JPEG or RAW? Why?

pullandbang

I'm sure this has been asked a million times but I don't have the patience to scour back through old threads. As a complete amateur at picture taking, should I shoot in Raw or JPEG or both?

I was out this evening and shot about sixty pics along my local river, all in RAW. Back home, stick the card in the PC and move the pics to the hard drive. 50 minutes later and they are still transferring - slow or what!

Anyway, what is the advantage to someone like me shooting in RAW rather than JPEG? Should I bother?

All donations gratefully accepted.

Borderfox

I shot a job today and shot in RAW and large JPEG, had a look at the JPEG's on the laptop and they looked great so deleted the RAW files. You have a bit of latitude with a RAW file to adjust it unlike a JPEG file

Fajitas!

RAW's going to give you better quality files, with more range in the highlights and shadows, it's also going to give you a more customisable white balance, which probably isn't important to you for the moment. It's uncompressed, so you've got control over how the files turn out, as opposed to the on-camera software doing the jobs for you.

Where JPEG comes in handy; It gives you a lot more space to work with. It'll work the saturation/sharpness et all for you, so you can concentrate on shooting and not post processing.

It depends on what you want. For ages, I only shot JPEG, when I changed over, I didn't go back - It's been about 3 years, and I can count the amount of times I've shot JPEG on one hand... but that's me - You'll find other folk who'll tell you to get the most out of your memory card and shoot JPEG over RAW, etc...

GhostInTheRuins

RAW for me, you get a lot more room when you're PPing.

Going through some oldish pics last week that I shot in JPG I just kept thinking "damn it, I wish these were raws"

Rb

I'm only a newbie but I've been shooting in RAW+L, have found that I much preferred working with the RAW files (especially wrt white balance) so have now switched to just RAW and then process into jpegs where needed.

Regarding the "slowness", the average RAW file is 15.3MB while a large Jpeg is 4.3MB(on my 450D anyway), so naturally there'll be a significant difference between the transfer rate of 60 RAW files vs 60 jpegs.

KStaford

not to mention the fact that jpeg/jpg is a terribly destructive file format. Everytime you save a jpeg, the algorithmn destroys data as it reimplements its compression. Its a pity cameras dont give you the option of RAW and PNG.

Try it for yourself, open a jepg in a graphics editor and save it. Do this several times and watch the image quality deteriorate infront of your very eyes.

Calina

OP,

yes, this has been done to death and really, you should use the search function instead of telling us you can't be bothered. After all, you're expecting a lot of people to be bothered to reply to a question that is asked on many many occasions.

Whether you use jpg or RAW depends on a couple of things 1) how much time you want to spend working the photographs afterwards and 2) the type of stuff you are shooting.

Today, I shot some RAW on a beach in the south of Spain but while shooting sports I shifted to jpg. There are various reasons why you would do this but continuous shooting and cache limitations are key reasons for sports photography.

RAW gives you more lattitude in post processing. Jpg gives you certain freedoms depending on your camera.

The only person who can answer the "should I use RAW or jpg" is you.

Borderfox

Some of it comes down to camera too, when I shoot with the Canon 1dmk3 it meters far better than anything I have ever used and it is much easier to shoot JPEG on it than the 5d.

Rb

Calina wrote: »

yes, this has been done to death and really, you should use the search function instead of telling us you can't be bothered. After all, you're expecting a lot of people to be bothered to reply to a question that is asked on many many occasions.

Indeed and, fwiw, it is also linked in the "FAQs - Read this before posting!!!" sticky, as are many other topics that a beginner (like myself) will probably want to ask/get the answer to.

Fionn

yeah i'd agree with BF - i've often shot a whole event using .jpg on a Canon EOS 1DmkIII or EOS 1DS mk III and the output is almost perfect - hardly any PP needed.
But RAW has its uses where the camera 'Thinks' it's guessed the metering etc. but actually hasn't thats where you have the luxury of being able to interact/process the Raw digital data that was captured on the camera's sensor and not in a JPEG file thats fixed and baked by the camera's processor etc.

Might be done to death - but new users are gonna come on looking for advice, and i know not everyone looks at the FAQ's!!
i must look at updating the "where to buy a camera" one it's seriously out of date!!!

Mycroft H

Also if you leave your camera in black and white and forget about it, you can change it back to colour later using raw!

hussey

pullandbang wrote: »

As a complete amateur at picture taking, should I shoot in Raw or JPEG or both?

If you are also an amateur at Post processing, I would say JPEG

Concentrate on composition etc, then when you are ready move to RAW

quilmore

pullandbang wrote: »

50 minutes later and they are still transferring - slow or what!

you need to renew your memory cards and card readers
not all memories will transfer at the same speed
even on the same brand
a sandisk ultra II will be miles slower than a sandisk ultimate IV
the reader used to be an issue too, if you have an old one get a new one, they aren't that expensive
don't use your camera as a memory reader (for many reasons..., not just speed)

RAW all the way, sometimes is not much in it compared with JPG, but it's worth for when you recover a pic that could have been for the chop if it was just JPG

Anouilh

It takes a while to work out how to find the best information on the Internet and using key phrases in the search saves time.

Adding a phrase like "dynamic range" brings up some very insightful sites.

You may find this one useful:

http://photo.net/learn/raw/

wersal gummage

i shot in RAW before for a day's event - took about 200 pics. it did my head in afterwards, had to convert all the pictures with canon software, then delete the originals (dont have the space to be keeping all that stuff). then go into photoshop and do levels etc.

that was a year ago and haven't used RAW since. it would be fine if you've the patience for it - but as seen as you haven't the patience to press the search button you're prob like me and dont have the patience to spend HOURS fiddling around on your computer with RAW files!

silverside

picasa handles RAW files and the quality seems marginally better than JPEG's, although obviously picasa isnt an ideal postprocessing tool

I agree the Canon software is a pain, personally I dont postprocess but shoot RAW+JPEG anyhow, there's no real drawback apart from memory card filling up and if i ever want to get into PP i'll be into the habit

melekalikimaka

wersal gummage wrote: »

i shot in RAW before for a day's event - took about 200 pics. it did my head in afterwards, had to convert all the pictures with canon software, then delete the originals (dont have the space to be keeping all that stuff). then go into photoshop and do levels etc.

that was a year ago and haven't used RAW since. it would be fine if you've the patience for it - but as seen as you haven't the patience to press the search button you're prob like me and dont have the patience to spend HOURS fiddling around on your computer with RAW files!

why would you convert them all? surely you'd convert the edited ones your happy with no?

burn the raws to a dvd, pop it in a case, label it... and bam your sorted?

wersal gummage

melekalikimaka wrote: »

why would you convert them all? surely you'd convert the edited ones your happy with no?

burn the raws to a dvd, pop it in a case, label it... and bam your sorted?

it was a friend's wedding and i wanted to give them all the pics i got (in jpeg format on a CD). i changed the white balance in about 3 or 4 of the photos, it was fine in the rest of them so left it. i just find that i do any editing in photoshop and having the extra hassle of going from raw to jpeg just to get to photoshop isn't worth it for me.

i know most people would always say RAW is better than JPEG, so i just gave my opinion which i know most wont agree with but it does add on a lot of extra hassle. especially if you go on say a month's holiday and take 2000 pictures or whatever. having to come home to that in RAW would not be worth it for me.

delly

I was at a Christening recently and shot JPG's, but for the posed 'don't mess this up' shots I used RAW+L. So in the event I got white balance or something else wrong, at least I would have something to fall back on.

melekalikimaka

wersal gummage wrote: »

it was a friend's wedding and i wanted to give them all the pics i got (in jpeg format on a CD). i changed the white balance in about 3 or 4 of the photos, it was fine in the rest of them so left it. i just find that i do any editing in photoshop and having the extra hassle of going from raw to jpeg just to get to photoshop isn't worth it for me.

i know most people would always say RAW is better than JPEG, so i just gave my opinion which i know most wont agree with but it does add on a lot of extra hassle. especially if you go on say a month's holiday and take 2000 pictures or whatever. having to come home to that in RAW would not be worth it for me.

well i dont know many folk that would give all shots to client... id only ever give word i was happy with...

ttcomet

To put it in film terms, Jpeg is like sending your photos off to spectra (or other lab) to get developed whilst RAW is like processing them yourself in a darkroom. You need to work out if the improved images quality is worth the extra time/work involved.

For me personally it is that RAW allows me some latitude to play with the exposure level (or more correctly when I screw it up I can save the image when it is only a stop or so under/over when shooting in RAW).

It also allows me to set the correct white balance if I forget to do it when shooting and it allows me to manipulate the picture more in Lightroom before I start to get noticeable halos/digital noise.

wersal gummage

melekalikimaka wrote: »

well i dont know many folk that would give all shots to client... id only ever give word i was happy with...

no it was a friend, not a client.

i've never had and never will have clients. tis just a hobby.

i was asked to take a few fun type shots of the day which i was happy to do. there was a pro there taking the proper shots.

anyway - all this is off the point. i was purely trying to say to the original question that yeah, raw gives you more options, but it can be a nuisance to process it all - its just something to consider thats all.

Nforce

pullandbang wrote: »

I'm sure this has been asked a million times but I don't have the patience to scour back through old threads. As a complete amateur at picture taking, should I shoot in Raw or JPEG or both?

I was out this evening and shot about sixty pics along my local river, all in RAW. Back home, stick the card in the PC and move the pics to the hard drive. 50 minutes later and they are still transferring - slow or what!

Anyway, what is the advantage to someone like me shooting in RAW rather than JPEG? Should I bother?

All donations gratefully accepted.

I shoot RAW+Jpeg L too. I was at an event at the weekend and shot ~140 pics. transfering them to my notebook that evening took about 5 minutes, possibly less. 200 pics will import to Adobe Lightroom on my desktop in ~60 seconds. The memory card that i'm using is a cheap €20 Transend 8GB Class 6 chip that I purchased off ebay.

Freddie59

RAW all the way. In the event of any mistakes it's indispensable.

gorilla_image

Shoot both for a while then decide. Started shooting RAW when I firts got a DSLR, almost never shoot jpg. The only time I would ever shoot jpg is for sports where there's no PP and I shoot literally thousands of photos for web use only.

imo these are the pros of RAW

-Better quality image
-Non destructive. (all the image information is kept, even if you cant see it)
-Broader dynamic range,
-you can recover burnt out highlights (impossible with jpg)
-you can adjust white balance.
- etc, etc, blah, blah, blah I could go on and on and on...

imo these are the cons

-lager file size (but so what, storage is cheap)
-slower camera process (hardly noticable and what's the rush)
-slower download times (have a cup of tea in the meantime)

It's a no brainer really.

houseoffun14

Raw, all the way.

pullandbang

Thanks for all the replies folks.

It's obvious from reading them that there are lots of differing opinions and at the end of the day it's going to come down to what I want from the images. Methinks I'll stick with the jpegs for the time being and try a few RAW just to try them out. I did like what I could do with some of the RAW images from yesterday's session but don't know if I'd have the patience to do that to a whole batch of pics.

nilhg

pullandbang wrote: »

I did like what I could do with some of the RAW images from yesterday's session but don't know if I'd have the patience to do that to a whole batch of pics.

That's really more to do with your choice of software and workflow than any real difference between RAW and JPEG, with Lightroom or Aperture or Picasa you import the original (RAW or Jpeg) develop it, then export a disposable copy for whichever use you require, the original is the gold standard and never changed.