RAW vs. JPEG

[reem_a]

<p>Most of the time I have problem with the lightning of my images even after post processing with Adobe Photoshop. I searched the net and I found that people use the RAW format instead of jpg. Do I need to use RAW format If what I only need is lighter and sharper images for my blog, or will using RAW format will add more overhead of post processing?</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Using RAW won't make your photos lighter and sharper by itself. It sounds like you are not exposing correctly for your desired results. And JPEGS can be sharpened in-camera. RAW is very useful for a wide variety of things, but it sounds like you should master your exposure meter first.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>Yes, it would be good to to master our exposure meter, but for when the exposure is wrong, or white balance is wrong, shooting in raw will give you much more flexibility in making adjustments. At first, you might consider shooting in both if your camera allows it.</p>

[goldbergbarry]

<blockquote>

<p>I found that people use the RAW format instead of jpg.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Not sure if this is true. This is an often debated topic. Many people swear that Raw is the only way to go, while many other people are perfectly content shooting in JPEG mode. <br>

<br>

I typically use JPEG only unless it is a special event that I am shooting where I want to be absolute sure that I get the most out of an image.<br>

<br>

Shooting Raw requires a faster computer, much more storage space both on your card and hard drive, and more skills. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Shoot both simultaneously if possible. I usually do. If the JPEG looks okay, great, I can use it as-is. If not, I have the raw file as a backup.</p>

<p>JPEG "brightness" is often dependent on the in-camera editing choices. It's not always a metering or exposure problem Try bumping up the brightness, adjusting the dynamic range, or other settings. Often you can make the JPEGs brighter without risking overexposing the raw files.</p>

<p>Another trick, if you're shooting in-camera b&w: If your camera offers b&w filter effects, try yellow, orange or red. Those will often brighten faces and some parts of scenes without overexposing the entire frame. Setting white balance to "shade" can have a similar effect. These don't lock the raw file into anything, so you can always edit the raw differently. But for in-camera b&w I'll often use "shade" as the default white balance and use orange filter effects. Both brighten skin selectively, which helps with tricky scenes.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>I use Raw because I can "Expose To The Right" and gain dynamic range from a Raw file that'd look too washed out as an in-camera jpeg. In almost every image, I raise shadows, add contrast and tweak the color. You can do all the same with a jpeg, but you're simply working with less data. If you want to raise shadows and recover highlights, you can't go quite as far and you end up losing an f-stop or two in dynamic range.</p>

<p>If all you want is brighter images, then adding +EV judiciously will get the job done. If you think that you're images will improve with added dynamic range (they should), then you'll want to shoot Raw, but need to plan on and added step to convert your images to JPEG.</p>

[sgust]

<p>I used to shoot jpeg only because I didn't find that the results I was getting from the RAW conversion software that came with the camera, a Sony a55, produced better results than the jpegs straight from the camera. I've been using a program called LightZone for a few months now and it's completely changed my opinion on the matter. In nearly every image, even those that the jpeg from the camera is pretty good, the jpeg I get from the RAW file is superior. So now I shoot jpeg+RAW and regret not having done so from the start. So my suggestion would be to shoot jpeg+RAW at least on the images where you expect it to be something you want to get the best out of it. If you have the storage space, always shoot with RAW.</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>If what I only need is lighter and sharper images for my blog, or will using RAW format will add more overhead of post processing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you need "lighter and sharper images for my blog" ONLY, shooting and post processing RAW would be an overkill. In fact, a camera supporting RAW such as a dSLR would be an overkill. A much easier solution is to learn how to capture properly exposed and sharp jpegs on a decent point and shoot, and only apply minimal post processing, if and when necessary.</p>

[nail33]

<p>I've been reading posts on several photo websites for years on the subject of raw vs jpeg. I have never EVER heard anyone regret having shot raw. I can not say the same for those that have shot jpeg only.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I have never shot Raw and only shoot JPEG. I have never regretted doing so.

[devon_mccarroll]

I used to only shoot jpg, and then recently started shooting RAW. It makes a huge difference! It allows you to have the entire file to work

with, and complete control over your finished product, instead of letting your camera make the decisions for you. And the RAW editor in

Photoshop is a breeze to work with.

[mike_earussi1]

<p>The primary purpose in shooting raw instead of jpg is for better dynamic range, i.e. you're less likely to blow out the highlights and you'll see more detail in the shadows. Raw also gives you the ability to fine tune color balance, which is usually most useful when shooting indoors under very yellow light that the camera's automatic white balance has trouble compensating for. There is also a very slight sharpness improvement, but this is only noticeable if you crop or print large.</p>

[girlzart]

<p>I'm a "pro" and it took me several years before I tried RAW...but have not looked back and have never taken a "jpeg only" picture since then (except on my phone!). The beautiful quality of RAW is the flexibility to change the exposure after taking it. I come from a pre-digital, film background and used to push-process films to squeeze every element of possible light from an image...now all I do is change a "slider" on screen for the same amazing results. Getting exposure right comes with lots of practice but don't be scared of utilising digital tools there to help you along the way. Good luck!</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>It can depend on which camera you're using. I find when I use my Nikon I shoot in RAW becuse the in-camera convertor is good. When I'm taking a break or on the ride home (or in my hotel if in a new place) it passes the time and allows me to get most of the editting done before I upload the files.<br>

With my Panasonic, I didn't see much advantage in using RAW. The metering is predictable and I mostly shoot in monochrome so WB is rarely a factor. Even in JPG Silkypics can do a lot- I didn't see any advantage in terms of detail, noise or headroom.<br>

Starting out with my new Canon M1 I am finding the metering a bit different from previous cameras, but due to a bizzare turn of events, all my Canon software is in<em> Mandarin,</em> so I really cannot be bothered dealing with DPP in a language I can't read; I'm just resigned to missing shots until I figure out the metering. I find the Canon output a bit unsubtle, so this is definitely a pocketable backup.<br>

One rule of thumb I have is, "Never underexpose". I never (well, I'm sure I have at some point but I can't remember when) pull up the shadows. I like a measured, low-contrast look so I also compensate down in post. It is rare for me to have zero exp. comp. Mostly I dial in +1/3 to as much as +1 E.V. If it's a night shoot I can go zero.<br>

I think there is a danger in spending too much time thinking about the processing, or hedging bets. Better to get it right the first time. I went to Dali in Yunnan Province, China during the summer and set myself a challenge- one body, one prime lens, shot only in JPG, ditch anything not up to snuff. I was literally grimacing in pain at times from having to delete shots which had not come up to par- but most of this was due to back-focus issues, a perennial problem with Nikons.<br>

So my advice is to try things out, do some controlled test shoots and spend a while playing around and see what you like the look of. Only you know what you want your images to look like and of course that will change over time.</p><div></div>

[sgust]

<p>Stephen, not to knock what seems to work for you, but "Never underexpose"seems to be the opposite of my experience. An underexposed RAW or even Jpeg can be fixed with relative ease, the shadows still have a lot of hidden detail. But an overexposed image doesn't have much, if any, detail left in the blown out areas.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Stephen didn't say "overexpose", which in Raw digital means blowing out highlights. To capture the maximum data in a Raw file you should Expose To The Right ("ETTR"). With ETTR, you move the histogram as far to the right as you can without blowing out important highlights. The added data allows you to maximize DR, including shadow details, without adding noise. Under exposing will lead to less data and a smaller file and raise the potential for noise when you pull up shadows.</p>

<p>BTW, current Raw conversion programs are excellent at recovering both highlights and shadows, but highlights are still tougher to recover. Pulling up under exposure increases noise, while over exposing highlights risks not being able to recover them at all. So avoiding blow highlights is still a more critical mistake, even at fractions of EV. Turn on the "blinkies" in your preview screen, so that you can look at both the histogram and the warnings in your preview. If anything important is blinking in the preview, then pull the EV down.</p>

<p>Many of us that routinely shoot at ISO 800 and above, for subjects like sports, birds, wildlife, etc., find ETTR a great way to minimize noise while maximizing DR. My default EV is +1/3 to +5/3 and only get into -EV when the subject is white or brilliant red or orange in the direct sun against a darker BG.</p>

<p>Of course, ETTR is not a technique that works for in-camera JPEGs. It'll produce an image that washed out and demands PP. Of course, if you're going to PP JPEGs, then you might as well start with Raw to gain the DR and the control over color and contrast.</p>

[eric_mark_palmer]

<p>If I need to print or other wise submit a photo that day then maybe I would use Jpeg. But both of my cameras will allow you to produce a Jpeg from the RAW file in camera so I see no real reason to use RAW + Jpeg as I can get a Jpeg at any time after.<br>

I did use Jpeg when controlling the camera from the PC as if light levels are low RAW files can lock up the software with Pentax K10D but with Nikon D7000 saved on camera card in RAW and transferred to PC in Jpeg. <br>

Adobe software is very good at handling RAW so would not dream of using Jpeg now. However the bundled software with both cameras was not much good and to get all the 12 bits of information using free software is not easy. I was trying Gimp and I did find I was able to produce two Jpeg images from the same RAW file in camera one +2 and one -2 EV stops and auto combine with Gimp to produce a picture with a much higher dynamic range then you would ever get from a Auto produced camera Jpeg but it did take me all night to find out how to combine.<br>

I would say if you don't want to pay for software then used RawTherapee but Lightroom RAW has the edge on other Adobe RAW as it has history the rest do not.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I mostly shoot in monochrome so WB is rarely a factor."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>White balance can make a huge impact on our monochrome photos. Try a side by side comparison of the same raw photo file, converted to b&w, one with daylight WB, another with shade. (Note: this applies only to raw files in cameras capable of capturing in color. No idea about b&w-only raw. And it won't work as well on color JPEGs, TIFFs, etc., and won't work at all on JPEGs, TIFFs, etc., that have already been converted to b&w.)</p>

<p>In tricky nighttime street scenarios I'll often use the shade WB, either in camera or in post, for my b&w photos. It brightens faces more or less selectively (although it also can brighten anything yellow, orange and/or red). </p>

<p>It's not a suitable trick for every occasion but can help in tricky situations.</p>

[shutterbud]

<p>Thanks Lex, I'll try that if I get a B&W that needs work. Silkypics allows me to change both WB and picture control for Jpegs.</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Yes, you can go crazy with red and orange filters before you do the B&W conversion. It's just like putting filters on you film camera when shooting B&W.</p>

[eric_mark_palmer]

<p>To me RAW is the default setting. At any time in camera you can convert RAW to Jpeg and with a +/- 2 EV you can correct so much. Forget about out of camera with Photoshop you can convert before it leaves the camera. So there may be special where Wifi cards are used to transfer Jpeg files to phone to send direct to newspapers where Jpeg is the format required. But to me the whole idea of having a D-SLR is so we can take control be it shutter speed, use of flash, aperture, ISO or RAW and time constraints often means we have to use auto settings for many of the functions but with RAW except for very special times we have all the time in the world to convert to Jpeg so it must be one of the last functions we would set to automatic mode.</p>