Raw vs jpeg
 

Done a quick search and noting came up, so i decided to post a topic instead.

This is a subject that really confuses me. Should I shoot in RAW? My thinking is i don't think my images are that good anyway. According to Rockwell there is no difference in quality compared to the maximum jpeg. Only the amount of data the raw image has allows you to edit the image later, something that the camera has already done for you.

If i was to sell an image what would say a magazine or a website require, a RAW file, or Jpeg?

Shoot in RAW, make a JPG, or a TIF from it, that way you've always got the original RAW image to go back to. You can make as many JPG/TIF images as you want from it without losing any quality each time you make a new one. RAW files should never leave your possession as they are your original image file and are your copyright. Any images you wish to sell to whoever should be made from this original file and these are also your copyright.

Most magazines prefer TIF files, but will accept high quality JPEGS if the subject is topical enough. Bird watching magazines in particular will quite often accept very low quality JPEGS if the subject is a rare bird. Websites generally only use JPEGS, I've never heard of one using RAW files as they have no means of rendering the file online.

nirofo.

In the long term your most probably find yourself using RAW. In general the advantages far outweigh any disadvantages. There is an argument which Rockwell is trying to make, if all your Jpeg images are perfect then why lumber yourself with the overhead of RAW processing for little or no gain. As you become more self critical of your images you will realise that very few are perfect in all senses of the word and some post processing adjustment is required. The amount of good editing control Jpeg allows you is fairly limited. Typically only 10% to 15% before signs of image degradation show. The key thing about RAW is that it has a much wider latitude to correct problems and possibly savage a shot that would most certainly be beyond hope if Jpeg.

Shoot raw, as nirofo says, you can always make a jpeg from a raw whenever you like, you can't go back the other way. I used to be a die-hard jpeg shooter "life's too short for raw". Since discovering the extra latitude that raw gives you, I now regret not having many of my early pictures in raw as I cannot now process them the way I would like to.

If a total stranger in a bar sat next to you and started spouting about how he knew everything about photography would you give him much credence? Ken Rockwell should be regarded in the same way. Just because he's got an opinion and is a good self publicist, doesn't mean you should agree with him.

My sentiment exactly. I now shoot RAW and Jpeg 99.9% of the time. I view the Jpeg version to decide what to keep and cull. The only time I will switch to Jpeg only is when I am shooting very long bursts at high frame rate to avoid buffer overflow.

It took a few attempts before I became a RAW convert. What finally swung it was the huge improvement in recent years of RAW editors.

I have been a fan of Ken Rockwell for many years, but do not take all he says as Gospel. He is often writing, tongue in cheek, and you need to decide when this is happening. For example his Article - Digital killed my Tripod http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/digi...-my-tripod.htm

I do not agree with him. I still carry and use mine especially for Architecture and Landscape work. I'm using pro lenses like the 24 mm PC-E Nikkor, and the 12-24 mm & 24-70 mm AFs f2,8 Nikkors - but I still stick them on a tripod. And I shoot in RAW + Large jpeg. The RAW files are there if you need to do serious editing. I'd rather keep them on disc and seldom use them than miss an opportunity to turn a good shot into a superb shot ....... not that I have ever taken any good shots.......... :D

It has always been RAW for me, right from my switch from film. The principle advantages are, in no particular order, ability to change colour space if required, far higher editing potential - including the fact that the editing choices are your own rather than what a softare engineer working for canon/nikon etc thought might be good, the ability to make a number of different treatments of an image from the original data, better colour depth, highlight and shadow recovery...
Jpeg is great when you know you have the image exactly as you will always want it, at a large enough image size, in the right colour space, for any output or application that you may wish to use the image in. So there is a place for it... (or, more seriously, if there are compelling reasons for making use of quicker write times and larger buffer capacity in camera, and quicker sending times over the wires.eg sports/news press photography)

I always shoot in RAW for all the editing options detailed in this thread - maybe if I was good enough to get everything right straight out of the Camera then I might use jpeg.
Strange thing is that a lot of novices do not use RAW because they do not consider themselves good enough but IMO that is all the more reason to use RAW. Just my 2p's worth.

Try this link.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tut...ile-format.htm

Thanks guys for the replies. It does Open the idea back up should i shoot raw, as id almost decided to shoot large jpeg. What everyone has said does make alot of sense. My question is.....I can shoot in raw+basic jpeg, or just raw, which is the best option here. Can anyone recomend a method for processing the raw images for a nikon, as i am totally clueless.

I shoot in RAW only and extract all the JPEGS from the flash card later using a small piece of software called Preview Extractor, this way you don't take up unecessary card space with extra files that you already have embedded in your RAW file, also you don't need to run a fully fledged program like Photoshop or others just to see your JPEGS .

Follow this web link thread for more info.

http://drchung.new21.net/previewextractor/

For rendering Nikon NEF files you can download Nikons free software from the following web links.

Nikon ViewNX v1.52 Full Version for Windows: http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/a...49/r_id/127673

Nikon Transfer v1.53 Full Version for Windows: http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/a...49/r_id/127673

For a fully fledged Nikon NEF rendering program there's only one, trial download at the following link.

Nikon CaptureNX 2 Trial for Windows: http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/a...49/r_id/127673

Nikon CaptureNX 2.2.4 Updater for above: http://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/a...49/r_id/127673


I use Nikon CaptureNX 2.2.4 for all my RAW files, it's far more than just a rendering tool and it's used by many on this forum, I would fully reccommend it.

nirofo.

I'm not familiar with nikon RAW, but use lightroom for all mine (canon bodies). I find it very intuitive and easy to use, plus it has a very good archiving system to help retrieve images at a later date. I believe it supports nikon RAW as well as various other manufacturers.

Your camera came bundled with some raw conversion software. If you shoot raw (only), and run the photos through this software, it will convert the pictures to jpegs just as though you'd shot in-camera jpeg. The difference is that you will also have the raw file to play with using a more advanced raw conversion program once you've got the hang of it. I see little point in shooting raw+jpeg, it just takes up more space on the card as far as I can see.

Personally, I use Capture One for raw processing, but I know that for Nikon, NX is generally regarded as the package to use.

Thanks guys i have tried using captureNX but only having 512mb of ram my pc grinds to a halt. I know i need to upgrade to a couple of gig but funds are tight at the moment. I didnt get any software with my camera that im aware of. Can anyone tell me what its called so i can try and downloads it.

I have already quoted the different software that is available from Nikon, Nikon ViewNX and Nikon Transfer are both free downloads, (web download links listed in my previous post). Either of these software packages will do what you want, but for really easy JPEG extraction use the Preview Extractor that I also gave a web download link to in the previous post.

nirofo.

Thank you for the advice.

For me shooting in RAW is a pain especially when shooting macros as the FZ30 can't transfer the RAW files fast enough to the card. So for that sort of stuff its HQ jpeg.

From time to time I have a bout where I shoot in RAW, cos perhaps its good for the soul and all. But I doubt I've taken more than 20 RAW shots all the way though to finishing off. The majority of those I really don't think there was an awful amount of difference between what I ended up twiddling to, and the result that the software defaulted to. Life is too short for RAW. It does give you a massive amount of scope for fiddling and twiddling and if you like that sort of thing then why not. But for myself I just can't be arsed with it.

This is a subject that I know quite well...
trust me go on shooting RAW...
I was used to scan prints and to Photoshop a lot.... now with RAW I do not even use anymore Photoshop.

Is not matter only of quality but matter of non destructive manipulation you can do with a RAW file.... you can do amazing thing!!!
is not just better can non EVEN compare RAW with jpg possibility.

So...

1) make a good shot, the best you can do, always

2) make it RAW

3) use a good software.... go for Lightroom!

4) make all your manipulation you need on the raw file using Lightroom... crop/light/contrast/colours/spot/black point......... keep in mind the shot is just the beginning.... but is the most important thing.... YOU ARE IN CHARGE OF YOUR DARKROOM... this is amazing...

5) when you have finished and happy with it... export and save as
a) JPG file max resolution that you will use for print
b) DNG file as security it will keep raw info plus the modification you made
c) alway keep also original RAW copy


Regards

Raw V Jpeg
 

how many times have you taken a shot to find that you have forgot to set the w/b or the exposure is wrong.

at least with RAW you can alter most of this, drawback is the size of image i shoot both and mainley use jpeg except for the difficult adjusments when i pull the raw file.

Nikon capture and Photoshop let you manipulate RAW.

nikons, nikon transfer,and view nx are freedown load from nikon europe.
both easy to set up.and easy to use.
i alway take my photo in raw,because all the info is there,if you ever need it.
view nx,will can change it ti a jep or a tiif,which i then keep in a diffrent folder.if i need to do more then i use nx2,which is not that often.

I have tried to download and install the preview extractor, but when ever i try to install it, (7 times) it says it cannot perform this action because a file is missing. Id say i am pretty pc literate and have tried numerous things to locate the missing extension and replace it. Im stumped. Has anyone else had this problem.

I am also having problems with the nikon software. Mainly nikon view, It installs ok, then when i go to use it, it crashes and says windows has experienced an error. Im wondering if its my pc thats unstable or the software. It is a fresh install of xp, so im thinking it should be ok.

I am running lightroom 2, but due to me needing to upgrade RAM it takes a little while to do anything with it.

Help....any suggestions will be welcome.

Hi All Adobe product are very memory hunfry and even with 4 gigs of ram after two or three pics open it grinds to a halt.

are you using a laptop??

No a desktop....but it needs a revamp or replacing.

My wife's old XP desktop has a single core and 1 gig of RAM and copes OK so something is wrong with yours.

what size files are you dealing with? i often work with files that are 300mb

hi as an example a 12.5meg nef converted to tiff @ 600dpi = 294megs

photoshop cs4

That is a big file, showing my ignorance but why 600dpi? I only ever print at 300dpi as the eye can not discern any more. As I say this is an area I am somewhat hazy about.

I have a clocked single core running at around 3.4....the ram is the problem as i only have 512mb....this is soon to be upgrade to 2 gig.

Old newspapers were printed at 300dpi remember how dotty they were. the average screen has a resolution of 75dpi while quality magazines are printed at 2400 dpi photographs are 2000-4800 or dye sub. So 300dpi will show up as grainy.

When we change the output size of a digital image (without "resembling" or adding pixels) we are only spreading out (or squeezing together) existing pixels. For example: If we have an image that is 3000x2000 pixels and we change its resolution to 1 dpi it will print out at 3000x2000 inches. If we change its resolution to 100 dpi it will be 30x20 inches and at 1000 dpi it will be 3x2 inches. Each image has the exact same number or pixels they are just pushed closer together in some images.

Resembling enables the print to be printed bigger it adds dots to the image “interpolating”

so when printing larger pictures resample them in Photoshop.


Do not confuse DPI with PPI PPI is pixels per inch and usually refers to screen or ccd resolution



hope this helps a little

windows XP works better with 1 gig of mem don't forget That 32bit windows can map only 2 gig of mem while 64 gig can map much more, some progs can in fact use the extra mem as storage, but windows has a habit of not releasing all the mem so eventually it grinds to a halt then has to be restarted!!

i bet if you check you photo printer the sesolution will be about 2400 dpi lasers are 300-1200 pos 2400(interpolated) and i aslo bet that a laser print at 300 dpi looks crap!!

you are probabley thinking of PPI rather than DPI photoshop only has the ppi setting not dpi

if the extension is a dll (dynamic link library ) replacing the file without installing may not work. the giveaway in in the name - dynamic the files change accoring to what has been istalled so just replacing one of these with a "vigin" file can in fact "hang" your computer. i would say that you have a corrupt file try downloading it from nikon again and then reinstalling and be sure to turn off your antivus as this can assume what you are installing is a virus and not install thet file without you knowing.

hope this is of some help

John

Last year a local newspaper wanted to use some images so I pointed them to my flickr account and told them to chose what they wanted and I'd let them have the hirez files. They responded that the 1200px images on flickr were perfectly good enough for them to print.

ImageKind produce Art Quality prints from your digital files. I'll let them speak about DPI PPI, and what modern printing techniques paper and ink can do.

no problem if you are happy with the result then fine. Printers tend to push DPI as high as posible and dye sub have more or infinite dots. on smaller prints difference is not noticable. when you start to print to A3 A2 you see loss rapidy even slight cropping makes a difference.

Vogue and such are printed at 2400 DPI photo used to have very small dots that is why they were so good compared to the past home prints.


I take your point and stand corrected.

many thanks

JOhn

Hi

the bottom line is that the higher the resolution of the original and the better the resolution of the printer the better the result. it does get to diminishing returns, but what is not there cannot be printed. there the more info there the better and in printing size does matter 24 x 36 print must have a lot of data to start with.

i have been printing foe some 30 years, probably wrong most of the time, but from looking closely at work from others and mine there is a quality issue with digital it gets better but it is still not quite the same as emulsion that is simple due to the amount of data the CCD can cope with.

That is why the larger format CCD’s are so expensive £20,000 + but they ooze quality which a 35mm cannot achieve

would love to afford one

John

Hi

You need to download a dll file from Microsoft Update, web link here.
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/d...displaylang=en

You need to install this dll update in your main windows folder on your "C" drive, Preview Extractor should run fine then.

nirofo.

thanks for the help guys ill try that now.

Thanks for that explanation.

~ Sam