discussion a few weeks back about this and there was a suggestion that after a certain ISO, there is no gain to be had by doing it in-camera vs in post-processing. This point is probably near the highest iso of the camera).<br><br>

 

In my opinion, the main benefit of raw for the non-professional is the wider margin of error it allows. If you don't nail exposure, or if you accidently have flourescent white balance set, you can recover some of these mistakes to various extents using raw. You can do the same in jpg, but not nearly as good. The most important one is over-exposure. Images that are blown in jpg, may not neccessarily be blown in raw. Once they are gone in jpg, there is no getting them back. And for me, who doesn't nail exposure everytime, this is the greatest benefit to raw. Following is an image captured in jpg and raw. The jpg is blown, and lost. But with raw, i saved the image.<div></div>

[bernardwest]

here's the raw recovered version<div></div>

[kane]

the solution is to take advantage of the capabilities of the camera and switch between modes whenever you need to. So, for instance, if you are taking shots of a very touristy nature and do not intend to have it be an art piece,then fine quality JPEG is all you'll need. If you are shooting something especially inspiring and can see you will want to frame it, then RAW will provide the better quality. And if you are wrong, then a fine quality JPEG will still get you there.

 

Be flexible, and take advantage of the features of the camera. and have fun!