RAW vs JPEG
Mar 16, 2012 10:50:01 #
I have always shot in JPEG; when I download to my edit program, I make a copy, edit from the copy so I always have an original. I'm just not understanding all the hype about shooting in RAW. What's the difference from what I'm doing? Thanx
Mar 16, 2012 11:11:36 #
If you don't know the difference between RAW and JPEG your not ready to shot RAW.
Simply put RAW is the digital negative, it hold more information than a JPEG.
Simply put RAW is the digital negative, it hold more information than a JPEG.
Mar 16, 2012 12:27:08 #
+1 on Mom With A Camera.
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG, it's refreshing to see your question anyway...
RAW files are useful if you like to tweak settings in a photo editor - adjusting white balance, altering bright & dark a lot, etc etc. This is because the RAW file contains ALL the information recorded by the sensor.
When you take a JPG shot, your camera's processor starts with the RAW image, then applies whatever post-capture processing you may have set in the camera for that particular picture style - for example, sharpening a bit, adjusting the blues or greens or flesh tones, etc etc etc. In other words, your CAMERA does some Photo-shopping.
This may or may not be good - in many cases, it's perfectly fine for those quick snapshots of little Billy with chocolate ice cream all over his face, or Fido with a chewed up slipper.
However, when you are adjusting and working your pictures for more serious motives, then RAW gives you the materials to do that.
I look at it this way : JPG is for snapshots, RAW is for photographs. Not everything you do is destined for a damn art gallery, so why bother jerking around with RAW images of Aunt Sally waving at the camera?
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG, it's refreshing to see your question anyway...
RAW files are useful if you like to tweak settings in a photo editor - adjusting white balance, altering bright & dark a lot, etc etc. This is because the RAW file contains ALL the information recorded by the sensor.
When you take a JPG shot, your camera's processor starts with the RAW image, then applies whatever post-capture processing you may have set in the camera for that particular picture style - for example, sharpening a bit, adjusting the blues or greens or flesh tones, etc etc etc. In other words, your CAMERA does some Photo-shopping.
This may or may not be good - in many cases, it's perfectly fine for those quick snapshots of little Billy with chocolate ice cream all over his face, or Fido with a chewed up slipper.
However, when you are adjusting and working your pictures for more serious motives, then RAW gives you the materials to do that.
I look at it this way : JPG is for snapshots, RAW is for photographs. Not everything you do is destined for a damn art gallery, so why bother jerking around with RAW images of Aunt Sally waving at the camera?
Mar 16, 2012 12:33:20 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
RAW gives you far more flexibility in PP but keep in mind RAW files take up a lot more room and can eat up memory.
Mar 16, 2012 12:38:46 #
JimH wrote:
+1 on Mom With A Camera.
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
And this makes 2,438,873
Mar 16, 2012 12:58:04 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
rpavich wrote:
And this makes 2,438,873
JimH wrote:
+1 on Mom With A Camera.
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
And this makes 2,438,873
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
Mar 16, 2012 12:59:03 #
Pepper wrote:
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
rpavich wrote:
And this makes 2,438,873
JimH wrote:
+1 on Mom With A Camera.
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
And this makes 2,438,873
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
Awww..did we upset the newest self-appointed-forum-sheriff again?
Mar 16, 2012 13:00:58 #
Pepper wrote:
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
rpavich wrote:
And this makes 2,438,873
JimH wrote:
+1 on Mom With A Camera.
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
And this makes 2,438,873
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
I gave her an answer. I also (perhaps) enlightened her and others that the question has been asked before. I neglected to suggest the "Search" option, yes. How much has your post added to the content of the thread?
Mar 16, 2012 13:01:27 #
[quote=JimH
I look at it this way : JPG is for snapshots, RAW is for photographs. Not everything you do is destined for a damn art gallery, so why bother jerking around with RAW images of Aunt Sally waving at the camera?[/quote]
I like your answer, Jim
In a lot of the "millions" of threads here about the subject, some of the answers imply that jpegs are of no use at all.
They leave out the purpose of the photo.
They also don't mention that you can run jpegs through a raw processor and tweak it quite a bit. Adobe Camera Raw in CS5 lets you do it. I do it all the time for photos that are submitted to me for publication. For big art prints.. that's another story.
I look at it this way : JPG is for snapshots, RAW is for photographs. Not everything you do is destined for a damn art gallery, so why bother jerking around with RAW images of Aunt Sally waving at the camera?[/quote]
I like your answer, Jim
In a lot of the "millions" of threads here about the subject, some of the answers imply that jpegs are of no use at all.
They leave out the purpose of the photo.
They also don't mention that you can run jpegs through a raw processor and tweak it quite a bit. Adobe Camera Raw in CS5 lets you do it. I do it all the time for photos that are submitted to me for publication. For big art prints.. that's another story.
Mar 16, 2012 13:02:41 #
Pepper
Loc: Planet Earth Country USA
rpavich wrote:
Awww..did we upset the newest self-appointed-forum-sheriff again?
Pepper wrote:
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
rpavich wrote:
And this makes 2,438,873
JimH wrote:
+1 on Mom With A Camera.
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
Although there are approximately 2,438,872 threads here on RAW vs JPEG,
And this makes 2,438,873
This person joined last Sunday and is her second post and you guys have to come up with this. Great way to welcome a new person to the forum.
Awww..did we upset the newest self-appointed-forum-sheriff again?
Not even a little bit.
Mar 16, 2012 13:19:44 #
Jazzy Lady wrote:
I have always shot in JPEG; when I download to my edit program, I make a copy, edit from the copy so I always have an original. I'm just not understanding all the hype about shooting in RAW. What's the difference from what I'm doing? Thanx
RAW gives you more latitude in PP. If you don't much PP before you share your photos, JPG is the way to go. If you like to tweak your photos, go with RAW. One thing to keep in mind, RAW will take up more space on your memory card than JPG will.
Mar 16, 2012 13:50:57 #
I agree with all of the informational comments, but "seeing is believing". Set your camera to shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously. Take a picture of a colorful setting. Open the RAW file with no modifications and compare it to the JPEG. You should be able to see the difference.
Mar 16, 2012 14:50:02 #
Donwitz wrote:
I agree with all of the informational comments, but "seeing is believing". Set your camera to shoot RAW and JPEG simultaneously. Take a picture of a colorful setting. Open the RAW file with no modifications and compare it to the JPEG. You should be able to see the difference.
There is some "in camera" processing with JPEGs that interprets the data into how we "should see" the image. One can identify the RAW thumbnails viewed side-by-side with the jpegs.
Mar 16, 2012 22:39:35 #
Some digital cameras are not capable of shooting raw though as my 2 are not able too so I think that could be taken into consideration too. Just my opinion on it.
Mar 17, 2012 05:58:44 #
instead on another answer,here's another question.if my camera converts raw to dng in camera and i have to convert dng to jpg or tiff to p.p. it ,do i loose much info?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.