Raw verse jpeg
Nov 22, 2011 10:22:47 #
I do alot of work for Church and a local christian theater. I have heard alot about the 2 types and seeing has how I take 100s of shots at either one and like to edit fast I was wondering which would be better and easier to use.
Nov 22, 2011 10:36:10 #
RAW is really a digital negative (Much like a film negative), you will need to have software that can read/open a RAW file, that's the first step.
JPEG adds some processing in camera, so even before you download the file to your computer, shapness, contrast, colour boost etc has been added.
I know that some people are disappointed when they upload a RAW file for the first time, they look nothing like the JPEGs they are use to. I personally have never shot JPEG with my DSLR, so I have nothing to compare it too.
Depending on the editing you are planning on doing, you might not need as much control over the final image. I shot RAW, I like to have control over all aspects of my file from sharpness, colour saturation, and being able to bring back details that might other wise be lost because I wasn't paying 100% attention to the shot.
It's really a personal preference, workflow kind of decision.
JPEG adds some processing in camera, so even before you download the file to your computer, shapness, contrast, colour boost etc has been added.
I know that some people are disappointed when they upload a RAW file for the first time, they look nothing like the JPEGs they are use to. I personally have never shot JPEG with my DSLR, so I have nothing to compare it too.
Depending on the editing you are planning on doing, you might not need as much control over the final image. I shot RAW, I like to have control over all aspects of my file from sharpness, colour saturation, and being able to bring back details that might other wise be lost because I wasn't paying 100% attention to the shot.
It's really a personal preference, workflow kind of decision.
Nov 22, 2011 10:53:07 #
docrob
Loc: Durango, Colorado
familyphotogiuy wrote:
I do alot of work for Church and a local christian theater. I have heard alot about the 2 types and seeing has how I take 100s of shots at either one and like to edit fast I was wondering which would be better and easier to use.
JPEG
Nov 22, 2011 13:08:19 #
Nov 22, 2011 22:00:46 #
Nov 22, 2011 23:17:21 #
saside wrote:
Every time it's EDITED and re-saved. Viewing doesn't affect them.one other thing to remember jpeg lose of info every time you use it.
Nov 22, 2011 23:49:02 #
JimH wrote:
saside wrote:
Every time it's EDITED and re-saved. Viewing doesn't affect them.one other thing to remember jpeg lose of info every time you use it.
Yes your right
Nov 23, 2011 06:58:15 #
Best answer I've even seen to the RAW vs. JPEG?
If you have to ask, shoot JPEG
If you have to ask, shoot JPEG
Nov 23, 2011 07:09:39 #
Exactly!
wteffey wrote:
Best answer I've even seen to the RAW vs. JPEG?
If you have to ask, shoot JPEG
If you have to ask, shoot JPEG
Nov 23, 2011 08:10:14 #
JPEG creates an 8-bit image, which gives 16.8 million possible colors in your image. When you are editing a 16 bit image, you are dealing with a possible 281 trillion possible colors. Clearly a significant difference is information.
All JPEGs are 8 bit!! Whereas, RAW files can be edited in 16 or 32 bit.
In reality the human eye cannot see the difference in 8 bit or 16 bit image.......but hold on, when you do ANY edits on an image, you are affecting image information. The more you have....the more you can afford to lose without image degradation.
This is one reason for shooting RAW.....but there are other reasons!
Imagine shooting a picture and bringing it back to the studio and viewing it. Ah, you wish you would have selected a different exposure or color balance. If you have shot RAW, you can change the exposure two stops in either direction just as though you were reshooting the image. You can change the color balance in the same manner. It's like baking a cake, once the cake is out of the oven....you cannot add or remove ingredients.....the cake is cooked = JPEG. But, if you shoot RAW, it is the equivalent of being able to taste the finished cake but still able to add or remove ingredients.
If you have a camera that shoots RAW files, then your manufacturer gave you a RAW file editor in your camera package. So RAW software is not an issue. There are a number of free RAW processors that might work even better than your manufacturers.....Picasso comes to mind.
I look at it this way.....you spend a lot of money on a computer/camera with the capacity to run at 16 bit capacity recording all the image information possible.......why turn the camera's functionality/output into something much less.
One last thing, I shoot RAW for ALMOST all images. I shoot a lot of sports and when I shoot for a magazine or newspaper, they want their images immediately after the contest.....I usually shoot JPEG and FTP the images at the venue. Processing in RAW and making final edits is time I don't have. Often I then use the RAW + JPEG option.
There is another point......you can edit JPEG files.....in Photoshop you can adjust exposure and color balance BUT you loose pixels and information that is NON RECOVERABLE. In RAW, your edits are all recorded in a separate file (called a sidecar) the actual image has not been affected.
When I think I am finished....something else comes to mind. If your computer is old and the processing capacity is lagging....then jpeg might be better. As you can imagine, 16/32 bit files are huge......after processing it is entirely possible that the file size might exceed 100 mb. Compare to a 1 o 2 mb jpeg file. Then upgrade your computer and shoot RAW.
Before Digital...........post processing was a dark room, enlargers, chemicals, filters, paper, and on and on. Expensive stuff. There are two stages to photography today, capture and post processing (dark room). You have bought an expensive camera, now invest in adequate dark room equipment (lightroom/photoshop/computer)
All JPEGs are 8 bit!! Whereas, RAW files can be edited in 16 or 32 bit.
In reality the human eye cannot see the difference in 8 bit or 16 bit image.......but hold on, when you do ANY edits on an image, you are affecting image information. The more you have....the more you can afford to lose without image degradation.
This is one reason for shooting RAW.....but there are other reasons!
Imagine shooting a picture and bringing it back to the studio and viewing it. Ah, you wish you would have selected a different exposure or color balance. If you have shot RAW, you can change the exposure two stops in either direction just as though you were reshooting the image. You can change the color balance in the same manner. It's like baking a cake, once the cake is out of the oven....you cannot add or remove ingredients.....the cake is cooked = JPEG. But, if you shoot RAW, it is the equivalent of being able to taste the finished cake but still able to add or remove ingredients.
If you have a camera that shoots RAW files, then your manufacturer gave you a RAW file editor in your camera package. So RAW software is not an issue. There are a number of free RAW processors that might work even better than your manufacturers.....Picasso comes to mind.
I look at it this way.....you spend a lot of money on a computer/camera with the capacity to run at 16 bit capacity recording all the image information possible.......why turn the camera's functionality/output into something much less.
One last thing, I shoot RAW for ALMOST all images. I shoot a lot of sports and when I shoot for a magazine or newspaper, they want their images immediately after the contest.....I usually shoot JPEG and FTP the images at the venue. Processing in RAW and making final edits is time I don't have. Often I then use the RAW + JPEG option.
There is another point......you can edit JPEG files.....in Photoshop you can adjust exposure and color balance BUT you loose pixels and information that is NON RECOVERABLE. In RAW, your edits are all recorded in a separate file (called a sidecar) the actual image has not been affected.
When I think I am finished....something else comes to mind. If your computer is old and the processing capacity is lagging....then jpeg might be better. As you can imagine, 16/32 bit files are huge......after processing it is entirely possible that the file size might exceed 100 mb. Compare to a 1 o 2 mb jpeg file. Then upgrade your computer and shoot RAW.
Before Digital...........post processing was a dark room, enlargers, chemicals, filters, paper, and on and on. Expensive stuff. There are two stages to photography today, capture and post processing (dark room). You have bought an expensive camera, now invest in adequate dark room equipment (lightroom/photoshop/computer)
Nov 23, 2011 08:42:22 #
For this reason,allways make a copy and save the origional as shot. Edit the copy.
saside wrote:
Yes your right
JimH wrote:
saside wrote:
Every time it's EDITED and re-saved. Viewing doesn't affect them.one other thing to remember jpeg lose of info every time you use it.
Yes your right
Nov 23, 2011 09:08:38 #
moonshot24
Loc: Kenton, Ohio
The advantage to shooting RAW is that you have everything that the camera saw at the time of exposure. In JPEG mode your camera decides what is right, not you. I always shoot RAW and save a copy to disc so the original image is always there in case I want to alter it in another way or the working image gets lost or damaged during processing. JPEG images loses data everytime they are saved, so I prefer to save my working images as TIFF. Yes, the file is larger, but I can then make any file I want including sizing for the web. Great question. Hope this helps. Oh yes, software for processing RAW is free from Adobe.
Nov 23, 2011 09:13:01 #
familyphotogiuy wrote:
I do alot of work for Church and a local christian theater. I have heard alot about the 2 types and seeing has how I take 100s of shots at either one and like to edit fast I was wondering which would be better and easier to use.
I shoot both Nikon D3100, use the jpeg to make quick contact sheets and Raw for PP.
Nov 23, 2011 09:19:59 #
Beginners should forget RAW. JPEG is fast, compact and gets the job done for most people. Concentrate on composition and subject and wait till you are really bored to go RAW.
Read this rant, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
Read this rant, http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
moonshot24 wrote:
The advantage to shooting RAW is that you have eve... (show quote)
Nov 23, 2011 13:31:16 #
always,always,always....shoot in RAW....If you edit you have much more latitude as RAW captures more data...It is a bit more time consuming to convert & edit but if you are making any adjustments to your originsl, it's better to do it with a RAW file...
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.