RAW vs Jpeg: What do you shoot in Raw or Jpeg and why???? I just got my new camera and you can shoot in either or both... What are your suggestions????

beegal Loc: Pennsylvania

What do you shoot in Raw or Jpeg and why???? I just got my new camera and you can shoot in either or both... What are your suggestions????

notnoBuddha

Raw uses and retains a lot more information to be edited by you in a editing program. In Jpeg some information is lost because the camera will decide what information it deems importent and elimates some it believes not. This is an ongoing debate in some circles and like most things there are no absolutes for everyone all of the time. I shoot a lot of mine in Jpeg because less storage is needed, I'm betting I will never enlarge the picture and less editing is required. I shoot RAW if I believe I may enlarge and or it will need more or entensive editing. A RAW photo can be edited any number of times for any number of versions without the lose of any data. With JPEG each time you make a copy you lose data.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

beegal wrote:

What do you shoot in Raw or Jpeg and why???? I just got my new camera and you can shoot in either or both... What are your suggestions????

I shoot exclusively RAW because a RAW image contains 256 times more data than the same photo taken in JPG format.

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

In Raw, your camera records in either 12 bit or 14 bit color, so at a minimum (12 bit), each photo-site will "see" and record 4096 levels of light. You keep this image for it's maximum data in post-processing.. (like a negative). You can process raw over and over again and you can always return it back to neutral. You can also convert the image to any other format

jpeg is an 8 bit image with only 256 levels of light (color). It also tosses out bits of information when edited and saved... (and it does this each time it's edited and saved, losing more data each time) that's the point of jpeg, to compress to a smaller file size. Once this information is tossed out, it is gone...

phoneguy55 Loc: upstate NY

all of the previous posts explain the technical reasons why Raw might be considered,and they are points well taken. As a relative novice I would add that I only recently started shooting Raw, once I was confident enough with my "post processing" skills to tweak just about everything I shoot in some fashion. If you would rather not mess with "tweaking" them, then I don't think it would be worth changing. ( yet )

Lmarc Loc: Ojojona, Honduras

I shoot RAW exclusively. It gives more information in the image and if I mess it up in Photoshop or some other editing program, I still have the original. If the original came out terrible I can always delete it. I always save my work in tif for the same reason, no loss of pixels no matter how many times I open or close it. At least this is the way I've always understood it, and it seems to work for me.

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

phoneguy55 wrote:

all of the previous posts explain the technical reasons why Raw might be considered,and they are points well taken. As a relative novice I would add that I only recently started shooting Raw, once I was confident enough with my "post processing" skills to tweak just about everything I shoot in some fashion. If you would rather not mess with "tweaking" them, then I don't think it would be worth changing. ( yet )

This is true..

If all you generally do is post to websites, view on the computer, or print at typical snapshot sizes, jpeg may be the format for you :thumbup:

Most cameras produce very good jpeg results out-of-the-camera, ready to upload or print. All of us convert to jpegs to share our photos here and at other sites... it could save you time and extra steps..

dizit Loc: Cambria-Pines-by-the-Sea, CA. USA

I shoot *only* RAW, and for exactly the reasons already given.
Additionally, the size of my prints tends to 30x40, and with that size, coupled with the extensive fiddling I do to my images, RAW is required.
The underlying reason, and it ought to be the reason anyone chooses to shoot RAW (or to shoot, really!) is that RAW gives you the most information, the best quality, you can get. Doesn't everyone want to produce the best possible image out of their work?
The one poster who said that if you only post online you probably don't need to shoot RAW is off the point, really. The whole idea of doing a thing, whether it happens to be photography or anything else, is to produce the best quality you can, the best effort you can, and that means RAW if your camera is capable of it. JPEG is fine, if that is all you can shoot, but go with RAW if you can. The results will be your reward.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

I would suggest you start with Jpeg or both. You will not able to open RAW without a special program that may or may not have came with your camera. You will not even be able to see your pics on your computer tell you put them in a program and process them and then change them to Jpeg or Tiff or other format your computer will read. If you use both you can look at both of them and decide which pictures need more work and then prosess the Raw photos. Dave

Mark Bski Loc: A sleepy little island not far from Seattle

This fellow puts forward a very good argument for using JPEG. His other insights are quite astute as well.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Many of my new friends here seem to prefer RAW over JPEG. My Photoshop Elements does not support my RAW files, I have shot only in JPEG. I have made several very large enlargements (32x48) and have had no problems, they look great. I have never felt I was missing anything, the few pics I took in raw and viewed with Nikon software, I did not really notice a difference.

My Question: Even if you shoot and post process in RAW, do you not also have to at some time convert to JPEG to, say, print or share? And is not all that info lost then anyway?

MtnMan Loc: ID

I learned yesterday after some frustration that the Nikon 5100 does not support the HDR mode with RAW or the combination of JPEG plus RAW, which is what I was trying at the time. It grays out as an option. Its a little hard to find where they say this, so just FYI.

notnoBuddha

Mark Bski wrote:

This fellow puts forward a very good argument for ... (show quote)

Yes & no. Once you have a picture shot in RAW you can make as many different versions as you care to and as long as you do not delete the RAW file no data is lost on it. The more often you copy or alter from a JPEG the more the data on that file is depleted -maybe not to any great amount, but some. As to sending very likely you will want to convert to Jpeg to email as the file is rather large and to whom your are sending will need a program to open. As printing - I believe that too you would want to convert out of RAW which is minor as you most likely had to edit it anyway in which case when you save & print you have the option as to what format you want.

Douglas Downey Loc: Rye, NH

RAW seems to be an acronym. Does anyone know what it stands for? D

dizit Loc: Cambria-Pines-by-the-Sea, CA. USA

wilsondl2 wrote:

You will not able to open RAW without a special program that may or may not have came with your camera. You will not even be able to see your pics on your computer... Dave

Really? What kind of computer and camera do you use? Is it a DSLR or a point & shoot? I have been able to shoot RAW and load my images onto my computer with not just one camera, but two. The two cameras are not the same brand.
I'd be interested to know what type of camera can't be used without additional software, as I certainly want to avoid purchasing one!

phoneguy55 Loc: upstate NY

it seems like this is a user specific preference for many reasons. I agree that it is best to shoot in Raw,...but....if someone had no intention of ANY post processing ( for whatever reason) would having a shot with all of that detailed information really yield the best "picture" ? I guess I see both sides of the issue, but for some folks having that JPG shot with some sharpening, some saturation, some white balance adjustment,already applied by the camera processor ....might actually have a better overall shot than a less than perfectly adjusted manual RAW shot with tons of potential information laying dormant and unedited. Or am I looking at this the wrong way? just wondering....