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.