JPEG and RAW

[Hollycruz]

<p> What is the difference between shooting in JPEG or RAW?</p>

[dthew]

<p>There's a lot of really useful information in the Photo.net tab called 'Learning' ;-)<br>

Try <a href="../learn/raw/">this page</a> for a starter.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>Basically, RAW gives you more control over the image in postprocessing.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Your camera makes RAW captures as it shoots. You can stop right there, and work with them later using external software ... or, you can instruct your camera to use its on-board software to create a smaller, less editable JPG file on the fly. If you are able to use the camera in a way that produces just the look you want as you shoot, then having JPG files as the result is generally fine. If you think you'll need to adjust white balance, or more aggressively compensate for under- and over-exposures, then saving RAW files right out of the camera will buy you considerably more latitude in post-production. Of course, many cameras let you record both RAW <em>and</em> JPG files as you shoot, so you can have the best of both worlds.</p>

[gabriel_l1]

<p>Just one addendum: RAW files are typically a lot bigger than JPGs, so you cannot shoot as many on one card (or store as many on a given hard drive).</p>

<p>They're really great however for post-processing. I shoot all RAW images, no jpeg.</p>

[accystan]

<p>You might want to think of your camera as a computer in so much that it does some processing on your files before you download them. RAW files are exactly what is recorded by the camera sensor. With jpg the camera adjusts the files. For eg. it sharpens them, makes them more vivid, changes the white balance etc. AND, it ALWAYS compresses the files so that, as Gabriel has pointed out, you end up with a smaller file. <br>

I don't know what camera you have but if you go into the camera menu you can control or adjust what parameters it changes.<br>

Cheers,<br>

Dave D</p>

[matt_needham]

<p>When you have your camera set to raw it saves the photo data in it's least processed form for processing later out-of-camera with your choice of processing software. When you have your camera set to jpeg it does the processing in-camera with the built in processing software.</p>

<p>I prefer raw for several reasons. A big one is that it's processing by inspection rather than prediction. As I adjust the raw processing on my calibrated monitor I can see the results, and fine tune by eye. At any point I can go back to any step and redo, or even start completely over. To set jpeg processing I have to predict the processing parameters ahead of the shot, and the changes made by the in-camera processing may not be reversible The in-camera processing discards some of the original data. Is that data important? Maybe, maybe not. I worked with film and the zone system in my darkroom for many years so I have experience processing by prediction. My eyes can make visual calculations much faster and more precisely than my brain is capable of planning.</p>

<p>On the other hand plenty of excellent photographers choose to shoot jpegs, and love their results. Shooting film some folks preferred developing and printing neg film in the darkroom. There were a lot of creative control options after the photo came out of the camera that could be utilized. Other folks preferred shooting slides which pretty much come out of the camera and the uniform E-6 processing as is, and all of the creative adjustments had to be done in scene or in-camera. Different strokes for different folks. Although you will often hear that raw is better than jpeg, if it was truly better for all photographers in all situation the manufacturers wouldn't even include jpeg as an option.</p>

[kerry_grim]

<p>I shoot everything in RAW. It is a large file size, but then you can tweak the image, such as exposre, white balance, sharpening, or crop, then saves as a JPG. The original RAW files is unchanged, so you can redo it or use in different ways.</p>

<p>JPG is already a compressed file, much smaller file size and each time you save it, it is compressed and you lose a bit of quality. The only (or at least biggest) plus of shooting in JPG would be a sports photographer that shoots 100s or 1000s of photos at an event and it would be too time consuming to do post-process on them. So you let the camera think for you.</p>

<p> I think people buy DSLRs for the image quality and control. Shooting in RAW is part of that. If not wanting to do post-processing, then, why not just by a P&S?</p>

[vrankin]

<p>I'm shooting raw+jpeg most often, but as I get better at using my camera's custom settings I don't need to edit from raw as much. The original jpegs often look just as good. The advantage of controlling things like white balance, exposure, and custom sharpness/contrast/saturation settings in the camera, is that you can come away with jpegs that will be quickly ready for whatever your applications, saving you time and card space. But that's an ideal toward which many of us jpeg shooters are still working.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Well, the word "raw" sounds more technical. Newbies like to throw it around a lot on internet forums.<br>

Raw files are comparable to using black & white film with the intention of perfecting every photograph individually in your darkroom later on, with the darkroom being as much part of the photographic process as the camera was.<br>

JPEGs are more like taking pictures on slide film. They allow some adjustment, but they are meant to be the final picture, more or less. You don't plan on spending hours "perfecting" an image sitting in front of a computer screen.<br>

So, in the end, it depends on what you want to do. Many people though, are making themselves feel and sound like experts by using raw files to end up with what the camera JPEG would have looked like in the first place. Now, if there ever was a waste of time, that's got to be it. Luckily for them, there are batch processes in the raw converting programs which can be used to turn the raw files into JPEGs without too much intervention.<br>

I use JPEGs whenever I'm taking family pictures, travel pictures, documentary pictures, pet pictures, snapshots of interesting things, etc. If the lighting is difficult, I just have the camera shoot 3 bracketed pictures automatically. One of them is going to be the keeper without having to deal with raw files.<br>

I use raw files when I'm in the same mood I used to be when I had a darkroom 40 years ago. It's for when I intend to make more fine art types of pictures, or I want to make my digital image look like it was made with a cheap toy camera. To do that, I need to work with an image that was not sharpened, contrasted or colour-adjusted by the camera... in other words, the raw file.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I do this with JPEGs.</p><div></div>

[lachaine]

<p>I do this with raw files.</p><div></div>

[philip_tam]

<p>Yeah, I don't shoot RAW unless it's something I'm sure I'm going to do post-processing for. Shooting 200+ pics a day, it would be insane to even pick out the best 20 and photoshop them all.</p>

<p>Plus I tend to keep everything, so RAW files would just eat up lots of hard drive space.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>This recent thread presents a valid argument in favor of always shooting raw and archiving those raw files, even if you also shoot JPEG simultaneously or believe you'll never need the raw file:<br>

<a href="../casual-conversations-forum/00WQjJ"> Converting DNG files back to camera raw (CR2) - PLEASE HELP, Urgent.</a></p>

[jay_poel]

<p>Pierra - thanks for the chuckle "Now, if there ever was a waste of time, that's got to be it."</p>

<p>I shoot JPEG now but with switch to RAW+JPEG if the lighting is really strange or it's an important event. I find the D90 is really good at getting the exposure and white balance correct.</p>

[Hollycruz]

<p>Wow! Thanks everyone! It's wonderful to get answers to your questions. Great advice! I have a nikon D3000 and saw the RAW setting. Plus, i've had other people ask me on different sites about RAW and i really didn't know what the difference was. Thanks again. I do want to learn how to shoot RAW images. Maybe not 100's of them but some. Time to practice!</p>

[William Michael]

<p>Nice picture Pierre, the second one - </p>

<p>What Camera and Lens did you use to take that second image, which you shot in RAW?</p>

<p>WW</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Thanks William.</p>

<p>I just used a Canon S90 for this. The zoom was at 7.5 mm. I shoot raw using manual or semi-auto exposure and camera settings that are as close to a classic film camera as possible (like centre-weighted metering, etc.), process in DPP initially (just because it came with the camera) , then continue in the GIMP until I've cheapened to picture enough :-)</p>

<p>It may sound odd that I use raw to lessen the "quality" of a picture like I do, but this just doesn't work as well with a camera pre-processed JPEG.</p>

<p> </p>

[William Michael]

<p>Aside: You are welcome, Pierre.<br>

<br>

I particularly noted that you only use “Compact Type” cameras for Digital work, I picked up on this on another thread where we two discussed several matters.<br>

<br>

I think that your example shows the value of carrying something like a D90, G10, etc around all the time – and that is the main reason why I asked. All too often there is “equipment snobbery” IMO and Compact Digitals get a caning in this regard. (That’s why I included some Phone Photos in my Portfolio here – I think some are quite humorous . . .)<br>

<br>

I have a couple of Canon P5IS Powershot – quite ancient really and cannot shoot RAW and do not have the ISO range you have, but nonetheless these are a very powerful tool to have at the ready to capture things and one quite happily lives in the glove box of my car . . . the P5IS can shoot in manual mode, the TTL light meter is OK and dependable and at ISO200 the 5x7 print is fine and also they can take Canon Dedicated Flash which is useful.<br>

<br>

I understand the point about RAW and “Old Film Type”, but I think that JPEG can be manipulated to get that too, perhaps not with the post Production Programs you have though.<br>

<br>

WW</p>

<p > </p>

 

[976photo]

<p>Just to add a little something that may have been overlooked. You can not print your RAW file. If you do shoot in RAW you will HAVE to open it up in a compattable program on your computer and convert it to a printable file, such as a JPEG or TIFF file. So as much as you want to say about a RAW file being "uncompressed" and not losing any image quality, in the end you still have to convert it to a compressed image file in order to print.</p>

<p>Now the obvious advantage like mentioned was that if you plan on doing a lot of post-work on the pics and playing around with them, you can do that and save the original RAW file for later editing without losing any quality. With a JPEG you will lose quality EVERY time you open it and re-save.</p>

<p>But if you shoot JPEG then you can pull the card right out of your camera and walk into your local shopping mart and print off your pictures at the 1-hour lab. Or upload directly to your favorite online printing service.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>I agree that I could do what I do to JPEGs too. I find it easier to work with raw files in this case, because I can experiment more, and I also prefer to have the raw file for when I want to go black & white. It just gives me a bit more effective control of highlights and shadows. But, I've done this kind of stuff with fine JPEGs too, no problem.</p>

[julia_milne]

<p>Hi, first poster!.....Just read all of the above. I am about to download my first RAW files on my mac and with bridge & cs3 I get the opportunity to convert to DNG file. Whats that?<br>

The files I am about to download I will eventually want to convert to jpegs to give to others on DVD to print out, so can they do that from a DNG or am I better off just downloading as raw and convert each file to jpeg?<br>

Is there a way to convert multiple files from RAW to jpeg at one go?<br>

Thanx</p>

[ricd]

<p>A side note it is raw, not RAW, raw is not an acronym for anything. Question, do you want to be known for your photography or your computer skills?</p>

<p>When shooting in raw that which you see in the camera LCD is a JPG image. Try this, shoot in raw + JPG. Work on your raw file then look at the JPG file straight from the camera. The vast majority of photographers I work with shooting in raw do not if any improve on the original JPG from the camera.</p>

<p>With JPG shot correct in camera you may only need to crop and sharpen. At 4x6, 5x7, or even 8x10 there is not any difference in image quality raw vs JPG. Other factors come into play such as exposure, composition and, the like. Many professional photographers for portraiture, landscape, sports, and architectural, shoot JPG. Yes, I joined the raw bandwagon however, for me I found raw is a waste of time, my JPG results were excellent and, my clients were impressed.</p>

<p>Shoot it correct in the camera with correct exposure, white balance, then in post production crop and sharpen, you will not need raw. Most of my friends shoot raw, they are more impressed with their computer skills than photography skills. My work is shot in JPG, at the end of the day I toss my undesirables the keepers are for the most part need, sharpening and, crop—bam I'm finished for the day.</p>

<p>One of my friends shoots raw, he is quite impressed with his photography—yes, he does produce outstanding pictures. One week I had him use one of my 35 mm film cameras, I also provided him a roll of slide film. Wow was he shocked at his results—most of the the slides were terribly exposed. He didn't know what had happened, he blamed the camera and lens. My explanation to him is he was too lax in his technique and photography skills. He is so used to post production fixing his digital files he was not concentrating on shooting techniques and, exposure. For ones skills slide film is a reality check.</p>

<p>So, my though is you are concentrating on the wrong thing, raw vs jpg. You should be concentrating on shooting techniques, composition and, exposure skills. While others are dealing with their raw files, you shooting JPG will crop, sharpen, maybe straighten, you are finished.</p>

<p>Hope that gives you something to think about.</p>

[ricd]

<p>A side note it is raw, not RAW, raw is not an acronym for anything. Question, do you want to be known for your photography or your computer skills?</p>

<p>When shooting in raw that which you see in the camera LCD is a JPG image. Try this, shoot in raw + JPG. Work on your raw file then look at the JPG file straight from the camera. The vast majority of photographers I work with shooting in raw do not if any improve on the original JPG from the camera.</p>

<p>With JPG shot correct in camera you may only need to crop and sharpen. At 4x6, 5x7, or even 8x10 there is not any difference in image quality raw vs JPG. Other factors come into play such as exposure, composition and, the like. Many professional photographers for portraiture, landscape, sports, and architectural, shoot JPG. Yes, I joined the raw bandwagon however, for me I found raw is a waste of time, my JPG results were excellent and, my clients were impressed.</p>

<p>Most of my friends shoot raw, they are more impressed with their computer skills than photography skills. My work is shot in JPG, at the end of the day I toss my undesirables the keepers are for the most part need, sharpening and, crop—bam I'm finished for the day.</p>

<p>One of my friends shoots raw, he is quite impressed with his photography—yes, he does produce outstanding pictures. One week I had him use one of my 35 mm film cameras, I also provided him a roll of slide film. Wow was he shocked at his results—most of the the slides were not exposed well. He didn't know what happened, he blamed the camera and lens. My explanation to him is he was too lax in his photography technique and, skills. He is so used to post production fixing his digital files he was not concentrating on shooting techniques and, exposure. For ones skills slide film is a reality check.</p>

<p>So, my though is you are concentrating on the wrong thing, raw vs jpg. You should be concentrating on shooting techniques, composition and, exposure skills. While others are dealing with their raw files, you shooting JPG will crop, sharpen, maybe straighten, you are finished.</p>

<p>Hope that gives you something to think about.</p>

[976photo]

<p>I agree with Ric in that you need to do your best to get it right in the camera first, not rely on post-processing to fix everything for you. But there is an advantage to raw in that you can change the white balance settings after. With JPEG you're stuck with whatever white balance setting you originally shot with.</p>

<p>By the way, the DNG file is just another raw format. A Canon raw file will read as a CRW file, a Nikon raw file will read as a NEF file. DNG is a way to (hopefully) create a more universal raw format that can easily be read by various programs and systems.</p>

<p>DNG is short for <strong>D</strong>igital <strong>N</strong>e<strong>G</strong>ative, which is what many people refer to the raw format as, a digital negative because it has to be "processed" or converted to another format before you can print it. Another reason it's called "raw" because it's a raw file, unfinished so to speak.</p>