Shooting in RAW??

Missy1981

Missy1981

Messages
55
Name
Sarah
Edit My Images
No
Evening everyone,

Pls can someone explain to me in layman's terms what the difference is between shooting in JPEG and shooting in RAW

I have just reached this stage in the manual of my 650d and I don't really understand what the difference is. I've read numerous threads on here about the debate on which is better and I'm guessing that as a total newbie to the world of DSLR's that JPEG is the way forward for me.

However I've been a little bit confused by people saying that they like shooting in RAW so that they can edit the photos after.

Eventually I would like to be able to have a practise messing around with my pictures on my PC, is this not possible to do in JPEG on something like Photoshop?

Again, apologies for my ignorance. I'm just learning

Thanks in advance for your help

Sarah
 
You can work with/edit both RAW and jpeg files but RAW gives you everything that the camera captured to work with whereas a jpeg file has lost some of the file information in the process of becoming a jpeg - additionally every time you edit a jpeg file you lose a bit more data.
jpeg is convenient but not necessarily the best file format to achieve the best results - that having been said many shoot only in jpeg :)
 
Jpegs are a compressed format image so you are throwing away information. RAW gives you the opportunity to fix things like colour balance and to a certain extent exposure, in a more satisfactory manner as you have the full image detail available, not just part of it.
 
Hope you don't mind me joining in here :)

So..

If I was to shot in RAW but not edit the photo in any way, would it be of better quality if printed straight from memory card than JPEG?
 
No, in most cases RAW needs editing, as no processing as been done to the image at all. Certain manufacture program's can implement jpg processing to a RAW image in software and some cameras can now also edit RAWs directly in camera, but either way, they need some user intervention.
 
RAW files are huge (circa 20Mb+). Think of them as unprocessed 'negatives' in old money. The are not processed by the camera and require some post processing (pp) to bring out the best in the capture.

By contrast, Jpegs are processed in-camera and, although they can be adjusted on the pc later, it's like a photocopy of a photocopy, where the RAW file is the original. The bennefit of Jpegs is their relatively small (memory space) size. Going back to old-money, a Jpeg is more like a Polaroid. Still perfectly good for non-serious photographers and Jpegs are fine for 90% of stills taken. However, when you get the perfect shot, you'll wish you had a RAW file to play with.

If you are serious about the pictures you want to produce, shoot in RAW. If it's snapshots for simple pleasue only, Jpegs are more than just 'acceptable'.

Hope this helps.(y)
 
As FourRingCircus says RAW files are like old film negatives. You have to process them and convert them to a final output format whether they are displayed on screen or printed. The advantage OF RAW is that you can correct mistakes you might have made when actually taking the shot, or modify it creatively, without losing image quality.

Your Canon 650D will have come with a piece of software called DPP (Digital Photo Professional) which is a program that you can use to manipulate the RAW image (a .CR2 file type) and then save it as another file type. Alternatively you can use other 3rd party software such as Adobe Photoshop (Elements or CS) which has a sub-program called Adobe Camera RAW to process your RAW files.

In processing RAW files, you would typically check and correct the exposure, colour temperature, possible crop it, maybe clone out an annoying feature and maybe much more. You might take 30 seconds to process an image or maybe 30 minutes. I tend to usually opt for the former. I then save the RAW image as a TIFF file using SAVE AS; I always keep the original RAW file as it was taken. The TIFF file holds all the processing I have done to the RAW file (except for noise reduction and sharpening which I may apply to the final output file) and it is used as a source for either printing or converting to a JPEG file if the output format is for screen.

Typically in my workflow one RAW image may translate to 4 or 5 files:
1 RAW (the saved Original 20-25MB)
1 TIFF (processed RAW 50MB)
1 resized and sharpened large JPEG to fit my 24 inch monitor 1800x1200 pixels 1MB (taken from the TIFF)
1 resized and sharpened small JPEG for my Website 800x566 pixels 200K (taken from the TIFF)
1 original size, sharpened file to print from.
This is just my workflow, other people will do things differently.

Most 3rd party websites like Flickr or Facebook will only allow you to post images in small compressed file formats like JPEG, not RAW or TIFF.

The disadvantage of RAW files is that you have to spend time processing the files after you have taken the pictures and you need more space on your computer to hold the files. On the plus side it makes you a much more ruthless editor of your own work as you tend to throw away all the images that don't warrant the time to spend processing them.
 
Last edited:
The answers you've been given so far are correct but I wonder if they address your question fully: I well remember thinking "what's all this stuff about RAW?" and feeling that I was about to leap into space...

daventryh said:
Hope you don't mind me joining in here :)

So..

If I was to shot in RAW but not edit the photo in any way, would it be of better quality if printed straight from memory card than JPEG?
Click to expand...

Potentially yes because RAW files are usually much bigger than jpeg files they contain more detail and you have the ability to manipulate that detail through processing.
Think about having a bigger negative or, if you like, a box of chocolates with two layers rather than just one: the box doesn't take up more spac eon the table but suddenly there's a lot more stuff in there!

Slapdash said:
As FourRingCircus says RAW files are like old film negatives. You have to process them and convert them to a final output format whether they are displayed on screen or printed. The advantage of RAW is that you can correct mistakes you might have made when actually taking the shot, or modify it creatively, without losing image quality.<snip> On the plus side it makes you a much more ruthless editor of your own work as you tend to throw away all the images that don't warrant the time to spend processing them.
Click to expand...

I've only trimmed this reply for brevity but it's a good explanation. In essence from where you are now you'll be amazed at what you can correct in RAW compared to any other file format.
You can't do much ever to sharpen an image which is intrinsically soft though you can go the other way.
For me shooting in RAW gives me the maximum ability to adjust the lighting, tone, colour balance and exposure of an image and you only need to take an image in marginal lighting conditions and play with RAW to see what we mean.
t isn't necessary to spend ages processing every image though, you might find that a slight tweak here or there is all that's needed.

The thing to do is try it. Take half a dozen images in JPEG and RAW. Start with the JPEG image and find some aspect of lighting/colour/exposure that you're not happy with. Got shadows in which you can't see the detail in JPEG? Find that you can't bring out the best in the colours? Right, now try the RAW image and have a go: you will be amazed at what you can do. You might never look back.:)
 
Unless you're confident in processing RAW files with the likes of Photoshop, Lightroom, Elements etc you would be better off shooting Jpeg, at least to begin with. The Jpeg that is produced by the 650D is very good so you would just end up with a 'finished' product on your computer.

If you decide you're not happy with the 'finished' photo then you can start taking RAW and then adjust afterwards to get the finish you require. If you want to practice your processing skills then take some shots in both RAW and Jpeg and then adjust the RAW image to make it look similar, or better, to the Jpeg.
 
All good advise , like moonchild says shoot both for a while so you can compare .
Another way of looking at it is do you want total control over the final image and end up with an individual image or are you happy to let canon camera engineers decide for you . IMO jpegs tent to all look the same , a bit bland and unemotional , which is not surprising really as most people are using a set formula . If your serious about photography your gradually gravitate towards shooting raw , unless your happy to let your work look like every body elise,s , but remember raws will look rubbish against Jpeg strait out of the camera and it takes time and perseverance to master the art of processing . Hope this helps Sarah
 
Just one other thought Sarah , make sure you save all your good raw files please don,t delete them once you have converted them to Tiffs like i did in my early days .

Ray
 
A newcomers view of this topic:

When I first got my 550D a few months ago, I saved my photos in JPEG and RAW, I did this for two reasons.

1. I saw the JPEG as a quick solution if I wanted to upload or get it printed.

2. RAW seemed complicated but I saw lots of messages that I should save in this format even though it was massive in size compared to JPEGs.

Since then I have developed gradually my basic understanding of processing photos in
CS5, and dare I say it, even experimented with changing a photo completely from that taken.

Working with JPEGs I found that some things could be done easily in post processing, others seemed much more complicated. On occasions the JPEG created by the camera did not resemble anything I considered acceptable to myself.

Now I save solely in RAW format, and get as much enjoyment with tinkering around with the photos, as I did taking them in the first place.

Its like going back to the pre-digital age and experimenting with B&W and in time Colour prints in the home processing labs - just a lot easier.
 
raymond bradshaw said:
All good advise , like moonchild says shoot both for a while so you can compare .
Click to expand...

I agree with this completely, you can set your camera to shoot RAW+JPEG.

If there are JPEG's you are completely happy with then delete the RAW file, but as has already been said, if you have a photo you REALLY like, backup the RAW file to your PC and have a tinker with the Canon software - you'll be amazed at the difference. Also you can never alter the original RAW file as it's a digital negative (as has again, been said).

I find manuals can be too technical sometimes, which Is why I bought this book. Get this one specific to your camera. They are very good books and explain things much clearly. They also explain other things like ISO, f/stop, Exposure etc. and all the images taken have the settings that were used.

Have fun,

Justin
 
I've never liked the RAW is the digital equivalent of a negative I think it is better to say RAW is the equivalent of the exposed film in the can before it's developed. I say this because a lot of the things we mess about with in RAW we changed in the development to negative phase in the old days not in the printing phase.

RAW ----> Exposed Film in Can
Processed RAW (JPEG/TIF/etc) ----> Negative
Print ----> Print

Just my two pence!

Back to the OP until I got my 5D mkii I shot RAW+JPEG as I'm not a big fan of post processing as I find it incredibly dull. I had my camera setup to produce JPEG's that most of the time were fine for me but I liked having the RAW's for any photos I wanted to tweak a little more especially if they were destined for the wall. I would still shoot RAW+JPEG but the files on the 5D mkii are just too big!
 
Just a side note - if you do choose to shoot RAW+JPEG make sure you have a large memory card such as 16GB, 32GB or higher. Also having more than 1 card is useful too. Make sure they are at least class 10 and the higher speed, the better (45 or 95 MB/s)
 
Unless you are under time pressure to subit images RAW+JPEG is just a waste of space, it is easy to bulk convert to JPEG's if you need to.
 
artyman said:
Unless you are under time pressure to subit images RAW+JPEG is just a waste of space, it is easy to bulk convert to JPEG's if you need to.
Click to expand...


If you convert to Jpegs from raw on the computer surly you end up with the worst of both worlds Something that looks like a raw file but in jpeg file format .
 
No it doesn't it depends on what criteria you set in the processing software, sharpness, contrast, white balance. All that happens when shooting RAW & JPEG is that the camera does the processing as opposed to an external program like Canon DPP or whatever.
 
A few years ago, the main reason for shooting to JPEG was that camera memory was small and expensive (eg my first 1Gb card cost £100!).

That no longer applies, so IMHO the main reason for shooting JPEG today is if you don't want to do any image post processing, don't want to even touch a computer, then choose JPEG. But if you do, you might as well work from Raw as it's no more dificult and you may be able to get a better result.

I think it's important to remember that we always (99.999% of the time) end up with a JPEG anyway. The difference is that when we select JPEG, the Raw files are post-processed in-camera according to the image parameters (picture styles, colour, sharpening, noise reduction etc etc) that we have pre-selected in the set-up menus. So unless you want to change any of those things after the event, the result will be exactly the same whether you let the camera do it instantly, or you do it manual on the PC.

And yes, technically speaking, the Raw file is the film equivalent of the latent image (exposed but undeveloped film) rather than the negative.
 
raymond bradshaw said:
If you convert to Jpegs from raw on the computer surly you end up with the worst of both worlds Something that looks like a raw file but in jpeg file format .
Click to expand...

A jpeg is just a processed raw file. The only differences are who, or what, has processed the raw data. Note that I'm only familiar with Canon gear so I'll only be talking about that. I presume Nikon is very similar.

With a jpeg produced by the camera it uses parameters set by the user (picture style, sharpness, contrast etc.) and produces the jpeg image in the camera, then it throws all of the raw data into the bin, lost forever.

Alternatively, you can just shoot raw. If you load a raw file into the DPP software that came with the camera and use it's default settings then it will produce a jpeg file identical to that which the camera would have produced. You can do the conversion in a batch - and you can keep all of that raw information in case you want it later.

However, a lot of people think they're actually more intelligent than the processor inside the camera and reckon they can do a better job of processing the raw data to get a good-quality jpeg image. Another advantage of DIY raw processing is that you can process the raw data differently for different requirements (images for print need different sharpening than images for web).

I started off shooting jpeg only when I went to Botswana in 2005. I look at those images now and could almost weep at how much better they could have been if I'd shot them in raw. All that lovely data lying dead in the African dust :crying:
 
Take shots in raw and jpeg and do your own comparison/draw your own conclusion.

For example, take a shot which contains some overexposed highlights.
Recover the highlights and see which image looks better, brings back more detail.
 
Wow!! Thank you all so much for your valuable advice.

This has been incredibly helpful. I now have a much better understanding.

I bought a 32GB card so I think I will take your advice and shoot RAW + JPEG as even though I'm not remotely experienced when it comes to PP, eventually I hope to get much better in this area and as some people have said, would hate to look back and regret not having saved the data.

Thanks once again for all your help! :)
 
Justin1971 said:
I agree with this completely, you can set your camera to shoot RAW+JPEG.

If there are JPEG's you are completely happy with then delete the RAW file, but as has already been said, if you have a photo you REALLY like, backup the RAW file to your PC and have a tinker with the Canon software - you'll be amazed at the difference. Also you can never alter the original RAW file as it's a digital negative (as has again, been said).

I find manuals can be too technical sometimes, which Is why I bought this book. Get this one specific to your camera. They are very good books and explain things much clearly. They also explain other things like ISO, f/stop, Exposure etc. and all the images taken have the settings that were used.

Have fun,

Justin
Click to expand...

Thanks Justin! This book looks fab. I am definitely going to invest :)
 
Missy1981 said:
Thanks Justin! This book looks fab. I am definitely going to invest :)
Click to expand...

I've been reading mine every day and I haven't even got the camera yet (although I've just ordered it this morning so can't wait for the delivery man next week :)) It's a very easy-to-understand book guiding you through all the settings (and more importantly when and how to use them) in simple to understand plain-English with no technical jargon.

gadgeteer said:
Once you see what you can do with RAW files versus JPG you won't go back.

Downside is the file size meaning the amount of disk space being consumed now is eye watering!
Click to expand...

Agreed, but with the cost of memory cards and HDD storage it's not as big a problem as it would have been several years ago. I have two 1TB HDD that I can use to download (and back-up) all my files.
 
Been reading "Mastering the Nikon D7000" book, I can't post the section I think because I don't want to infringe anyone's copyright, but I found the section on Color Space to really help me get a better handle on this although I thought I understood the basics. It's a bit technical and in terms of how you measure this in what you see in an image is another debate I guess.

To try and summarise and give you an idea of the type of info you might lose between formats, RAW using Adobe RGB colour space holds more colour info than sRGB and both significantly more than JPEG which is considered a "lossy format" (although Nikon RAW has a lossy and a not so lossy option just to confuse matters!) Depending on the RAW bit mode your camera supports, it could be up 16000+ levels in each of the R G and B colour channels. JPG does 256 levels in each colour channel

The graphics industry uses a colour space called CIE LAB which is designed to approximate what the human eye can see. Adobe RGB has a wider gamut and covers about 50% of this, sRGB 35%.

So my thinking is if you are able to start with RAW in a higher bit-mode and Adobe RGB then you can be more selective (in the way you do pp) about what colour info amongst other things is retained.

That said just go with what looks best to you but at the same time take on boad others opinions to help improve the shot....personally I think composition is more important. I have some cracking shots from my old canon s3 that shoots straight to JPG (so processing is in the camera like a P&S)

HTH
 
There are other issues to consider re colour space though.
Most places you'll use your pictures will use SRGB, so by using adobe rgb you're creating extra work. Fine if you're happy with that.

The advice to use ARGB is sound if you live in a bubble. But in the real world I'd ignore it.

For info have a read of all the 'my pictures look bad on the Internet' threads.
 
siblingchris said:
To try and summarise and give you an idea of the type of info you might lose between formats, RAW using Adobe RGB colour space holds more colour info than sRGB
Click to expand...

Nope, first off, raw files don't have any colour space. The colour space is applied when it's processed to produce an image. Choosing aRGB or sRGB just sets a flag in the data - it's also used to determine the processing of the data to produce the embedded jpeg.

Secondly, aRGB does not hold more info than sRGB. It holds a wider range of colours, but the gaps between the colours is also wider. sRGB is like storing the numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 4...99, 100. While aRGB is like storing the numbers 0, 2, 4, 6...198, 200. A wider range of numbers, but the same amount of information.
 
I re-read what I wrote and also the book I was referring to. I have to say in light of repsonses the book is somewhat ambiguous.

As someone else said color space choice in camera if you are using raw options simply sets a flag in the meta-data of the file. It does make a difference to JPG if you do that in camera or post processing. Unless printing and printer can work with Adobe RGB then I guess there is no benefit.

what I think dos have a bearing on colour is the bit-depth - on my D7000 there are 12-bit and 14-bit options - the latter allowing a much wider gamut.

Also, in the camera there are two options for RAW/NEF; Lossless Compressed and Compressed. Nikon reckon the latter files are smaller and visually you can;t tell the difference but there is a loss of information - what that loss actually is I don't know. Anyone any idea?
 
Last edited:
siblingchris said:
Don't particularly want to have an argument about it, maybe this is specific to my d7000 or NEF I am not sure.

However, The selection of sRGB and Adobe RGB does pertain to the RAW file, when processing in camera or pp this then affects what you have available and is "compressed" to the JPG format for publishing/printing

As I said though, whether this makes any noticeable difference that you can see in the final image is debatable. The differences I personally see stepping up from a camera that did not have RAW capability is a marked one, but there is more going on than just the file format difference :)
Click to expand...

it doesn't you know. All RAW file formats have no colour space attached, even yours ;). They are just what they say they are, raw data. The colour space is only attached to the file when you export it to JPEG (or another format if you so choose)
 
:withstupid:
boyfalldown said:
it doesn't you know. All RAW file formats have no colour space attached, even yours ;). They are just what they say they are, raw data. The colour space is only attached to the file when you export it to JPEG (or another format if you so choose)
Click to expand...

apologies - I was in the process of typing and thiking this through when my ipad hit problems - by the time I sorted it, it had already posted what I initially wrote and then looked at again and changed!!! :shrug:

So sorry, yes please ignore, :withstupid:
....I am deferring to superior knowledge!

unless you would like to see what I finally wrote (edited above) :)
was wondering what the effect of a lossy NEF file actually is?
 
Personally, I only shoot in JPEG. A few reasons for this - #1, I hate PP time with a passion! Once I can drive again and I'm fully recovered, I'll be out taking pics rather than sat here at a computer. #2, I have done some tests and found that if I shoot raw and process the files to my tastes, the result is indistinguishable from a camera processed JPEG. Even zoomed in to pixel level, the colours etc are identical (or were where I looked!). #3, which is far less important now than it used to be, raw files eat into memory about 4 times as fast as JPEGs (Fine quality, Large size). there's still quite a difference in price between a 4GB card and a 16GB one - but not as much as there was a few years ago! #4, JPEGs can be printed direct from the card or straight from the folder using the built in viewer and print software. Again, prints are indistinguishable using this method from going through PhotoShop Elements. Maybe you could spot the difference if you used a high magnification loupe but IMO, prints are for looking at from a sensible viewing distance, not through a magnifying glass.

I'm perfectly willing to agree that there is a time and a place for raw - it makes it far easier to adjust so that both the bride's white dress and the groom's dark suit are vaguely correctly exposed and awkward lighting situations (where there's a mix of sun, tungsten and fluorescent light in the same scene) are easier to correct.

My advice (probably repeating others') is to try the different formats yourself - if you find that using raw is better for you, use that but if you find JPEGs do the job, save yourself some time!
 
Unless you really need instant access to the images you shoot there is no benefit to shooting jpeg instead of raw. It is always possible to process a raw file to produce a jpeg image indistinguishable from the image the camera would have produced. This processing can be automated and batched, so very little time in front of the computer is required (start the batch, make a cup of tea or have a bath or watch some TV, return to computer with a folder full of jpegs).

Unless the camera parameters were 100% optimal then it us always possible to produce a jpeg image from a raw file that is better than the jpeg the camera would have produced.
 
hollis_f said:
Unless you really need instant access to the images you shoot there is no benefit to shooting jpeg instead of raw. It is always possible to process a raw file to produce a jpeg image indistinguishable from the image the camera would have produced. This processing can be automated and batched, so very little time in front of the computer is required (start the batch, make a cup of tea or have a bath or watch some TV, return to computer with a folder full of jpegs).

Unless the camera parameters were 100% optimal then it us always possible to produce a jpeg image from a raw file that is better than the jpeg the camera would have produced.
Click to expand...

I'm a Raw shooter and 95% agree with the above.(y)

The other 5%?

I think it's theoretically possible to create custom picture styles that'd give awesome JPEGs straight from the camera. So in my imaginary future I could switch the camera to a style called 'sunlit reception' and I'd get the same files my batch processing gives me:) different custom styles for different scenarios.
 
hollis_f said:
Unless you really need instant access to the images you shoot there is no benefit to shooting jpeg instead of raw. It is always possible to process a raw file to produce a jpeg image indistinguishable from the image the camera would have produced. This processing can be automated and batched, so very little time in front of the computer is required (start the batch, make a cup of tea or have a bath or watch some TV, return to computer with a folder full of jpegs).

Unless the camera parameters were 100% optimal then it us always possible to produce a jpeg image from a raw file that is better than the jpeg the camera would have produced.
Click to expand...

I've had the batch processing discussion before! Unless the series of shots you're batch processing are all similarly lit etc, batch processing has few advantages over shooting in JPEG - each different situation needs seperate parameter settings to get the best out of it. Sure, you can return to each individual shot and change the parameters but that's as time consuming as doing them each individually anyway! ;)

By no means am I (or have I ever) saying "Don't use raw, it's a waste of time", all I have said is that I don't because FOR ME, it has no significant advantages. Maybe I'm just lucky but my cameras seem to be able to meter well enough to get pretty damn close to 100% optimal parameters - but that's Nikons for you!!! :p
 
In ideal scenarios your camera will meter effectively (and so will mine)

However, there are many scenarios which are not ideal and slightly outside of the dynamic range of your camera. You then need to be able to recover highlights or bring out shadows, both of which has better results when using raw.

In that scenarios I would want to make the same changes to a jpeg or raw files so no additional time wasted. I also find that raw files only require very slight processing anyway and using a simple editor such as iPhoto means I take no more time to do so.
 
Nod said:
I've had the batch processing discussion before! Unless the series of shots you're batch processing are all similarly lit etc, batch processing has few advantages over shooting in JPEG - each different situation needs seperate parameter settings to get the best out of it. Sure, you can return to each individual shot and change the parameters but that's as time consuming as doing them each individually anyway!
Click to expand...

I've obviously not made my point clearly enough. Rather than saying that batch processing of raw has advantages over shooting in jpeg I'm saying that it gives results that are identical to shooting jpeg only. Each different image will be automatically processed using the exact same parameters as the camera would have used. There is no need to set different parameters for each image.
 
hollis_f said:
Unless you really need instant access to the images you shoot there is no benefit to shooting jpeg instead of raw. It is always possible to process a raw file to produce a jpeg image indistinguishable from the image the camera would have produced. This processing can be automated and batched, so very little time in front of the computer is required (start the batch, make a cup of tea or have a bath or watch some TV, return to computer with a folder full of jpegs).

Unless the camera parameters were 100% optimal then it us always possible to produce a jpeg image from a raw file that is better than the jpeg the camera would have produced.
Click to expand...

so shoot raw , then batch process them exactly like the camera would if it was doing jpegs . pointless exercise then
when all you raw shooters get better , you can start using jpegs :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top