RAW vs JPEG: This is rather fundamental, I know, but I'm still in the learning stages so bear with me... When you talk about a RAW image vs a JPEG image, what exactly does that mean?

Lilypad52

This is rather fundamental, I know, but I'm still in the learning stages so bear with me...

When you talk about a RAW image vs a JPEG image, what exactly does that mean?

Is it better to shoot in RAW?

What are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Thank you!!!

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

RAW files contain ALL the image data captured by the camera. RAW (capable) editors usually afford you much more control over an image than JPEG. RAW files are (much) larger than JPEG files.
JPEG files can be viewed without a RAW editor, posted to the web, being a standard transportable format.

Many people store RAW. I store RAW + JPEG, simply for ease of viewing the image (JPEG) in Windows explorer. If I want to modify an image, I start with the RAW editor.

Is it better (for you)? It depends on what you are doing with the images.
For me it is definitely better.

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

Be prepared to be deluged with answers. There's a lot to this.

via the lens Loc: Northern California, near Yosemite NP

Lilypad52 wrote:

This is rather fundamental, I know, but I'm still in the learning stages so bear with me...

When you talk about a RAW image vs a JPEG image, what exactly does that mean?

Is it better to shoot in RAW?

What are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Thank you!!!

Did you run a search on this site regarding that topic? You might consider doing that as this topic has been covered maybe a million times and you will get maybe a million answers, some knowledgable and some not so much. In the end it depends on your intent with your work but there are many, many variables involved in this question-answer. Buy a book and read up on it: study from a noted website, you will be more correctly informed that way.

Don't believe every answer you get here as many people really don't have a clue about the differences and pros/cons, although, of course some do. But how to know that if you don't know the correct answers yourself is the problem.

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

RAW captures all detail of an image without any processing in the camera. JPEG's are processed in the camera. RAW requires software to process the image.
Here are a few of articles on the subject: https://www.bing.com/search?q=advantages+of+shooting+raw+photos&form=WNSGPH&qs=AS&cvid=be57166782a14849aae5282439e24445&pq=advantages+of+shooting+RAW&cc=US&setlang=en-US&nclid=89AA964640C25A38D19105E4D2B1B3BC&ts=1518883303070&elv=AXK1c4IvZoNqPoPnS%21QRLOOmjQBUqC4K61cp99gaeGPyIx9Xa5Fy*HWelxf3pzEbhPmUnmmYDZrSjGnc6mI0z8DAJiuqqHomBsLpBDgYMNmo.
We are all "learning". Continue to ask and seek information. UHH is a terrific place to learn.
Mark

Lilypad52 wrote:

This is rather fundamental, I know, but I'm still in the learning stages so bear with me...

When you talk about a RAW image vs a JPEG image, what exactly does that mean?

Is it better to shoot in RAW?

What are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Thank you!!!

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Looking at your photos in
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-514040-1.html
I would say if #1 had been shot in raw, you might have been able to pull more details from the white part of the waves. BUT...shooting raw requires learning editing in order to get the most bang for your buck. If you are interested in learning how to edit photos, then as Via suggests - read lots of articles and watch videos.

If however, you find computer work tedious and frustrating, then just learn all you can about exposure, camera metering and the limits of light extremes that your camera will be able to record in jpg mode.

Welcome to the forum! Be sure to check "all sections" at the bottom of this page for much more.

Lilypad52

gvarner wrote:

Be prepared to be deluged with answers. There's a lot to this.

Thanks for the warning.

Lilypad52

via the lens wrote:

Did you run a search on this site regarding that t... (show quote)

Of course. At the same time, it's nice to have a POV that isn't from a book.

Lilypad52

markngolf wrote:

RAW captures all detail of an image without any pr... (show quote)

Thanks for the info and the encouragement!

Lilypad52

Linda From Maine wrote:

Looking at your photos in br http://www.uglyhedgeh... (show quote)

Thanks!

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Lilypad52 wrote:

This is rather fundamental, I know, but I'm still in the learning stages so bear with me...

When you talk about a RAW image vs a JPEG image, what exactly does that mean?

Is it better to shoot in RAW?

What are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Thank you!!!

My advice is if you’re a normal casual shooter who likes to take photos and print some then shoot jpeg you can make lots editing changes.it’s probably all you will ever need.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Lilypad52 wrote:

This is rather fundamental, I know, but I'm still in the learning stages so bear with me...

When you talk about a RAW image vs a JPEG image, what exactly does that mean?

Is it better to shoot in RAW?

What are the advantages or disadvantages of both?

Thank you!!!

If you do a search here on UHH about this topic, you will find hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of pages of endless debate (and lots of BS).

This question pops up several times a month. The answers don’t change...

Idaho

one downside of raw is that you have much bigger files your computer has to be able to handle. Plus, they require the time and expertise to process them into the final product. The upside is that there is the potential for a higher quality picture in some but not all situations. With "snapshots" jpeg can be adequate, for instance.

3dees

took me forever to go digital because I have no computer skills. I can tweak my photo's in Elements but that about all. I shoot jpeg only and don't care if it's the wrong way. I just try to get the photo right the first time. I am also not a pixel peeper. at my age, I have no interest in learning to shoot raw and all the work that comes with it. think about it. how many people who see your photo's would know the difference or care. I print my photo's and give them to family and friends. so far no one has said it would be better if it were shot in raw. heck, they don't even know what raw and jpeg is.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Idaho wrote:

one downside of raw is that you have much bigger files your computer has to be able to handle. Plus, they require the time and expertise to process them into the final product. The upside is that there is the potential for a higher quality picture in some but not all situations. With "snapshots" jpeg can be adequate, for instance.

For professionals, and those following 'professional' standards, "raw" is used by artists, while JPEG is used by those under a "time crunch" or need to assure that nothing has been "messed with".