RAW or JPEG

[Dazza]

With me being new at photography i just wanted to know should i save my files in RAW or JPEG on my camera, also is there a big difference because i have noticed RAW being a large file size.

[yelvertoft]

I used to be a die-hard, strict jpeg only evangelist, couldn't be bothered with messing about with raw processing.

Then, I had a conversion. I discovered that the raw processing package that came bundled with my camera could, in a couple of mouse clicks, import all the (raw) files from my card and process them just as though I'd been shooting as in-camera jpegs. I ended up with jpeg files just as though I'd been shooting them in camera, but now, I also had the raw files.

So what? you may ask. With the raw files as backups, I could take those shots that really deserved a bit more care and attention in post-processing, working on the few "good 'uns" from raw. The snapshots were fine as jpegs.

Even if you don't intend doing any serious post-processing right now, I recommend you switch to raw format so you can go back to those files later on should you ever get to that stage in your photography. There's a few vintage pictures I have that I'm kicking myself for now, because I used to shoot only in jpeg and don't have the raw to go back to.

You can always convert a raw to a jpeg, you can't go back the other way.

So, shoot raw, use the software that came bundled with your camera to do quick and dirty jpeg conversions, just as though you'd been shooting in-camera jpegs, keep hold of the raw files for the future.

Duncan

[andy153]

For me it depends whether I am shooting full frame or half frame, FX or DX. In the D3 I shoot large jpegs optimised in camera for quality. In the D300 or D2X I shoot both RAW & JPEG and do what Duncan does.

[miketoll]

The basic point is RAW files allow for greater processing as they contain more information and things like colour balance are not set and there is more scope for rescuing blown highlights etc. More versatility and more detail. The downside is bigger files as they are not compressed and you have to spend more time working on a given image.

[Derekb]

The D3 allows me to shoot both to separate cards, so I do. It is also very reassuring having what is basically a negative available for the odd time I get things wrong in camera.

The other benefit of course is that I can do multiple exposures of the same RAW file when I need to show all the dynamic range, like the Bolton Abbey B&W pic posted recently - theres no way you could get that wide a tonal range in a jpeg.

[Gidders]

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

... I discovered that the raw processing package that came bundled with my camera could, in a couple of mouse clicks, import all the (raw) files from my card and process them just as though I'd been shooting as in-camera jpegs. I ended up with jpeg files just as though I'd been shooting them in camera, but now, I also had the raw files....

With Lightroom, you don't even need to convert to jpg - just import & Lightroom with display the images - then just tweak the ones that you want to and export those to jpg for sharing

Originally Posted by yelvertoft

You can always convert a raw to a jpeg, you can't go back the other way.

So, shoot raw, use the software that came bundled with your camera to do quick and dirty jpeg conversions, just as though you'd been shooting in-camera jpegs, keep hold of the raw files for the future.

Hear hear

[robski]

RAW is not the panacea for all your images problems. Its main benefits over Jpeg are up to 2 stops exposure correction and better colour balance correction. If the Highlights or Shadows are clipped (blown) in the RAW file then you are stuffed anyway. Many make the claim that the RAW file has more detail than say the Fine Jpeg version. I am not convince that this is the case with all cameras. If you scan back through the threads you will find a long thread on the topic. The thread was more of an investigation than people giving their second hand opinions. From what I recall there was a marked difference between Jpeg and RAW image quality on Don Hoey's Nikon. Whereas I found very small differences on my Canon. Further investigation also showed that some of the RAW formats did use a lossy compression.

Like Duncan I was not convinced of the merits of RAW in the early days. Often the original Jpeg version was miles better than my RAW processing. If I used the software supplied with the camera it did not look much different from the Jpeg version. If I used Photoshops RAW Converter the results were poor in my opinion. So after this experience I tended to reserve RAW processing for the tricky shots.

Recently I have started to used Light Room for my RAW Conversion and I now feel back in control of the image processing. I shoot both RAW and Jpeg if I have enough room on my memory cards for the day. If the Jpeg looks good then I will use that. For heavier processing I then use the RAW file.

If your PC is powerful enough and you have plenty of storage on the harddisk and memory card I suggest that you shoot both RAW and Jpeg. I think much depends on if you find a RAW converter that gives you the control you want. If you make a bad job of the RAW you still have the Jpeg which maybe good enough.

Some folk tend to shoot Jpeg only if they are shooting at high frame rates. Say 6 to 10 frames a second for action photography. It will take less RAW images to fill the cameras image buffer than Jpeg images. Thereby limiting the number of shots in the burst. e.g 6 RAW shots compared to 15 Jpeg. This is where fast memory cards are required so that the image buffer can be written to the card quickly to be ready for another burst of images. With the advances in technology the image buffer sizes have increased along with memory card write speeds.

[nobby]

I must admit that I shot in JPEG mode with my Fuji S9600 because I found that the transfer on the RAW setting was far too slow. At the beginning of last year I bought the Nikon D80 and let me say the rest is history I always shoot in RAW now when using my Nikon's, as others have found there is so much versatility with RAW with no degradation which is found with JPEG!

[Dazza]

Nice information guys thnx - what software do you use with the RAW files?
The software i have is photoshop and ViewNX i got with the Nikon Camera,
which shall i use to convert to jpeg?

[Don Hoey]

Originally Posted by robski

...........The thread was more of an investigation than people giving their second hand opinions. From what I recall there was a marked difference between Jpeg and RAW image quality on Don Hoey's Nikon. Whereas I found very small differences on my Canon. Further investigation also showed that some of the RAW formats did use a lossy compression.

Memory lane there Rob.
I have just re-read it. Had a bit of a chuckle as to how far I have progressed in the digital world in three years. Wallet took a bit of a hit but no regrets.
An opportunity to thank my mentor Foxy, and others here who have been a great help.
Link to the thread in question
http://www.worldphotographyforum.com...read.php?t=662

Don