RAW or JPEG?

[LoveT]

I know I'm probably going to regret asking this, but does anybody else out there (probably with a DSLR) shoot in RAW format? And if so, how do you get on with it compared to shooting JPEG format?

I can't make my mind up between the two formats - I like RAW data because I've then got an image I can store and process in any way I need to (and then save as JPEG etc), but RAW file size is also a lot bigger, which means that when I save files I have to compress them like crazy to get the right size for WAB website etc. I also like JPEGs though because I have a ready processed image, but with a lot smaller file size even on a high quality image setting.

I've read books and magazine articles on the subject 'til I was bored rigid, but they weren't very helpful (sort of 'decide for yourself' advice - thanks!), so I thought I'd find out what other peoples' views are on this.

I used to be undecided, but now I'm not so sure.......!

[Fourwings]

Oh boy, here we go again!!

Thats one question that usually sparks a massive debate here on WAB,
the definative answer is that you shoot in which format suits you, there are purists who will argue tooth and nail for each of the formats but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is that you have an image that you are happy with.

Just for the record I shoot Jpegs, I've tried RAW on several occasions and to be honest its a right pain in the posterior and for very little advantage - but thats only my opinion and not that of WAB.

Hope that helps

[Ollie]

I'm probably not going to be much help here but I only shoot jpeg. I have shot raw more to try it than anything else but the file sizes put me off.

It's supposed to be easier to rescue a badly exposed image using raw rather than jpeg, but my opinion and my opinion only might I add is that it's always best to try and get it right in camera rather than having to adjust exposure after the shot with software.

Don't get me wrong I do make adjustments to my photos in software but always try to get it as near right in camera as possible. This works for me and suits my style of shooting, but raw may be a viable or preferred option for others.
Roger

[mh68]

I`ve shot both, and currently prefer shooting jpegs as I can get images how I want them straight out of the camera (in most cases anyway). Raw files do seem to capture slightly more detail though, and seem to be able to take more sharpening before the image degrades, but I`m happy with fine quality jpegs for the moment.

Mark H

[Maccattack]

As above , depends on what you're shooting and why.I shoot both with a 6mp slr so the file sizes arent as big as newer cameras , landscapes and difficult light might be raw so I can alter the white balance but multiple shots that are more likely to be used for web use would be jpeg especially if I'm out all day (dont carry portable drives and have only got 2gb of memory card)
Just go out and take lots of pictures and see what suits you.

Malcolm Mac

[galanthus]

Me too on the jpeg front. I laboured through so many articles coming down on one side or the other, then a really good photographer said RAW is a good way to shoot but there wasn't that much in it if you just want damn good photos and not giant commercial billboard posters. I may try raw at some point but for now sticking with jpeg and cs2 then again .... hee heee !

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

I shoot RAW because I need 50mb TIFF files. My wife shoots jpeg for family and general shots which she then has printed on 6x4's and there alright.
So it's what you want to use them for and how much time you want to spend on the computer, but at the end of the day whichever you use , if you're happy with your results then stick with it.

neil

[LoveT]

Thanks for all your replies - much appreciated.

Sorry Fourwings, I didn't know this thread had previously been the subject of so much debate! It certainly wasn't my intention of provoking 'discussion' between the two camps.

I get the impression that most people prefer to use JPEG - which makes a lot of sense in many ways, but equally I get the idea that I should decide for myself.

Time to get off the fence, then!

Thanks again.

[glsammy]

Just to add my little bit, I change from one to the other depending which way the winds blowing!
I've recently learnt a lot more about RAW conversion, but at the end of the day I can't tell which was shot with which method.
If your a pro and want to submit your shots to various bodies for publication or to sell, your probably going to shoot RAW, but as for Mr and Mrs average, I think JPEG is just fine.

[delros1]

I have all ways looked at it this way,when i was taking 35mm slide,i would go the lowest Asa possible,just in case,there was one photo that i wanted to take a large print from(20"x16").now that i have gone digital,i take it in raw,because you never know,when you are going to get,that one photo in a million,and the more info saved.the better the photo.

[zan]

I shoot RAW now most of the time, if I'm shooting things as it allows a bit more of a safety net for when I do stupid things (like leave the white balance set to tungsten for a trip down the beach...). I shot jpg+RAW for a while but since discovering that DPP isn't as awful as I'd first thought, I use that and stick with RAW only now. It also allows a bit more flexibility I think.

Of course if I'm taking photos at a family party or for work, I'll just use jpeg to save the hassle of converting everything afterwards.

[pressld2]

Raw for me too. I played with the various jpeg settings when I first got the camera just to see what they were like but on day 2 I set it to RAW and it's never been set to anything else since.

My reason is maximum flexibility. If you have the RAW file then pretty much everything that can realistically be done with the image is still available to you. If all you saved was the jpeg then a number of possibilities have been closed off, or at least made much more difficult.

With my D70 (6.2 megapixels) the average RAW file size is about 5Mb compared to just over 3Mb for large fine jpegs so disc space is not too much of a concern. I have to admit, though, that when I get my D300 data storage is going to become a much bigger issue.

Dave P.

[Richard Costin]

RAW RAW RAW!

This was more of an issue a few years ago when storage cost more.
CF cards and hard drives are so cheap now, and the (much improved) dynamic range in raw is so worth it. Especially with the new breed of 14bit cameras.

Apps like aperture and lightroom also have eased their use 100 times over!

If you compare fine jpeg and raw for detail and sharpness you won't see a huge difference though.

You are not locked in to what the camera thought the white balance should be, and hue and saturation changes never let you get it right.

Rich

[Richard Costin]

Although that's not to say jpeg doesn't have it's place though.

[DaiTheDragon]

What no one has mentioned is that if you shoot JPG every time you open and close that file you lose quality. The only way round this is save it as a PSD or TIFF file the first time you open it and then you are talking around 45mb for each file.
Personally when I found out about RAW I tried it and have never shot jpg since, and I actually enjoy working with images on the computer so it’s not a hassle to me.

Dai

[Richard Costin]

Just to clarify for some people, opening and closing doesn't degrade it, it's when you save that the re-compression and degradation occurs.

Temporally saving to psd/tiff as you say is a way around this until you a finished with the image and you save the final as a jpeg!

Rich

Originally Posted by DaiTheDragon

What no one has mentioned is that if you shoot JPG every time you open and close that file you lose quality. The only way round this is save it as a PSD or TIFF file the first time you open it and then you are talking around 45mb for each file.
Personally when I found out about RAW I tried it and have never shot jpg since, and I actually enjoy working with images on the computer so it’s not a hassle to me.

Dai

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by DaiTheDragon

What no one has mentioned is that if you shoot JPG every time you open and close that file you lose quality. The only way round this is save it as a PSD or TIFF file the first time you open it and then you are talking around 45mb for each file.
Personally when I found out about RAW I tried it and have never shot jpg since, and I actually enjoy working with images on the computer so it’s not a hassle to me.

Dai

thats not quite correct - you dont lose quality from opening and closing - it is from opening and resaving - thus just looking at the picture wont dame it but working on it and resaving it will - Andy rouse reckons you get about ten resaves before such damage becomes visually apparent though.

That aside I agree with steve - I use both formats depending on what is needed - leaning towards jpeg fine for high action where fast bursts and buffering are required - these are slower with raw unless you are lucky enough to have a pro series camera like the canon 1D

edit : I guess richard and I hit post at the same time

[Richard Costin]

hehe

[eeyore]

Its also worth mentioning that the damage is caused by the compression algorythm so the greater the compression you apply the more severe the damage - ergo if using jpeg I would always work in jpeg large superfine to minimise compression in camera, and make sure that quality is set to max when resaving in photoshop.

also as dai mentions if you are doing a lot of work it is worth temporarily converting to a lossless format such as .tiff or .psd

[DaiTheDragon]

Sorry, my mistake I should have worded it better, I did mean open and resave.

Dai

[big bill]

I use both but I do prefer the Raw formatt as you have better control over exposure and WB if you make a mistake at the taking stage at least with Raw you have a chance to recover the image,ok it takes up more space but cards are so cheap now its worth the effort and once the image is converted I always save the file as a Tiff lossless file

[Chris_Johnstone]

I've completely skipped what everyone has said because this question comes up every 4 months or so but it's definitely a good debate.

I shoot RAW however, I was of a different mind several months ago. The reasons I left jpeg behind are:

- flexibility. You have more control over your RAW image. I look back at my early jpegs and think, "wow, I could make those poor images a lot better post production but I can't because they're jpegs."

- storage prices. I just bought 8GB of storage for about £27. Very cheap and I will have difficulty running out of space.

- Image quality: it's swings and roundabouts, there's so little in it, in my opinion, that restricting yourself to jpegs is unwise.

- Software. Lightroom, Photoshop CS3, Aperture and most other mac applications all support RAW format so I have no issues with conversion (in fact there's a bug in LR and OS X that has all my jpegs close to extinction).

I think that's all my reasons for using RAW or rather, not having to decide between.

I think the option to shoot either is important because not everyone has software, oodles of memory cards to always use RAW and when I first picked up my first DSLR, I had never heard of RAW before so jpeg was my first choice.

Chris

[Hobjob]

A good photo-editor will let you do almost as much manipulating to JPEGs as it does to RAW.

Over exposure is over-exposure in both formats.

Where RAW, in my experience, is most useful is where white balance is a problem, as with RAW you can have control of that after. Snow has been a particular bugbear for me.

Having said that, as I learn to use levels, photo filters and curves etc. more efficiently, the more I am impressed by how much my mistakes can be corrected

[pressld2]

Originally Posted by eeyore

I use both formats depending on what is needed - leaning towards jpeg fine for high action where fast bursts and buffering are required

An excellent point Pete. I believe most professional sports photographers use jpeg, partly for the increased burst rate and also because they need to get their images submitted asap to meet print deadlines. Some news websites even have pictures up before the match has finished - no time to muck about with RAW converters.

From the wildlife viewpoint, if you're trying to capture a bird of prey striking a Rabbit or a kingfisher diving then your burst rate is likely to be high on your priority list.

Dave P.

P.s. my copy of Andy Rouse's Understanding RAW Photography arrived today so I'm off for a good read!

[mh68]

Originally Posted by Hobjob

A good photo-editor will let you do almost as much manipulating to JPEGs as it does to RAW.

Over exposure is over-exposure in both formats.

Agreed. Ive found that if a jpeg is totally beyond recovery then a Raw shot wont be that far behind either. Granted, things such as highlight recovery are more feasible with Raw shots but jpegs are a lot more forgiving than many suggest. I think with the image quality of modern DSLRs the advantages of Raw arent as great as they were, unless you plan to print large or submit images for publication. I think apart from these last two factors, shooting Raw is preached more out of habit than necessity these days.
With my old fz50 I was moving more towards Raw to overcome the over-zealous in camera processing which kills fine detail at higher ISOs, but since getting my new cam (DSLR) and doing a lot of testing, I`ll probably stick to jpeg the majority of the time for speed, file size and convenience.

Mark H