yellerdog

I have my Nikon D3200 set to show in both raw and jpeg format. The jpegs always look better than the raw after downloading and pre post processing. What is the advantage of shooting in raw after downloading to the computer? Is it something that affects post processing? My PP skills and software are both low-tech.

wtompkins Loc: Northern Michigan

Here are a bunch of threads that may explain:

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/search.jsp?q=raw+jpeg&u=&s=0

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

RAW has it's advantages also it's disadvantages.
The following is my opinion. For None commercial Photography.

Pro's to RAW.
You will have a lot more flexability in PP as to amount of adjustment as to tones and hues and lighting (dynamic range). If I am shooting indoors or a setting where lighting and contrast might be a factor I use RAW.

When shooting out doors and taking a large number of photos. I'll shoot JPEG's knowing little or no Adjustment will be done.

There is a lot of information in a RAW that makes the file size almost twice plus the size of a JPEG. Do I need to keep all that RAW information is more the question. A JPEG is a photo that has already been processed and having been processed a lot of information is dis-guarded and the photo is compressed. The bottom Line is your choice and what your intentions are.

My feeling being with the software being as good it is and getting better all the time, plus your skills in PP the work time required to convert RAW to JPEG makes it no brainier for every photographs. If I'm on a shot then it is RAW.

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

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

The JPG from the camera always looks "better" because it is PROCESSED in the camera. The camera always shoots in raw.... if you set the camera to JPG, then the raw is processed according to the settings on the camera (white balance, sharpness, saturation, noise reduction, etc.) then the raw is thrown away.

If you shoot raw, then the raw is recorded and saved to the memory card, no settings adjusted in camera, so when you get it on your computer you adjust whatever you like.

The advantage of shooting raw? you get all of the data to work with, nothing is thrown out until you decide to make the change and throw out the data by exporting as a JPG.

Raw will allow you more latitude in adjustments to bring out details that are impossible to recover from a JPG processed in camera, the details were simply thrown out during the conversion from raw to JPG.

Basically JPG from the camera starts with adjustments "baked in".

I have shot 100% raw for the last few years - I enjoy the post processing as much as shooting photographs.

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

This fella tells it like it is.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/RAW-file-format.htm

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

Exactly!

:thumbup:

GDRoth Loc: Southeast Michigan USA

Thank you wtompkins!!!! :lol:

yellerdog

Thanks guys. I think I understand it a little better after reading some of the references and threads. After seeing all the threads on this, it seems I'm not the first one to have this question.

picpiper Loc: California

And undoubtedly will not be the last. :lol:

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

The RAW is the unprocessed information the camera recorded. The JPEG is an image the camera processed from the RAW using Nikon's presets in the camera's internal processor. To make the RAW look like the JPEG you need to know what their presets are.
But, the idea of using RAW is that "you" get to pick what you want to do to the image instead of Nikon making the picks.
If you like the camera JPEGs, go for it.
If you want to try other things that look different you can process the JPEGs more, but if you start with the RAW you will have more data and more options of what you want the final result to look like.

Now, fasten your seatbelt and put on your helmet. The "true believers" of the RAW and JPEG cults are about to storm your castle walls.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

You are comparing a camera-processed image (jpeg) to an uncompressed image (raw) - of course it is not going to look nearly as good. Depending on the image and your skill, you can get anywhere from an equivalent image with more detail and tonality, or much better. Yes, you have to learn to adjust and convert the image to a working file, perform the final edits in a pixel editor, and then compare the resulting jpegs.

The first image below, though it looks completely unusable, would be awful if I had to rely entirely on a jpeg to adjust the shadows. Having shot raw, there is a considerable amount of shadow information that can be exposed. This is the "highlights" shot of a three shot HDR image, with the main difference between the second image and the HDR version are much cleaner (less noisy) shadows.

out of the camera, no post processing

(Download)

Lightroom-adjusted photo ready for pixel editing

(Download)

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

If you're just developing (pun intended) your PP skills, continue to shoot both raw and jpg. You will get photos ready to use from the jpg files and if you don't like them you can use the raw version to adjust the image to your liking. When you get proficient in your procesing skills you can drop the jpg version. In the meantime you can practice on the raw files to see if you can get it adjusted to look like the jpg. At that point, if your processing software allows it (depends on what software you're using) you can define a preset that gets applied to all the raw files. After that they will look much more similar to the jpg from the camera and will provide you with a better starting point for your adjustments. But as Gene51 has illustrated you can do much better with your adjustments to the raw file than you could if starting with the jpg. So shooting raw is worth it if you can understand the processing.

jrushphoto Loc: Flint, MI

Hands down the absolutely best, easiest to understand explanation of the advantages of the raw file. Without question the JPEG format is extremely useful and should never be dismissed ( I always shoot both at my weddings because I run a slideshow at the reception showing the images we've done from the day up to the start of the reception which would be impossible with just a raw file ). I, too, enjoy the post processing aspect of my photography just as I did with darkroom work in my film days, but I freely admit that today's cameras do a very, very respectable job of producing a final, or almost final, image in most cases. Thanks for posting this link, Bill, I have it bookmarked, it's a keeper.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

It wouldn't be impossible with just a raw file. The raw file contains a preview which is equivalent to a straight out of the camera jpg. There are programs that will extract the jpg with minimal time investment. The jpg is a basic quality jpg, not the best thing if you want prints, but adequate for a slide show. I assume you have to do a little editing anyway to eliminate duplicates and real duds.

However, memory is cheap, so raw+jpg is still probably the easiest way to do it.

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

This is and will continue to be a very controversial topic.
RAW files have a lot of information but they require skills to edit them. Once edited and to make them easy to see by everybody they have to be made JPEG files loosing bits and compressing the information and color space if something besides sRGB was used.
I shoot both files depending on the circumstances. Low light and many sceneries call for RAW. Fast shooting and casuals call for JPEG.
I know professional wedding photographers that only shoot JPEG files.