a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

My wife barely tolerates my raw shooting and her P900 is JPG only. She just got her P1000 and it can shoot RAW+Fine (JPG). She took a few mundane test shots of some birds at a marina and then we looked at them together.

I had to use Nikon's software to see the raw shots because none of my other stuff can read those files yet. It's good, basic software and it immediately proved to her, visually, without any further explanation, how much more "information" is in the raw file. Richer colors, better dynamic range. And that's without any adjustments.

I read the article and it is very elementary and makes some good basic points. Thanks for posting it.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

When I first started digital photography I shot jpg because it was all I knew. There came a day when I changed a camera setting and forgot to change it back. Wound up with a lot of photos with a blue cast. They were nonrepeatable photos and I needed them for a project. It took me many hours of experimenting to get something I could use from the jpgs.

At that point I decided to use raw. Since I could use both raw+jpg, I did that. I had the jpg for immediate use and the raw if it needed editing.

When my photopile reached 10,000 images I started having more trouble finding things (my memory is aging along with the rest of me). I started using Lightroom to organize things. Since LR is an editing program as well as an organizing program, I decided I might as well enter the raw files into LR and ignore the jpgs (unless I needed something immediately).

Since the raw file contains a jpg preview that the camera provides depending on the camera settings, and since it was easy to extract that if I needed a jpg immediately, I dropped the jpg from the camera recording and now shoot only raw. Saves about 30% on the card, which is not a big deal these days since memory prices are reasonably low, and I use cards that have the capacity to hold more than one shoot.

So although my initial reason for using raw was just because it had more flexibility in editing, my main reason for using it now is that it encourages me to put the file into LR, where it can be entered into the catalog. That makes it easier to find a decade or two from now when I've even forgotten I took that image.

a6k Loc: Detroit & Sanibel

Just a question or a note. Since I don't use LR I'm not sure how it does the JPG in the way you describe. But in my experimentation, the jpg that is embedded in a raw file, at least on Sony's, is very small in terms of bits and thus does not have the quality that a good JPG export from the raw would have. If you shoot raw+jpg I think you will get a much better jpg. I hope I'm not just misunderstanding what you meant.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I'm not familiar with Sony equipment (I'm a Nikon guy) but I would not be surprised if the embedded jpg were not all that useful. I believe it's really there to provide a preview of the image. In the Nikon NEF file the embedded jpg is full size.

It is very rare that I need an immediate jpg but when I do I use IrfanView, a freeware image viewer. It will extract the jpg and you can write it to a jpg file. It's much faster to load then Lightroom.

When I need a jpg from Lightroom, I export the image as a jpg, using the edits (if any) done in Lightroom on the raw file. I can control the size and quality of the jpg from the export dialog in LR.

Brian Hartnell Loc: Marinette WI

Raw files contain so much more capability in color space to extract detail you thought you missed when you over or under expose images 2 to 3 stops. As a studio photographer it is much easier to get the best shot possible at the site but always know you can recover much more detail in Post Processing. Cameras saving an image to Jpeg format sharpen, lighten and darken the image and then compress the image in a final file save. This limited color space and compression doesn't give you any where near the ability to recover from some major mistakes in post processing. There is a real and substantial difference in the ability to post process Raw versus Jpeg. Photoshop and Photoshop Elements use the Raw file editor and this gives you tremendous ability to control Exposure, Contrast, Highlights, Shadows, Whites, Blacks to only alter the Highlight, Middle tone and Shadow areas separately. Immensely effective at controlling brightness levels in the scene without damaging other areas. Takes a little more technique but well worth the effort.

Dngallagher Loc: Wilmington De.

The embedded JPG is used for quick views, not to create the export, when you export a JPG from raw, a new file is created, at the resolution specified in the export procedure.

When shooting raw+JPG, the camera creates the JPG file, based on the camera settings, when Lightroom exports a JPG, the JPG is created from the raw data based on your settings in Lightroom.

Pat F 4119 Loc: Branford, CT

Great, very clearly written article. Thanks for posting!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

One of the great problems with raw - NO standardization of anything ......! - others may see this as an "advantage" ......maybe ...

ronz Loc: Florida

Totally agree, can't remember when I last shot Jpeg.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

Thanks.

charlienow Loc: Hershey, PA

Boris77

Nothing against your article, but it is really old news. I would think most people on this forum would have read the comparison many times.
While raw will bail you out of difficult situations, it is a waste of time if you are not trying to shoot masterpieces. I do a lot of street photography, story telling, and literally shooting for (social) fun. It has taken many years, but cameras have reached (and passed) the point of producing technically good pictures. Learn how to use your equipment well and enjoy the process.
or set your camera on Machine Gun Raw and go for the prizewinner.
Boris

waegwan Loc: Mae Won Li

it is only old news to someone who has seen it before

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio

First off it is not My article; it is on DxO's website. I'm sure a multitude of people have read comparisons about shooting RAW vs JPEGs by now, as I have. This article explained it in a way that struck home for Me and it was My intention to post a link to the article for other photographers like myself who were still looking for more clarity on the subject. It was never intended for those who consider themselves Ansel Adams. Yes, cameras are very advanced. I am still learning things about My Nikon D750, and I like many people on this site still love the part of the hobby of manipulating Their photos with post processing software, or just tweaking them a small amount to make them look a little better. I assume there are a lot of photographers who feel that way or the manufacturers of post processing software would not have such a large clientele, or are the rest of us just that ignorant?

AirWalter Loc: Tipp City, Ohio