louparker Loc: Scottsdale, AZ

DITTO, DITTO, DITTO!!!! Search before you write!

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

Though it's been covered at least 3,475 times on this forum alone, since you asked, here are my $.02.

All digital images begin as a raw capture. All cameras offer a jpeg option. A jpeg out of the camera is processed according to your settings, and any additional data that was captured is tossed. Gone forever. Keep the idea of highlights, shadows and highly saturated colors in the back of your brain - because this is, of the discarded information, that you might have wanted to hold on to, in an effort to make a better looking image.
Simpler cameras only offer a jpeg option. Better cameras offer both, with some variants with respect to size, bit depth and other "stuff" that you don't really need to concern yourself with at this point.

For 95% of the time, you are better off keeping the raw file and using it to generate a better jpeg. The 5% accounts for those times when a client "wants it NOW!", or will not accept anything but a jpeg, or if you are working in a studio setting where you have total control over light levels, shadows and contrast - and you will not see a difference between a jpeg from raw or a jpeg processed by the camera.

Making an adjustment to a jpeg means you are adjusting something that has already been processed, with lots of data no longer available. Depending on how you set your camera for contrast, saturation sharpening etc - there may be a loss of detail that is no longer recoverable. The raw file will have all of that.

You'll need to read several books and go through all of the posts here and other places to get a complete picture. But keep in mind that it is far easier and faster to adjust raw files than jpegs, and the results are usually better.

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

Welcome to UHH! I see a couple people have suggested doing a search on this forum. Since you’re new, you may wonder how to do that. At the top of each page is a list of things you can click on, one of them being “Search”. Click on that and enter whatever topic you wish to search for, click the search button, grab a cup of coffee or a soda and begin reading. Lots of topics on Raw vs Jpeg.

Walt

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Walt,
Great explanation!! I'm sure it will be appreciated by the newcomer.
Mark

Lilypad52

Thank you. While there have been plenty of replies aimed at obvious frustration over my post, your reply was the only one to address how to research the topic. I admit, I should have thought of that myself, and in my eagerness I did not. (obviously) I am also amazed at those willing to reel me in for asking yet seem unable to realize that it is by their response that the topic is being dragged on. (Best way for something to die is to stop feeding it.) For those who have been patient with yet another newbie asking yet another question on a topic that has been beat to death slowly, I thank you. For everyone else, as we say in the south, bless your heart....

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

markngolf Loc: Bridgewater, NJ

Lily,

I'm so sorry you had to suffer through the negative replies. That seems to be a regular occurrence on UHH. However, you seem sufficiently savvy to handle those replies. I trust between the negative ones, you gained some information that was helpful to your inquiry. Feel free to Private Message me (Click on my "name", then click on "send a private message".

I'm always willing to assist.
Good luck,
Mark

Uuglypher Loc: South Dakota (East River)

(Download)


(Download)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Well, I wasn't going to jump in here, but I will.

BOTH raw and JPEG capture and their subsequent workflows have value. I use both, for COMPLETELY different reasons.

There are many controllable situations where raw capture is a complete waste of time and money, and many more where raw capture is absolutely essential to getting the image.

In some situations, JPEG capture at the camera is essential, for legal reasons or to meet policy restrictions of an organization. In many commercial applications, the lighting is controlled, and the client needs it NOW, so JPEG rules. In photojournalism, getting the scoop on a major story may mean capturing a JPEG and bouncing it to a smartphone via Wifi or Bluetooth. From there it can be emailed to an editor in seconds, or uploaded to a server over VPN.

In other situations, JPEG processing in camera is so inferior to post-production of a raw image that it makes no sense to save anything but the raw file. Bright daylight with no clouds? I'm recording raw images, and probably using ETTR and EBTR tactics to maximize dynamic range. Post-processing is required to tame that, and compress it to a range I can fit on paper.

It isn't raw *vs.* JPEG. It is raw *AND* JPEG. Advanced photographers know the advantages, limitations, and uses for both workflows and file types. They've also tested ALL the menu settings on their cameras, so they know how to get the most out of that JPEG processor.

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

Since you're in the learning stages, you could probably benefit from shooting raw AND jpg assuming your camera will do that. Your memory card will fill faster and you will need more disk space to store your photos but (1) at the learning stage you probably aren't taking a LOT of pictures and (2) memory is cheap these days.

All images start out as raw data from the camera sensor. For the camera to convert it to a jpg you have to give it some starting parameters (camera settings). Those settings will determine the brightness and contrast and white balance and other things. Once the camera produces a jpg, those settings have been indelibly etched into the image. You can make small adjustments in editing programs but you can't make large changes. On the other hand, if you use a raw file, it's not an image until you put it into a program that will convert it to a jpg. Doing this after the fact allows you to change the parameters used to convert the data to an image while you're sitting at your computer. You have complete freedom to change those parameters after the picture has been taken, while the jpg from the camera used the parameters you set into your camera before the picture was taken.

Of course that takes time and there's a learning curve. But the results can be much better (once you learn how to use the conversion program).

For someone just starting out, I would recommend shooting raw+jpg if possible. At first, learn how to use the camera settings to produce a good picture. That will let you use the jpgs directly from the camera. Once you do that you can start playing with an editing program on the raw files, particularly those that are pretty good but you think they might be better. You don't have to spend big bucks (at least at this point) on an editing program. Use the one that came with the camera, or if you didn't get one, check the manufacturer's website and download their free app.

One thing you will want to do early: learn to delete the junk. Digital pictures are free so everyone takes too many. Multiple shots of the same thing. Different versions. If you don't delete the stuff that you will never use again you will waste a lot of disk space. And it will make it a lot harder to find the good picture among all the different versions you kept.

(Photo organization is a whole nother topic, which you will want to get into before you have more than about 10,000 photos on your disk).

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

I’m with you brother fantastic response

Jim Bob

Not again. Try search function.

Jim Bob

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

I rarely see much talked about white balance here. With raw you can adjust it in post to your liking, or to match what you saw perfectly. With jpeg you are very limited and can't make big adjustments to the overall colour balance. I once had my camera set for artificial light and took it out for bird pics on daylight. The camera used that preset and the pics all came out blue, as in the "as shot" white balance. Because I shot in raw I could easily change it. As jpegs they would have been ruined, and one of my current favourite photos would have been deleted.

Hilights can be recovered in a lot of cases in raw editing. My friends wedding photos would have been ruined if I hadn't set the camera to shoot raw. Many were overexposed, purple dresses, white background, lots of different people using the camera. I tried to edit the jpeg versions and had no real luck, but the raw versions I could fully correct.

Hope this helps a little.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

It's a heavy crop, but I love this pic. Had it stayed blue though...

(Download)