JPEG vs, RAW: I have always shot JPEG, but, after reading so many comments on UHH about the benefits of RAW, I decided to try RAW. Yesterday I set my Canon 70D on RAW and took photos...

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

I have always shot JPEG, but, after reading so many comments on UHH about the benefits of RAW, I decided to try RAW. Yesterday I set my Canon 70D on RAW and took photos of the 2nd snow/ice storm in 2 weeks to hit the sunny South. I was excited about viewing and editing the photos in Lightroom 5.

It was disappointing that I didn't notice a difference between the two formats. I used my usual editing techniques and seemed to produce the same quality of edited photos I usually produce.

So, I'm a bit puzzled. What am I missing in my admitted ignorance?

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

lwerthe1mer wrote:

I have always shot JPEG, but, after reading so man... (show quote)

Are you sure you were editing the CR2 file and not another jpg?

Did they have a different quality when you initially opened them?
The CR2 would be kind of dull and unsharp.

OonlyBonly

Nothing. Except you may want, at some time for some photos, a totally different look than you usually use. RAW gives you that capability plus the ability to return to the original at any time and try other 'looks.'

amehta Loc: Boston

lwerthe1mer wrote:

I have always shot JPEG, but, after reading so man... (show quote)

What are your "usual editing techniques"?

AlisonT Loc: Louisa, Virginia

As I said in another post raw is good for the inevitable mistake. I once shot an outdoor portrait session and changed one camera from vivid color to neutral color and got distracted and didn't change the second camera. Portraits taken in vivid color look really bad. Since I had shot in raw it was merely a task of going into the raw files and changing the color rendition. You can't do that with a jpg, well you can but it is a lot more complex.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

If you got the look you wanted in JPEG there is no need for RAW. In RAW you need to do some work just to get it up to an out of the camera JPEG that the camera has done some of the work for you. - Dave

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Tis a shame that you have a fantastic expensive camera and wonderful post processing equipment and can't see the difference. You had unusual weather and the opportunity to take interesting and memorable shots yet didn't say whether you were happy with your photo's or not.

Think positive 'one day it will all come together'.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

Could I have done something wrong when I imported the photos into Lightroom and perhaps converted the photos to JPEG? I am positive that I took RAW photos, and I did not simultaneously take JPEGs.

I don't know what a CR2 is.

Wall-E Loc: Phoenix, AZ

lwerthe1mer wrote:

Could I have done something wrong when I imported the photos into Lightroom and perhaps converted the photos to JPEG? I am positive that I took RAW photos, and I did not simultaneously take JPEGs.

I don't know what a CR2 is.

CR2 is the file extension for Canon RAW files.
Like NEF is for Nikon files, and jpg is for images processed using the JPEG standards.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

I typically check white balance, crop, eliminate any overexposure or underexposure and then add highlights. If any part of the photo needs special attention, such as sky that needs to be bluer or faces that are too dark, I address those issues.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

My files are CR2 file. Thanks for teaching me what CR2 means.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

G Brown wrote:

Tis a shame that you have a fantastic expensive camera and wonderful post processing equipment and can't see the difference. You had unusual weather and the opportunity to take interesting and memorable shots yet didn't say whether you were happy with your photo's or not.

Think positive 'one day it will all come together'.

I'm really very happy with my 70D, and I'm pretty happy with the photos I took a few days ago. I'm not a frustrated photographer and am just trying to develop an appreciation for RAW.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

wilsondl2 wrote:

If you got the look you wanted in JPEG there is no need for RAW. In RAW you need to do some work just to get it up to an out of the camera JPEG that the camera has done some of the work for you. - Dave

Dave, my photos transferred from the camera to my computer in RAW very easily. Once in my computer, I just didn't see a difference with JPEG. Perhaps if I had a terribly underexposed photo, I could have rescued it in RAW but not JPEG.

Samuraiz Loc: Central Florida

lwerthe1mer wrote:

Dave, my photos transferred from the camera to my computer in RAW very easily. Once in my computer, I just didn't see a difference with JPEG. Perhaps if I had a terribly underexposed photo, I could have rescued it in RAW but not JPEG.

It's possible that your expectation were met by your results. I think a very good experiment would be to take a series of photos and set the capture to Raw +Jpg. Save the different files in two different file folders on your PC. Then compare the two versions.

Most people when they transition to Raw start by saving both as a type of training wheels. When you have become proficient in developing your raw files, you can capture only raw. Some photographers never shoot raw and are completely happy with JPG's.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

Samuraiz wrote:

It's possible that your expectation were met by yo... (show quote)

Great advice. Next time I will shoot both ways and compare in PP. Thanks.