Raw Vs JPEG
Jun 17, 2014 08:22:56 #
I have recently just started getting more into photography. I have been shooting in JPEG and have been very pleased with my pictures. I just started shooting in raw but it has just made things more complicated for me. I would like to eventually shoot family photoes and children. Do you think it would be ok if I just staying with shooting in JPEG?
Jun 17, 2014 08:26:34 #
If you don't plan on doing any significant post-processing, JPG should be fine for you.
Jun 17, 2014 08:30:39 #
For additional information do a search of the site for "Raw vs jpeg" it is, I think, in the top 10 most discussed issues on the site.
Jun 17, 2014 08:31:57 #
shoot RAW + Jpg, if your camera has that capability. Then you can decide later.
Jun 17, 2014 08:54:58 #
Cdouthitt wrote:
shoot RAW + Jpg, if your camera has that capability. Then you can decide later.
Indeed. I have thousands of JPEG's from before I started shooting RAW. I would give anything to have those earlier photos in RAW so I could go back to several favorites and re-edit them. No need to rush into RAW processing but once you learn all the extra post processing possibilities RAW gives you you will be happy you have the RAW file shot and saved. Today I shoot only raw. ;)
Jun 17, 2014 09:01:16 #
At the risk of inciting the RAW priests, I'll point out again that you can do a lot of useful pp of jpegs using Adobe Camera Raw. It really depends on how high up the ladder of photo perfection you have set your sights.
I prefer to pp RAW but have gone back to re-tune old jpegs.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
I prefer to pp RAW but have gone back to re-tune old jpegs.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
Jun 17, 2014 09:27:26 #
davefales wrote:
At the risk of inciting the RAW priests, I'll point out again that you can do a lot of useful pp of jpegs using Adobe Camera Raw. It really depends on how high up the ladder of photo perfection you have set your sights.
I prefer to pp RAW but have gone back to re-tune old jpegs.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
I prefer to pp RAW but have gone back to re-tune old jpegs.
"Perfect is the enemy of good."
Correct. I think some people have been shooting RAW for so long, they forget that JPEG is a perfectly editable format. Before I obtained a camera with RAW export, I was editing JPEG's just fine for a number of years, and with satisfactory results. Perhaps for some of those images editing in RAW would have given me better final results, but in most cases only marginally better.
Jun 17, 2014 09:35:11 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Correct. I think some people have been shooting RAW for so long, they forget that JPEG is a perfectly editable format. Before I obtained a camera with RAW export, I was editing JPEG's just fine for a number of years, and with satisfactory results. Perhaps for some of those images editing in RAW would have given me better final results, but in most cases only marginally better.
But the ability to do better is better. Right? ;)
Jun 17, 2014 09:41:44 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Perhaps for some of those images editing in RAW would have given me better final results, but in most cases only marginally better.
:thumbup: :thumbup:
Jun 17, 2014 09:52:08 #
Shoot in the JPEG file format if it suits your purpose, only try to achieve a good White Balance to minimize the need for post-processing.
You may wish to consider shooting in the RAW + JPEG mode on occasion in case images might need the wider latitude for PP of a RAW image in Adobe Camera Raw.
Some experienced photographers can achieve a precise WB in the studio, and thus produce an image out of the camera needing little if any PP.
Virtually all other images require some PP to bring out their potential.
Ignore the contrarians who disdain PP for their own reasons.
After all, your subjects, children and family, deserve flattering images of themselves, and so the subjects dictate the need for PP.
You may wish to consider shooting in the RAW + JPEG mode on occasion in case images might need the wider latitude for PP of a RAW image in Adobe Camera Raw.
Some experienced photographers can achieve a precise WB in the studio, and thus produce an image out of the camera needing little if any PP.
Virtually all other images require some PP to bring out their potential.
Ignore the contrarians who disdain PP for their own reasons.
After all, your subjects, children and family, deserve flattering images of themselves, and so the subjects dictate the need for PP.
kann527 wrote:
I have recently just started getting more into photography. I have been shooting in JPEG and have been very pleased with my pictures. I just started shooting in raw but it has just made things more complicated for me. I would like to eventually shoot family photoes and children. Do you think it would be ok if I just staying with shooting in JPEG?
Jun 17, 2014 10:26:21 #
"Ignore the contrarians who disdain PP for their own reasons."
Comment of the day!!!! :):)
Comment of the day!!!! :):)
Jun 17, 2014 10:39:35 #
preachy wrote:
"Ignore the contrarians who disdain PP for their own reasons."
Comment of the day!!!! :):)
Comment of the day!!!! :):)
The contrarians would have told Ansel Adams not to mess around in the dark room. "Just develop the film as it was in the camera!!!!" they would shout!!!
Jun 17, 2014 10:59:24 #
rook2c4 wrote:
Correct. I think some people have been shooting RAW for so long, they forget that JPEG is a perfectly editable format. Before I obtained a camera with RAW export, I was editing JPEG's just fine for a number of years, and with satisfactory results. Perhaps for some of those images editing in RAW would have given me better final results, but in most cases only marginally better.
The problem is you are re-processing an already processed (by the camera) image and you're not being given all the digital information to do it!
Jun 17, 2014 12:18:54 #
Nic42 wrote:
The problem is you are re-processing an already processed (by the camera) image and you're not being given all the digital information to do it!
With the exception of in-camera special effects, the camera does not really do that much processing on the image when in JPEG output mode. White balance adjustment, a touch of sharpening, very mild contrast and saturation boosting at certain camera settings. With a fair amount of familiarity on how the camera reacts to various situations at specific settings, you have quite a bit of control over the JPEG output. Although I usually shoot and edit RAW files whenever possible, I don't pretend that's the only way to post-process, or that RAW editing will give me results far superior than editing on a JPEG file that was generated by the camera.
Jun 17, 2014 14:21:22 #
amehta
Loc: Boston
kann527 wrote:
I have recently just started getting more into photography. I have been shooting in JPEG and have been very pleased with my pictures. I just started shooting in raw but it has just made things more complicated for me. I would like to eventually shoot family photoes and children. Do you think it would be ok if I just staying with shooting in JPEG?
Your current images are better than the digital image you would have produced 10 years ago, and they are generally good enough for anything you would want to do. And it's true that you can do some post processing on jpgs. But if you have some truly special photos which would benefit from good post processing, the raw file will get better results.
The best part about shooting raw+jpg, as has been suggested, is that you do not have to decide now that you want to do the processing, you can always come back to it years from now.
P.S. Full disclosure: I don't like post processing, but I've come to accept that I sometimes have to do it to make pictures "better".
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.