Raw or JPEG

[Paul Beard]

(Item retrieved from our old forum)

Hi all,

My questions revolve around being about to upgrade from a Dynax 7 to a Dynax 7 Digital.

Should I shoot in RAW or JPEG?

What is the difference?

Chris.
(Digital virgin but feel I've been missing out)


........................................

Hi Chris,

I nearly always shoot in RAW format. Larger file size so might limit the number of shots available to you but much better image quality. JPEGs always lose something in saving - everytime you save you get a little more compression regardless of the settings in your software. Downside with RAW is that there isn't a standard RAW format - each camera manufacturer has their own version. So images have to be converted, usually through the software bundled with your camera, before they can be shared, published, etc.

Your software will probably give you some 'processing' options when viewing the RAW images - allowing you to adjust white balance, colour depth, contrast, etc. Generally you'll have the option to convert and save to tif or jpeg. Tifs will give you an uncompressed large image - useful for manipulating with Photoshop. Backup your RAW files on DVD and you can free up lots of disc space on your PC.

I will shoot in JPEG if I'm doing stuff purely for web use, or in the unlikely event that I think I'll run out of media on a shoot away from base.

Hope that helps!

................................................

The latest version of Photoshop has update RAW conversion built in, making it easier to handle RAW files from different cameras.

We haven't tried it yet, but there's no reason to think it won't do 'exactly what it says on the tin'

....................................................

It seems that the dynamic range of RAW files can capture highlight and shadow detail better than JPEGS.

Harold

...................................................

I'll be shooting RAW for anything important from now on

...................................................

The more I read about RAW the more the format seems to the most equivalent to reversal film. For example, to get the best results it is worth underexposing by 1/3 stop or so to get colour saturation.
It may also be that you get what you pay for with JPEGS, although I have seen nothing to suggest the better cameras produce JPEGS directly which make RAW redundant.

I have no experience of digital. What is the experience of contributors?

[matthewnoble]

Shooting in RAW format is like having your own digital negative. No in-camera processing has taken place, so you shouldn't get any unwanted artifacts, unecessary compression or the like. Photoshop CS will open most RAW file types, and upon opening you can tyweak the exposure or curves. I always save a RAW copy of important digital images in my archive, so i can go back to them at a future date.
An added advantage is that their size is usually smaller than a TIFF file saved on your camera, with thus a reduction in write time to your media. JPEG files have already been compressed, so there is some data loss already. Alamy recommend shooting in RAW format and converting to TIFF for their needs.

[kenners]

Raw works for me too! Gives me much more control over the image. I use Breezebrowser for the conversion process and find it much more effective than Capture One (which costs about 3 times as much!). I can go back to the original raw file time and time again (if I feel so inclined) and tweak white balances etc without any degradation of the image.

[loriprophoto]

I also only shoot RAW now althought I shoot RAW and small JPeg on my 20D to make previewing easier. This allows me to flip through what I have just shot and decide which pictures I want to convert.

I use Raw Shooter Essentials and Raw Shooter Premium. For those of you that may not have seen this software it is quite amazing and the Essentials version is free.

www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp

Lori