Sue-Jim Loc: Missouri

When I first switched to digital, I shot jpg, to learn the camera. Then I shot some flower close-ups for art & tried RAW -- at that point I was like the car-chasing dog who finally caught one & then didn't know what to do with it. I couldn't even open the original RAW image with whatever program I was using at the time, so all I could access was the embedded jpg. I gave up on RAW at that point - but many times since have wished I had that no-loss data & editing potential for my best art shots. Guess I need to study, now that I have Photoshop CS. I've learned a lot from this discussion (basically that while I'll continue shooting jpg for family/homestead snapshots, I need to learn to use RAW for my art photos), & appreciate the sharing of wisdom & experience.

DennisK Loc: Pickle City,Illinois

Ok here's where I'm confused. I understand that if you shoot in Jpeg, the camera processes the image and there is loss of pixils, detail, etc. And that you have more control with RAW in PP. However, to print your images you must save in Jpeg. If you save in Jpeg, wouldn't you suffer the same losses in detail and image quality as what the camera imposes?
Please help a lost soul see the light.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Save in TIFF instead. That's what I normally print from.

Cheers,

R.

photocat Loc: Atlanta, Ga

Some of us don't save in jpeg mode.

As Roger indiates tiff is an option. You can infact change your jpeg file to a tiff so there is never a lose from compression.

Your not going to add infomration, your just not going to lose any.

If your doing your own printing you need to check that your printer will allow tiff files. If using an outside vendor just ask if they can print with tiff. If not, make a copy of the tiff file and change to jpeg mode. Easy as pie.

nyweb2001

I never knew you could print .tif ! I always saved to Jpeg for printing and displaying on the web. Is there much of a print quality difference from .tif to Jpeg ?

bull drink water Loc: pontiac mi.

who says you can't print in raw?

eaudirsc Loc: Virginia

You are correct, it is during the edit-resaving process of a jpeg that your quality loss happens. If you must use jpegs then never edit the original jpeg. Make a copy and make your changes to the copy. The big downside to this is every time you want to make changes you have to start over with a new copy of the original file therefore not having any of the previous changes and find yourself starting from scratch every time. RAW is the only way to go if you do post processing.

tkhphotography Loc: Gresham, Or, not Seattle

Not quite true about not being able to correct color balance if you shoot .jpeg--that is one use of the 'eyedroppers' in PS.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

Not until you've edited and saved the JPEG a few times!

I normally convert RAW to TIFF, and work on, and print from, TIFF, but I sometimes convert the (ready to use)TIFFs to JPEGS to send to magazines. The files are smaller and there's no quality loss unless the magazine starts playing silly buggers with them.

Cheers,

R.

dfalk Loc: Chugiak, Alaska

Using Bridge/Photoshop you can open a jpeg "in RAW" and make the same exposure adjustments as with a RAW file -- you just don't have as much data to work with.

nyweb2001

You convert the RAW to .tif before you make any adjustments ?

mdorn Loc: Portland, OR

Okay, I'm still not completely sold on shooting RAW. In fact, I really want to shoot RAW, but I just need that extra argument that will make me say---yeah, wow, that's why I should use RAW. I haven't see it yet.

White balance is good one, but only a small reason for me. If you take as many pics as I do, then forgetting to check the WB isn't really significant. I always check and review the first couple of shots anyway to make sure my settings are correct. If I don't have time, then I shoot in auto. btw: you can change the WB on JPG photos in PP (at least my program allows me to do it using a custom setting).

Picture resolution is not a powerful argument either unless you plan to enlarge your prints to poster size. I know that the term "lossy" is a little unsettling for some, but realisitcally, can your eyes tell the difference on a typical 8x10 photo? I've tried to see the diffs, but when I campare the two, the JPG actually looks better---probably due to the in-camera post processing.

RAW is also a proprietary format, and you'll need to keep your post processing software up-to-date, especially if you are using Adobe stuff. In fact, it's a nice little cash cow for them to keep updating the RAW format. JPG has been around for a long time, and my money is on this format for the long-term. At the very least, I think people should be shooting RAW+JPG.

Anyway, someone PLEASE give me a compelling reason to use RAW. I know the technical reasons, but let's talk about "real life" applications---your eyes and the impact a photo shot in RAW has on me. I guess I'm a Ken Rockwell follower on this... He has other reasons RAW is not really necessary for most of us. For those interested in reading his take:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

anotherview Loc: California

Short answer: No.

If you print direct from Photoshop, the original file, whether JPEG or RAW, remains untouched. Photoshop uses its own file format, with the file extension known as PSD, and prints using it.

You may print from a JPEG file that has been saved by Photoshop. This printing uses the JPEG file only for this purpose, and does not disturb the JPEG file.

Roger Hicks Loc: Aquitaine

No, because there are several things that are easier in Lightroom than in Photoshop, and vice versa, so I do whatever's easier in whichever program.

Cheers,

R.

nyweb2001

I have a different reason....I've been shooting RAW for a few years....I have my workflow down to almost automatic now !