Should I be Shooting in JPEG or RAW?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tegan

I know all the reasons for shooting RAW but someone should mention the caveats and reasons for hesitation.

1. It is easier and faster to preview jpeg than it is to preview RAW.

2. Minor changes can be done faster in jpeg, than working through RAW.

3. Multiple shooting is faster in jpeg than RAW.

4. Some newer cameras are producing better quality jpegs that require less
processing than the RAW versions.

5. Jpegs can be edited in 16 bit which was once only possible with RAW
formats.

6. Could you differentiate between jpeg original and editing, versus RAW
original, editing and conversion to jpeg?

7. If minimal editing is required, then jpeg is faster than working through
RAW format, editing and conversion.

8. RAW versions can be used like negatives but even for pros a negative is
not always necessary and negatively takes up space and needs to be put
into a database of some sort, despite the fact that it may never be
looked at again.

Tegan

---

These are all good and valid points....

If you are one to take the time to set up your camera there is plenty of latitude to post process your images.

The only reasons I see to shoot RAW are :

(1) You suck so bad with your in camera set up, that you need that extra information to square up your image

(2) You are the type of shooter who regularly extensively edits your image

(3) You are getting paid, in which case it is silly to not take all precautions

(4) You are an advanced hobbyist who is uncomfortable in discarding the mostly useless information discarded when a camera converts an image to jpg


The RAW vs JPG thing is really a personal preference thing. There is no right or wrong decision. I now shoot RAW all the time, but that's only because Lightroom2 makes the conversion process so quick a seamless. If I still had to use a heavy developer/editior like photoshop or psp..... i'd most likely still be shooting jpg unless the shoot was really important...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Travis

shooting raw gives you better latitude in post production... however, the latitude is useless to an uninformed user...... raw files are larger and require an eventual conversion to jpg before they can be shared with the public...

my advice would be to start with jpeg and focus on your in camera skills.... then once you have a solid foundation.... start shooting raw and learn how to maximize your imagery.. you can do both at once but the learning curve will be way longer..

in most situations, the histogram will provide useful information regarding the tonality of your image... it certainly doesn't hurt for you to learn and observe it..

---

I agree with Travis.. shoot jog until you outgrow that and then shoot raw.

Allow me to add my thoughts on this.... I think it depends on what you shoot, if you are going to shoot a hundred shots and post them all to a web-site for friends and family to see - shoot jpeg you will go crazy try to PP them. If you are going to take a hundred shots, and cull them down to 10 or 15 really good ones - shoot in raw.

Jpeg - being an 8 bit file has a much smaller number of colors that can be displayed versus a raw or tiff file (sorry, I have heard aobut 16 bit jpeg but no experience with it). Every time you save a jpeg file by definition you are degrading the quality of the image. Work in raw then your last step is write the jpeg file.

I agree with the one post who commented that you can develop your PP ability while working on your photographic skills. But, if I get to be really good at taking photos one day I may switch back to jpeg - but right now it saves me every now and then.

Kevin

One further point against .jpg. It's a lossy format, that is: Each time you open, edit and save a .jpg image, you lose a bit of information. If you go back and make a number of edits to the same image as a result of bad planning, or a change of mind, you're going to wind up with a significantly degraded image.

Just a question. When shooting and doing post in RAW, change to 8 bit so that you can save as jpeg, is image quality lost?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddness

Just a question. When shooting and doing post in RAW, change to 8 bit so that you can save as jpeg, is image quality lost?

---

make all adjustments in the highest bit setting... then bit down when finalizing to jpeg...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baddness

Just a question. When shooting and doing post in RAW, change to 8 bit so that you can save as jpeg, is image quality lost?

---

8 bit jpeg represents 256 different colors (2 to the power 8)..... 16 bit tiff is 65K... but you can't print all that.....

Kevin

My attitude now is that I will shoot raw, especially if I'm likely to be getting something worth keeping (rare, but it happens..! :)

The only time I will go back to jpeg is if any of the following apply:

- I need to take a huge range of pictures (900 jpeg per 4gig card, versus 200 raw)
- I need to do long continuous burst shooting (my cam does 50+ in jpeg, and about 11 in raw)
- I don't plan on doing any post production and need a very quick output workflow for some reason

Otherwise, it's RAW by default now, even though the workflow, though more painful, gives better control.

It really is just personal preference. Try both and see which one you have
the most fun with and then practice feverishly. I use jpeg and no pp for
all of my work.

http://dwayneoakes.zenfolio.com

Take care Dwayne Oakes

I've not taking the time to read all comments, so I'm sorry if what I'm about to advise has already been mentioned. I'm also very new to DSLR's but I've been shooting using raw for a few years.

I prefer to shoot in raw. I've taking many photos with my camera, firstly shooting a .jpg and then the raw (while using a tripod so to get the same shot). I've then converted them to jpeg on my pc using Photoshop. The ones shot in raw and then converted to jpeg were always better. I might add that I never made any image changes before converting them. Here are just a couple of things I've noticed.

The images shot in raw had much better color. One day I was shooting a house with white siding in the sunlight from a distance. The ones shot in jpeg looked like a house that had a smooth exterior, while the ones shot in raw showed the actual siding on the house and other details totally absent in the jpeg photos. When I did my experimenting it was with my old Finpix S5100 (which is not an SLR). The difference was night and day, and I was sold on raw. I've since bought my first DSLR and not experimented further. I'll always shoot raw, as long as the option is available.

Also, Canon has developed a plug-in that will allow you to view your raw images on a Windows XP or Vista based PC. I believe that the plug-in will work for most raw images taking from most digital cameras. I'm able to view older raw images from my Fuji Finepix without the need for opening them in another program with this plugin.

So I think that if you want the best image quality you can get. Then shoot in raw and then convert them on your PC. You can then delete the raw images if you don't desire to keep them. The end result will be much better looking jpegs then what you'll get from shooting them in jpeg format on your camera.