notnoBuddha

Sure - I agree that a picuture shot with a camera that has good to excellent settings built may well give one a better picture then one that is shot in RAW that "is less than perfectly adjusted". In the first place, contrary to what some may believe the perfect picture or the perfect adjustment is but a dream - getting close is the struggle. As to how less than perfect would decide if it is better then one in JPEG. As in most things the two formats have trade offs - neither are all good, or all bad.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

RAW is the state of the data store by the camera. Every pixel captured by your sensor is contained in a RAW file, unedited un-manipulated by the camera. It's not an acronym.

SQUIRL033 Loc: Chehalis, WA

"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"

there's no difference between the two for printing. most print labs won't even take RAW files. as far as enlarging, i've done 40x60 prints from JPEG files with excellent results. the only downsides to JPEG are that it doesn't allow as much flexibility in editing, and it does lose data every time the file is opened and re-saved. (it does not lose data simply from opening and viewing or printing.) but the difference is not visible, even on large (i.e. 20x30) prints until you've saved it at least a couple of dozen times, and if you're opening, then re-saving the file that many times, you're doin' it wrong.

RAW does offer more flexibility in editing, especially in terms of being able to correct exposure, white balance, etc. but i've found if you get it right "in camera", you don't need to fuss with those things very much anyway. i've shot RAW and JPEG both, and for my purposes, there's really no advantage to RAW.

this is one of those "Ford vs Chevy" discussions. everyone has their preference, and neither one is bad. there are advantages to both RAW and JPEG, but for me, the advantages of shooting RAW simply aren't worth the memory space. BTW, i routinely show large prints, on paper and on canvas, at galleries and the like, and trust me, the people who buy prints A) generally don't know a pixel from a pickaxe, and B) couldn't tell the difference between a print that came from a RAW image or JPEG anyway!! in fact, i would challenge anyone to look at one of my prints, at any size, and tell me if it was shot in RAW or JPEG. the debate over RAW vs JPEG simply does not exist outside of photography circles where camera nerds like us discuss it ad nauseam.

like anything else, it's up to the individual. shoot whichever one you want, and works best for you.

Douglas Downey Loc: Rye, NH

Thank you, Bob

wrei

I always shoot RAW plus JPEG low resolution. Why? I am lazy. I sort the picutres by looking at the JPEG files (remember, raw files must be worked on before you see the picture) and convert "the winners" only from the high quality RAW into TIFF. Why TIFF? This format is not compressed and does not loose information when I open and/or close the files later as the "loosy compressed" JPEG files do.

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

No, I think you have actually hit the point on the head. If the images are *never* going to be used for anything except posting on.line then jpeg. is probably all they'd need. I guess I was putting my own needs, a bunch of processing and then large prints to sell, on everyone!
Bad me! :shock:

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

most print labs won't even take RAW files. as far as enlarging, i've done 40x60 prints from JPEG files with excellent results...

A truly professional lab not only accepts RAW files but requests them! The lab I use prefers RAW.
As for there being no difference between prints from jpeg and RAW, I suggest you try a side by side comparison at the large size you said you print (40 x 60? That size paper is rare. What kind do you use? I'd love to print that large. So far my size of preference is 30 x 40 because that is the largest I've found the paper I like to come in). I think you'd notice the difference immediately. :-)

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

A truly *professional* lab not only accepts RAW (in my experience), but actually requests and prefers them! I'd be wary to the point of not using any lab which was not equipped to accept and print from a RAW. That many non-professional labs do not accept RAW is true.
I think if you try a side by side comparison of two 40 x 60 prints, one from a jpeg, one from a RAW, you will absolutely see a difference. By the by, what paper do you use, and what kind of printer does the lab have, that goes to 40 x 60? I'd love to know, because I do want to up my sizes from 30 x 40, but so far have not found the kind of paper I like in that size.

:)

DB Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

I have started shooting with Both Jpg and Raw. My Nikon D90 takes a jpg at 4288x2848 pixels and since 99% of my photos never make it past 8x10 I'm pleased with them. Raw files are huge, but I do have a 1tb external harddrive where I store them until I have the time and energy to edit them. Todays DSLR's have many option, I always shoot at the highest resolution my camera allows and the largest size. Easy to reduce, more difficult to enlarge. One thing I have noticed with Raw files, I edit in two different programs. PaintShopPro X2 (the first program I learned and fall back on in a hurry) and Photoshop CS5. When I open a raw file in Paintshop pro they all have an ugly green cast to them. Not so in Photoshop. I think it will depend on what level you are at in your editing skills, what your final output will be and how much time you want to spend editing. I'm fortunate that I'm retired and have all day to play around with the photos.. I know thats a luxury not all have. Try it and see if you feel its worth it to you... and like everything else in this life... the more you practice the better you will become. You can always change your mind...

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

I think you've pointed out a great truth: Not all photo editing programs are equal.
I use Aperture. I love it, and have found it extremely flexible and able to give me the results I want. I have, in the deep, dark past, used Photoshop professionally. I didn't love it then, I don't love it now. Everyone has to discover the right photo editing program for themselves. It makes a huge difference not only to results but to the enjoyment of the entire photographic experience.

LarryD Loc: Mojave Desert

Personally, I don't save jpeg at all - there's no point in it..

I do shoot in raw, critically toss the out-of-focus and missed exposure shots. I then selectively choose the best for post processing and finish them in .tiff format.. That .tiff stays side-by-side with it's raw negative image.. (I'm lazy and don't want to process the same image twice)

I can tweak, modify, and adjust these .tiff files at any time without losing data from compression.. I can then convert to jpeg for the web, email, or any other of the places where a jpeg makes sense.. (My printer takes high quality tiff images for enlargements) then I toss the jpeg - it takes up space and I can always make another hi-rez jpeg with the press of a couple of keys...

However, I know many who edit to a jpeg and it works well for them; so it boils down to personal preference and individual work-flow..

DB Loc: Myrtle Beach, SC

What I love about this forum as well as most "information sharing venues" is the range of opinions and suggestions. We need to read them all, understand the level each is coming from and know they are stating what works best for them. From all this information (which sometimes for a beginner can be overwhelming) we must glean what we can that fits our needs and progress from there. We can easily ruin the whole experience if we fret too much over the technicalities until we reach the point where we are ready to progress. I thank everyone for sharing their expertise..... a virtual vault of knowledge for future use.

bobmielke Loc: Portland, OR

I read a definitive statement from a newcomer this morning that every photographer on here needs to use their camera's histogram to shoot picture. That was his first post on the forum. He hadn't been here long enough to know anything about the members, the cameras they use, or their level of expertise. I asked what were his credentials seeing that he himself had not posted a single photo yet felt he could criticize everyone's habits.

Beware rookies bearing wisdom. Check them out before listening to their advice.

SQUIRL033 Loc: Chehalis, WA

i agree, many "professional" labs will accept - or even ask for - RAW files, but they are in the minority. the vast majority of labs can't process RAW files, and i would submit that at the most common enlargement sizes - between, say, 11x14 and 20x30 - a print from a JPEG file done by any competent lab will be virtually indistinguishable from one done from a RAW file by a lab that won't even deal with you unless you have a business license. (notice i said "competent" - that leaves out Costco and the majority of the mass-market print labs) and, of course, i'm assuming that the image was properly exposed, shot, and processed in the first place... yes, i've had prints made at places like WHCC and Bay Photo and the like, and the only real difference i can see is that their prints cost a lot more. are there "pro" labs out there that can actually produce a visibly superior print from a RAW file? possibly, but i haven't found one yet.

the lab i use for my really large prints uses a Durst Theta 76HS printer and Fuji Professional SuperType PD Luster, Super Type C Glossy or Glossy Pearl.

jackinkc Loc: Kansas City

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

Looks like Bob has been reading my mail. I shoot only RAW for the exact reason Bob cites. Storage is no problem for me since I try to mercilessly cut my files.