RAW or JPG

[ron1863]

I have been shooting RAW recently and processing in Photoshop but came across this site from Ken Rockwell, which explains about jpg and RAW and is very interesting and made me think twice.

Any thoughts?


RAW vs JPG

[mh68]

With my fz50 I`m always in a quandary whether to shoot Raw for the extra detail or stick with jpegs for the ability to shoot bursts and smaller file sizes.Since using Lightroom for processing both types, I havent noticed a significant difference in the time spent processing each image type.The limiting factor with my camera being lack of raw buffer and slow raw write times to the card (common with all bridge cameras).
Jpegs do have more latitude for correcting white balance etc than some people suggest,although raw images seem to be able to take more sharpening before the image degrades, so for optimum crisp sharpness raw has the edge.
I guess it depends on the camera too, a top end DSLR jpeg will have more detail than a bridge camera raw image.With my camera, to get comparable results to DSLRs, shooting raw is more important to get maximum detail in many cases.With DSLRs i think the choice isnt as important.Its only if you want to print images at a very large size, or try and sell your images to agencies where shooting Raw and converting to .tiff files is really a necessity.For normal use jpeg is adequate.
Another plus point for raw in my case is the in-camera processing - at higher iso`s the venus III processor does get a little aggressive in smearing some colours and obliterating fine detail.Shooting raw allows me to control more precisely the way shots such as these are handled.Again, with DSLRs` better performance at higher iso`s, this isnt so important for normal shooting.

Mark H

[eccles]

It all depends on your camera, whether you frequently crop your images, and whether you have the time and inclination to mess around with your images in other ways once you've taken them.
I have a Sony A100 which gives quite good jpeg images but my lenses aren't £1000+ quality so the images often benefit from a bit of tweaking. A Photoshop tweaked raw image is noticeably sharper than the jpeg from this camera and there's better control of any noise or chromatic aberration that may be present.
There's a lot you can do with a jpeg image but remember, it is lossy, i.e. every time you make a change to a jpeg image it is re-encoded and a little bit is lost.
Only you can decide whether it's worth the bother by trying it and see.

[HowlinWolf]

I'd only consider shooting jpegs's if I was in danger of running out of card space whilst shooting. If jpeg's are good enough for what you require, then shoot away, but occasionally you may get some outstanding images: the RAW format would then enable you to drain every last drop in quality from the file. It can be a tough call, but I've seen images printed at A3 that were shot in jpeg format, and at normal viewing distances, look superb. The real drawback is file sizes and storage space. My processed images have a file size of around 60 gb when shot as RAW and converted to TIFF: a jpeg file will take up less space on a hard drive/memory card/CD/DVD. As eccles points out, re-saving a jpeg will loose information every time you edit and re-save due to to file compression, so always convert to TIFF before working on an image (or better still, make a copy and work on that). Ultimately, it's all down to what you can live with.

HW

[mh68]

Originally Posted by HowlinWolf

I'd only consider shooting jpegs's if I was in danger of running out of card space whilst shooting. If jpeg's are good enough for what you require, then shoot away, but occasionally you may get some outstanding images: the RAW format would then enable you to drain every last drop in quality from the file. It can be a tough call, but I've seen images printed at A3 that were shot in jpeg format, and at normal viewing distances, look superb. The real drawback is file sizes and storage space. My processed images have a file size of around 60 gb when shot as RAW and converted to TIFF: a jpeg file will take up less space on a hard drive/memory card/CD/DVD. As eccles points out, re-saving a jpeg will loose information every time you edit and re-save due to to file compression, so always convert to TIFF before working on an image (or better still, make a copy and work on that). Ultimately, it's all down to what you can live with.

HW

Thats the quandary I always face when i restrict myself to jpeg shooting.You get a really nice jpeg image but will always be left wondering whether the Raw shot would be even better. In my case the camera shoots a jpeg alongside the raw shot, so provided card space allows, i try to shoot raw.You can always get rid of either at home if one proves better than the other.

Mark H

[big bill]

I have to admit that I prefer shooting in the Raw mode you have more control over the image in post processing especially if you got the exposure wrong at the time of taking the shot.Although it can be a bit time consuming especially if you have a lot of images to process you cannot beat the superioty of the final image over the Jpeg as each time you open a jpeg and resave it you lose detail.
There are times though that I will use jpeg mainly when I feel lazy and cant be bothered but mainly its RAW for me/

[HowlinWolf]

Mark H,

I shot jpegs exclusively for several weeks during the spring (on our Ken's advice), but always felt that I may be missing out, so I got myself two more 4gb memory cards and reverted back to RAW. Processing (as are uploading) times are longer with RAW, as the RAW file has no camera processing at all (colour saturation/contrast/sharpening), which needs to be applied, hence the increase in post processing times using software. In fact, RAW files are not even RGB (or any other colour space until designated) and can not be viewed directly without the use of a RAW converter.

HW

[mh68]

Thanks HW. I`ve found though, as i mentioned above that Raw vs jpeg processing times arent that much different with Lightroom,the presets you can designate for things such as sharpening make the job less time consuming,and being able to synchronise settings to a selection of shots at the same time.
I tend to set all the in-camera settings to low when shooting jpeg, to get as close to a "raw" image as possible,thus reducing any negative effects the venus III processor has to images.I still prefer shooting true raw images where possible though.
One thing I would mention, is that the main differences in detail concerning Raw vs jpeg shots are much more obvious when viewing unedited images at 100%.At least with my camera.Once you see the difference in detail in a raw image compared to a jpeg, its hard to go back.

Mark H

[HowlinWolf]

Yes, Mark, the difference between a RAW image against a jpeg is certainly there, which is why I continue to shoot RAW files. I know that if I need it, it's all there.

Viewing at 100% can often give misleading impressions, as this equates to a print size nearly three feet across (roughly SR A1), which is far beyond what most of us will ever require. Still, as I said, it's nice to know it's still in there, somewhere.

HW

[mh68]

Yes, when viewing images at screen size, or printing normal size prints up to A4 the difference is negligible.But as you say, once you see the difference and know its there it does affect how we shoot.
Going back to the article in the original post, such claims are always misleading to the average photographer as in most cases the writers are referring to top of the range equipment.The cheaper the camera, the more noticeable the differences will be (presuming the camera allows raw shooting)due to the way these cheaper cameras` processors deal with noise reduction etc when converting to jpeg.
The mention of raw file compatability is a valid one though.I remember a mate of mine bought a Nikon D70 when they first appeared,and couldnt believe he had to fork out another £100 for a program just to read and process raw images.Luckily now most camera raw formats are supported but as for the future who knows....

Mark H