Raw processing versus jpg
May 10, 2017 09:18:15 #
I have a Samsung nx500 camera, which I have used with great results over the last year or so using jpg format. After reading so much about using the raw format, I decided to try it. After using jpg+raw and editing the results, I find that my raw edited pictures seem to be no better than my jpg pictures. Am I missing something here.
May 10, 2017 09:22:12 #
jeryh
Loc: Oxfordshire UK
No, you are not; for most people,JPEGS are fine, especially with modern technology and up to date cameras. If you want to spend hours in front of a computer, by all means have at it ! As you found out, you won't see much difference, if any!
May 10, 2017 09:23:07 #
Yes. Now that you have taken raw files you must process them in a software package like Lightroom, Photoshop or any other software.
May 10, 2017 09:26:54 #
I guess I should have added that I converted the Samsung raw shots to the dng format and processed them in Photoshop Elements.
May 10, 2017 09:27:53 #
Raw files contain much more data for processing. For instance all possible white balances are contained in raw data, as well as considerably more potential dynamic range. It is perfectly possible to have a nice jpg image that will not appear any different than a well-processed raw, but the raw can be taken places the jpg can never go. If you do not intend to learn post processing then there is really no point to raw.
May 10, 2017 09:31:47 #
gvarner
Loc: Central Oregon Coast
In my humble opinion, the only place that RAW makes a difference is with problem photos like white balance, noise, and exposure. There may be others. In these, you have control in post processing to do to the sensor's data file (RAW file) what the camera does to make a JPEG file, only with more control.
May 10, 2017 09:39:18 #
Like many aspects of photography shooting raw is only necessary in certain situations. Many people choose to shoot raw all the time JUST IN CASE one of these situations occurs. When conditions are perfect any camera, even an old Kodak Brownie, can get a good photo. It's when conditions are not perfect that better cameras and equipment are needed.
Personally I shoot raw if the photos are very important to me or the client or if I know I'll be doing heavy Photoshop work on the photos.
Personally I shoot raw if the photos are very important to me or the client or if I know I'll be doing heavy Photoshop work on the photos.
May 10, 2017 09:39:38 #
Raw gives you the most options. Use a post processing program like Lightroom. It only costs $9.95 per month for Lightroom and photoshop. In some cases you will not have to do anything to your shots, but you can crop and add dimension to your photo. I shoot with a Nikon D7000 or a D810. The photo quality is excellent but in flower or wildlife photography I find that I must crop and adjust the color depending on light condition. I process my photos for contests and for display.
On the other hand if you are happy with jpeg, then stick with it. You are the one who must be pleased with your own work.
On the other hand if you are happy with jpeg, then stick with it. You are the one who must be pleased with your own work.
May 10, 2017 09:54:32 #
Yes you are missing some thing, you came on UHH and opened the RAW vs JPEG can of worms. the people will tell you that you are not a photographer unless you eat. sleep and crap RAW. Oh and by the way, all of your lenses should be prime and manual focus, also never use your camera meter, buy a hand held one. then onley photograph trees, birds and things that don't move, leave all the rest to pro-photographers......Have fun.
May 10, 2017 10:24:29 #
CPR wrote:
Like many aspects of photography shooting raw is only necessary in certain situations. Many people choose to shoot raw all the time JUST IN CASE one of these situations occurs. When conditions are perfect any camera, even an old Kodak Brownie, can get a good photo. It's when conditions are not perfect that better cameras and equipment are needed.
Personally I shoot raw if the photos are very important to me or the client or if I know I'll be doing heavy Photoshop work on the photos.
Personally I shoot raw if the photos are very important to me or the client or if I know I'll be doing heavy Photoshop work on the photos.
I don't believe shooting RAW is ever "necessary".
May 10, 2017 10:27:38 #
gbernier505 wrote:
I have a Samsung nx500 camera, which I have used with great results over the last year or so using jpg format. After reading so much about using the raw format, I decided to try it. After using jpg+raw and editing the results, I find that my raw edited pictures seem to be no better than my jpg pictures. Am I missing something here.
Geesus. I hope your thread won't deteriorate into the sort of BS usually generated on this topic. It's really simple: if you are satisfied with JPEGs, that's all that matters. However, it is useful to at least understand the potential advantages of RAW.
May 10, 2017 10:54:20 #
JuxtaposePictures
Loc: San Diego
Beyond the technical aspects it also has a lot with how you view photography, yourself as a photographer, and your tools. If you just want to get nice looking image from a camera without a lot of hassle shooting jpg is fine. Or if you want to just concentrate on composition and the moment in front of you then jpg may be best. If you think of capturing the image as just one part of the art of photography you might see that by shooting jpg you are turning over a lot of the creative decision making process from yourself to the camera.
There is nothing wrong with either method. Even famous photographers of the past had different approaches to it. Someone like Ansel Adams would not likely be a jpg shooter for example as to him controlling processing and printing was just as important as the image taking process. On the other hand you have photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson who would probably be using a camera in a semi-automatic or even fully automatic mode and shooting in jpg. He might just use a smartphone. He only really cared about capturing the right composition and moment in camera and not in the darkroom. If it works for you its not wrong.
My own preference is shooting in RAW because I want to be the one to decide the level of saturation different colors or areas of the image will have, I want to decide the contrast, sharpness, nose levels, etc. If I'm going to do all that anyway I may as well do it with the RAW file where I have more image data to work with. Also I hate worrying about white balance in camera.
There is nothing wrong with either method. Even famous photographers of the past had different approaches to it. Someone like Ansel Adams would not likely be a jpg shooter for example as to him controlling processing and printing was just as important as the image taking process. On the other hand you have photographers like Henri Cartier-Bresson who would probably be using a camera in a semi-automatic or even fully automatic mode and shooting in jpg. He might just use a smartphone. He only really cared about capturing the right composition and moment in camera and not in the darkroom. If it works for you its not wrong.
My own preference is shooting in RAW because I want to be the one to decide the level of saturation different colors or areas of the image will have, I want to decide the contrast, sharpness, nose levels, etc. If I'm going to do all that anyway I may as well do it with the RAW file where I have more image data to work with. Also I hate worrying about white balance in camera.
May 10, 2017 11:13:38 #
gvarner wrote:
In my humble opinion, the only place that RAW makes a difference is with problem photos like white balance, noise, and exposure. There may be others. In these, you have control in post processing to do to the sensor's data file (RAW file) what the camera does to make a JPEG file, only with more control.
RAW processing is ABSOLUTELY NOT "just for problem photos" - it is an essential part of the creative process for images both complex and simple. /Ralph
May 10, 2017 15:35:41 #
I personally shoot in RAW as a Photography Professor convinced me years ago to shoot RAW, more colors and more forgiving. I am amazed how a shot that is not correct can be improved using a RAW file. I have had photos that look almost blanks as greatly overexposed and darkening the photo I can get a decent photo. However if you juts want to post on line particularly low resolution, jpg is fine.
May 10, 2017 15:47:02 #
If you want your photos to look professional you will have to shoot with RAW. There is a big difference in how good photos look if you take them in Raw and process in Lightroom or Photoshop or if you just use the JPEG from your camera. If you want to see how to process RAW files you should look at some youtube videos to learn how to do it and get the benefits of RAW. It is not easy to figure out how to use Photoshop so getting help from youtube will speed up the process.
RAW is not some useless or almost useless feature as some people here indicate. Not only all decent or good cameras today allow you to shoot RAW but also most or all good cameraphones have this option as well. There is a simple and good reason for this, RAW is your option to edit your pics according to your taste and to get the best possible quality from your camera or smartphone.
In the end it is of course your taste for photos that matters. What makes you happy is what you should use.
RAW is not some useless or almost useless feature as some people here indicate. Not only all decent or good cameras today allow you to shoot RAW but also most or all good cameraphones have this option as well. There is a simple and good reason for this, RAW is your option to edit your pics according to your taste and to get the best possible quality from your camera or smartphone.
In the end it is of course your taste for photos that matters. What makes you happy is what you should use.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.