BlueMorel Loc: Southwest Michigan

Ditto here. Besides, if you're shooting both RAW and jpg you end up with twice the storage space needed. Sometimes there's a reason - if you want to give your family, say, copies, or if you have clients who want to see previews ASAP, but if you're going to process them before keeping them permanently, you're wasting time and space to deal with the extra files.

Even though I hate to toss stuff, I'm coming to the realization that a lot of the single-use jpgs I made after processing my RAW files are really unnecessary for me to keep once I've shared them wherever. Just like the boxes of old papers in my back room, they need to be cleaned out to the absolutely necessary.

John_F Loc: Minneapolis, MN

A jpeg is a compressed image so the photo editing software must run the compression backwards. Jpeg is a standardized protocol so compressing/decompressing is possible. The early jpeg standard was not lossless (advise reading Wikipedia on jpeg for details) but subsequent development reduced the loss. So if you have a modern jpeg image and you open it in a very old photo editor version, that editor will not know the exact compression algorithm (a discrete cosine transform) and errors will arise unbeknownst to you. A RAW image seems a superior option but there is no standard raw file form, which complicates matters. In my case my Photoshop CS4 can not open my Sony a6300 raw images and Adobe discontinued supporting CS4 so no plug-in is available.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

RAW files are "unprocessed". JPEGs are processed images, made from RAW files.

In fact, every digital image capture starts out as a RAW file. If you set your camera to "RAW", it simply saves the whole file. But if you instead set your camera to "JPEG", it instantly processes the image - according to the settings of the camera such as white balance, contrast, saturation, noise reduction, sharpening, etc. - then saves the JPEG, and then "throws away" a bunch of the original data that was in the RAW file, which the camera has deemed to be "extraneous".

How much is thrown away? Well, next time you're out shooting, set your camera to "RAW + JPEG" and take a few shots where both are saved. Later when you download them, compare the sizes of the RAW version and the JPEG version. Look for two files with the same image number, but with the different file extensions. The sizes of images files vary a lot depending upon the particular image taken, but the JPEG file will always be a lot smaller than the RAW file. That gives you some idea how much of the originally captured data is "thrown away", making the JPEG.

Because there's a lot less data remaining in the JPEG, there is far less latitude to adjust things like white balance, exposure, etc.

A JPEG has "8-bit" color.... which basically means that there are close to 17 million possible colors and tonalities that can be used to make up an image. That seems like an awful lot (after all, the human eye can only distinguish around 16 million), until you consider that when post-processing a RAW file you'll have a 16-bit color palette with approximately 281 trillion possible colors and tonalities. This makes for far smoother and more precise "tweaks" to images in post-processing. AFTER all the tweaking is done, it's usually fine, even required for some purposes, to save the results as an 8-bit JPEG files. Any online display... even many printing services and most photo quality inkjet printers for home use require or work best with 8-bit files.

Yes, you can adjust both RAW and JPEG in post-processing. But a RAW file allows for much more adjustment to be made and the end result, when done correctly, can be better.

Or, another way of looking at it is that with JPEGs you'd better get your camera settings right! There's not much latitude to go back and correct things later. But with RAW files there's a lot less concern. For example, I shoot a lot of sports events and always shoot RAW because I have to work quickly and subjects move in and out of different lighting conditions. I don't have time to make major changes, such as JPEGs would require. To shoot JPEGs, in some situations I'd have to set things up for one particular shot and do that repeatedly, while ignoring any photo opportunities that might occur in other lighting conditions. If for some reason I need usable images immediately, if there isn't time for post-processing such as is necessary with RAW, I'll shoot RAW + JPEG to have both. I NEVER shoot JPEGs only.

In fact, that's a good way to learn post-processing skills.... shoot RAW + JPEG. Then you can compare the in-camera, automatically processed images against the RAW conversions you do in post-processing, to see how you're doing. The only drawback to this is that saving both types of files fills up memory cards and hard drives a lot faster! Eventually, once you see that your RAW conversions are consistently better than the JPEGs the camera makes, you might choose to only shoot RAW... or at least to not save the JPEGs long term (since you can always make another, so long as you have the RAW).

I would recommend you take a hard look at computer monitor calibration, before getting too deeply into RAW image post-processing. Calibration is almost always needed. Most computer monitors are way too bright initially, which will cause you to make your images too dark. They also usually aren't all that accurate rendering color and, although it's usually more subtle, calibration fixes this, too. Further, as it ages your computer monitor will lose brightness and shift how it renders color. So re-calibration is needed periodically. I do it monthly. Some people do it less, others more often. Some places even calibrate weekly or daily!

Calibration will almost always make your finished images look better, at the very least, thanks to your monitor giving you accurate info to work with. If you do very much printing, a calibration device will ultimately pay for itself in savings of wasted ink and paper or, if you outsource your printing, the cost of having things reprinted. There are a number of different calibration devices available... such as the Datacolor Spyder, X-Rite ColorMunki, and others. Basic setups cost $100 to $150.

cdayton

There is a group that only shoots RAW, uses manual settings and prime lenses. They are purists and I admire them but life is too short to post process every image so I almost always shoot JPEG. I also tend not to underexpose by several stops. Also, I would challenge anyone to tell me which photos hanging on my walls were shot as JPEG vs RAW.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

Love ya man

Rrmaas

If you are shooting black and white, is there an advantage to shooting raw?

therwol Loc: USA

JPEGS are "pre-processed" according to the settings in your camera. Data is discarded in the last step when the photo is compressed to a relatively small size. You can't get it back. It limits the degree to which you can tweak the photo after the fact. RAW is all of the sensor data, and it is post-processed by you. You don't discard anything until you're done and make the jpeg yourself. (Because it has to be converted to some standard photo format that can be opened by anyone and shared.) You don't necessarily discard the RAW photo in the last step if you want to leave the option to edit further.)

I think that most feel that you can get a better final outcome if you start out with a RAW photo, but it requires some extra work on your part in post processing.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

Yes. It has more dynamic range.

Streets Loc: Euless, TX.

Keep on doing the right thing my fellow traveler. Processing a raw image is similar to chrome plating a turd. It may be shiny but it still stinks. Have you noticed that those in favor of raw tend to bloviate on the subject while jpegers tend to be brief and concise? Could it be that their replies are overly complex to the point which they themselves become confused?

bleirer

One does not have to do anything special to get worthwhile images from raw shooting. You can have an import preset that you decide on once, and set it to apply automatically when you pull the picture off the camera. Usable as is, but also changeable if you want to bother.

Hip Coyote

I think the mistake people make is they get muddled down in jpeg v raw trying to save time, etc. What I suggest is take raw pics but delete, delete, delete. Keep very few photos. in fact, as you get better, you will be happy with fewer and fewer photos. Once you understand what a good photo is (I am still learning) then shooting in raw makes perfect sense. I use very small jpegs and raw when I travel to post a few jpegs to social media or email to people. But raw allows you to do so much more with the photo, recover from bad lighting, etc. When I first got really going in photography, I read that someone was lucky (talented) if they made a good photograph once every 500 shots. In my case, it is about 1 in a 1000. Get rid of junk.

The other thing is that people often confuse good photography with photographs worth keeping. I have photos of relatives that are not great, but I keep them. I have some photos that I think are good art. Two different things. RAW allowed me to enhance them, recover detail in shadows, etc.

Shoot RAW, and delete

cucharared Loc: Texas, Colorado

In the first three pages of this thread I see a bunch of statements indicating that each save of a JPEG causes more data to be lost. Understood. However, I see no statements to the effect that if you do a "save-as" and rename the file slightly, then the original JPEG is still intact (similar to what is always said referring to RAW). Naturally, the original JPEG is still far short of the capabilities of the RAW file, but at least using the "save-as" leaves the original JPEG no worse off for future editing. Naturally, you have to remember to do that "save-as".

I'm sure someone will holler if they thing I'm off-base.

ron

Ysarex Loc: St. Louis

Oh heaven's yes -- in a couple of ways. Processed from a raw file it would have been possible to retain the subtle highlight tone variation in the water that you've pasted over grey. Better fine detail as well.