Shooting Raw but then converting to Jpeg

Take Your Pants Off

So I heard shooting raw is the best quality there for DSLR cameras.
But I cannot view them on my computer without converting it to JPEG or other devices such as the mobile or tv.
So I am wondering If I shoot in raw and then make a copy of it and convert to jpeg, will the raw quality still be there or what ?

Bears and Vodka

RAW is a format which allows you a great deal of control when editing a photo. You can do quite a lot with a RAW file (colour correction etc.) compared to a JPEG file. You should try some photo editing programs such as Lightroom. You can download a trial from Adobe.com. Look up a few video tutorials on YouTube and you'll be ready to go.

As it stands, without touching anything, a converted RAW to JPEG file will probably be the same (maybe with a slightly larger filesize), than if you were to shoot in JPEG.

Take Your Pants Off

Bears and Vodka wrote: »

RAW is a format which allows you a great deal of control when editing a photo. You can do quite a lot with a RAW file (colour correction etc.) compared to a JPEG file. You should try some photo editing programs such as Lightroom. You can download a trial from Adobe.com. Look up a few video tutorials on YouTube and you'll be ready to go.

As it stands, without touching anything, a converted RAW to JPEG file will probably be the same (maybe with a slightly larger filesize), than if you were to shoot in JPEG.

So if I convert Raw to the JPEG, it will still have the quality of raw but maybe in larger filesize ?
I thought raw already took so much space.

the_syco

A JPEG is a lossy format. You lose information, and because of this further editing is hard.

What camera are you using? I have a Canon, and find this to be great for viewing the RAW files in Windows as medium/large/extra large icons. It also allows me to view them in Windows Photo Viewer.

Sample of viewing them as large icons and also in Windows Photo Viewer.



I think there are free versions as well, and your camera probably gives you some free basic software from their site (Canon does, anyhoos).

Take Your Pants Off

the_syco wrote: »

A JPEG is a lossy format. You lose information, and because of this further editing is hard.

What camera are you using? I have a Canon, and find this to be great for viewing the RAW files in Windows as medium/large/extra large icons. It also allows me to view them in Windows Photo Viewer.

Sample of viewing them as large icons and also in Windows Photo Viewer.



I think there are free versions as well, and your camera probably gives you some free basic software from their site (Canon does, anyhoos).

Lovely pics.
But I am not into those editing and stuff, just want crisp and clear pics and video which I can easily access anywhere.
So if I shoot the picture in raw and convert to jpeg, I loose some information and detail yes ?

Bears and Vodka

No, you're misunderstanding what is meant by quality here. As this article says "a RAW file is the image as seen by the camera's sensor. Think of it like unprocessed film. Rather than letting the camera process the image for you, turning it into a JPEG image, shooting in raw allows you to process the image to your liking".

So you need software that is able to open RAW file in order for you to edit them as you wish. Here is an example of a photo before and after some editing:



As you can see straight from the camera the picture is overexposed in some places, and underexposed in other parts. If you mess around with shadows, highlights, whites and colours, you can make the image pop and look far more appealing. You cannot do this (properly) with a JPEG picture. That's why people shoot RAW. And that's why RAW files are big - they record all the information about the photo so that you can make adjustments. A JPEG is just a compressed photo.

Mellor

Take Your Pants Off wrote: »

So if I shoot the picture in raw and convert to jpeg, I loose some information and detail yes ?

If you are going to shoot in raw and convert to jpeg without any editing, then its pretty much the same as shooting directly to jpeg.
The additional information in a Raw file isn't as simple as more detail.

Take Your Pants Off

Alright thanks lads, I am not much into the field editing, I barely have time these days, so I might just stick with JPEG.
Using Nikon d3200

Tiriel

You can set your camera to shoot in Raw + JPEG also, which might be the right choice for you. However, if you aren't interested in processing, perhaps JPEG along would suffice. All raw files need to be processed even slightly (in my opinion) - they are 'raw' and need a bit of a boost in saturation/sharpness.

Splinters

If you're not going to edit at all then don't both with RAW. RAW images are typically flat for the very reason you're meant to edit them. They contain more information then you can see initially, you can bring up dark areas to reveal detail that wouldn't be captured in a jpeg. Likewise with recovering blown out highlights.

If you've no interest in editing then just shoot jpg.