j peg or raw

M

michae222

Messages
55
Name
michael
Edit My Images
No
the big question, to shoot jpeg or in raw. I am new to dslr photography and am interested in which way to go.It seems to me raw is a lot of hasel for only a little more benefit albeit better but is it worth it
What dose everyone else think?
 
I'd go with RAW all the way!

The RAW file is a non destructive format, it's your digital negative which holds all the your original shot capture settings and more. Although the file size is larger, this format is the bomb.

I'd do some research into the RAW format to see all the benefits. You won't be disappointed.
 
If you are new to photography use RAW, it has more detail than jpegs should you need to do a lot of PP, if you are new, then you will need to do PP until you start to get a better grasp of how everything works..

Jpegs have many uses as well, the RAW only disciples sometimes fail to realise that.

Initially, shoot RAW though.
 
You may find you have the option to shoot in both JPEG and raw. I prefer to do this - I look through the JPEGs to weed out the ones I obviously don't want to keep or bother processing, then process the raw of the ones I think a really worthy. The raw does offer advantages, the biggest one (IMO) being that it has all of the original setting so the extent you can process it is greater.

In your position, I wouldn't worry about the processing at this stage - get the photography going down the right road first - and, when you do start with it, you'll probably find it easier to start with the JPEGs. However, there are some early photos that I now wish I had the raw for so, if your camera is capable, I'd advise shooting in both. However, be aware this will reduce how many photos you can take on a memory card.
 
Last edited:
fracster said:
If you are new to photography use RAW, it has more detail than jpegs should you need to do a lot of PP, if you are new, then you will need to do PP until you start to get a better grasp of how everything works..

Jpegs have many uses as well, the RAW only disciples sometimes fail to realise that.

Initially, shoot RAW though.
Click to expand...

I'd say it's the other way around, without work raw looks flat and dull, JPG looks much better straight out of camera so for a beginner it makes sense to do that and concentrate on taking pictures.

Anyway, read the link an decide for yourself.
 
Personally it all depends on what I'm shooting. Landscape work, I always use RAW. Portraits, I tend to shoot JPEG, and events I shoot JPEG, just because of the amount of shots I need, and the conversion of 100+ shots ready for the website would take too much time.

I also shoot RAW for whenever I might dabble in macro work, and things like that. I think when you get better with exposure and settings, you can shoot in JPEG a lot more, because you get get it right in the camera.

Just my 2p
 
Nawty said:
I'd say it's the other way around, without work raw looks flat and dull, JPG looks much better straight out of camera so for a beginner it makes sense to do that and concentrate on taking pictures.

Anyway, read the link an decide for yourself.
Click to expand...

Heres to the first of 2012 :D So why did you not explain a little more in your first reply to the OP :shrug:

Shoot RAW and JPEG to start with, that way you have the best of both so to speak. Try and learn a little about doing RAW conversion along the way as it will stand you in good stead for the future, because at some point you will be starting another thread on here and saying " I have been shooting JPEG for long enough now and want to understand RAW " :lol: ;)
 
Which ever way you, try to make sure you get the image "right in camera" as it will save a lot of time afterwards
 
All images start out Raw, regardless of the camera or how it is set. But it needs to be converted to JPEG before you can view it and output it.

You can let the camera do that, by selecting JPEG and adjusting the picture styles etc so it comes out the way you like it. This is Raw processing, but done automatically by the camera.

Or you can choose to output as Raw and then post process it yourself with appropriate software. It usually comes free with the camera, or you can use third party, eg Photoshop.

The difference is, with JPEGs you have to choose what processing is applied before the picture is taken. And while there is quite a lot of basic adjustment available, you can do more with post processing software - if you want to or need to.

Either way, you always end up with a JPEG.

You can also post-process a JPEG and if all you want to do is a bit of cropping and slight changes to exposure and colour, the result will be as good as if you started with the Raw, so all is not lost.

The decision to shoot Raw or JPEG used to be a big one, because Raw files are four or five times larger and take up a lot of memory. But memory is so cheap now, it's easy to keep both.

As a beginner, unless you really want to dive into post processing right away, shoot both. Spent a little time tweaking the pictures styles (contrast, sharpness, colour, saturation etc) so you get a decent result straight out of the camera. But keep the Raws so that if you snap a masterpiece and want to squeeze every last drop of quality out of it, or need to go back and try to rescue a disaster, you have all the original data to work on.
 
Once an image is compressed to JPEG your pretty screwed in regards to any serious photo post processing and you've already lost tons of pixel quality and important image information.

Jpeg is fine for the novice hobby happy snapper, but for serious post pro Photographer then RAW is the way to go.

Getting it right in the camera is a bit of a myth, even pros don't get right in the camera most times, you can get close in the camera, but never perfect .
 
FirebrandNIRE said:
Once an image is compressed to JPEG your pretty screwed in regards to any serious photo post processing and you've already lost tons of pixel quality and important image information.

Jpeg is fine for the novice hobby happy snapper, but for serious post pro Photographer then RAW is the way to go.

Getting it right in the camera is a bit of a myth, even pros don't get right in the camera most times, you can get close in the camera, but never perfect .
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

You can do far more with a JPEG in PP than most people think without any noticeable loss of quality. What kills quality is saving and resaving every time you change anything which compounds the compression, but doing it once or twice on a fine quality JPEG is virtually invisible. And if you get things right in camera in the first place, you shouldn't need to do much anyway.

You can get it 100% right in camera, and many professionals shoot nothing else. They haven't got time for post processing, and neither have the publications they work for. Wait for the Olympics - that will all be shot straight to JPEG.

Edit: A JPEG is a methematical compression. It reduces file sizes, but doesn't lose a single pixel. For example, if you have an area of plain tone, like a sky for example, you can either write that as 01010101 four million times, or 01x4m. That's how it works with a Fine quality JPEG, simply locking groups of common tones together mathematically.
 
Last edited:
michae222 said:
the big question, to shoot jpeg or in raw. I am new to dslr photography and am interested in which way to go.It seems to me raw is a lot of hasel for only a little more benefit albeit better but is it worth it
What dose everyone else think?
Click to expand...

I use RAW and Photoshop cs5 better then Jpeg IMO;)
 
HoppyUK said:
Edit: A JPEG is a methematical compression. It reduces file sizes, but doesn't lose a single pixel. For example, if you have an area of plain tone, like a sky for example, you can either write that as 01010101 four million times, or 01x4m. That's how it works with a Fine quality JPEG, simply locking groups of common tones together mathematically.
Click to expand...

Fractals n'est pas?

I shoot raw simply because with my camera it gives me so much headroom that I don't really need to use filters, I can do it in PP.

Funnily enough, the more I shoot the more I am shooting in JPG because I recognise the situations where raw won't really help so I have set up some in camera profiles to get what I want without any extra effort.
 
Last edited:
In my experience Jpeg images are all too often too flat.
RAW processed images come to life and have added dynamic. And I'm not referring to filters which any third party app can throw in and can either make or break an image, but rather subtitle enhancements that are simply just not possible in the camera.
 
Nawty said:
Fractals n'est pas?

I shoot raw simply because with my camera it gives me so much headroom that I don't really need to use filters, I can do it in PP.

Funnily enough, the more I shoot the more I am shooting in JPG because I recognise the situations where raw won't really help so I have set up some in camera profiles to get what I want without any extra effort.
Click to expand...

And, having sung the praises of JPEG, I'll happily admit that I shoot Raw now too (and JPEG). I used to shoot JPEG only, but that was when (not so long ago) a 1Gb memory card was £100.

Another big change for me was Lightroom, which is such an easy programme to work using Raw - I never got on with Photoshop, or any other previous PP software, that seemed like a lot of effort for very little benefit.

I've since reworked a lot of old JPEG images in Lightroom, so I know how much you can do - and it's quite a lot. Lighten, darken and correcting colour balance is easy. But you can't work on any data that the JPEG has deleted, and the most noticeable thing I find there is over-exposed skies that can get completely clipped when it hits the JPEG ceiling. Even if there's only a tiny bit of detail there, you can rescue it from the Raw. Ditto things like shiny cheeks and foreheads. It's not enough to make a slik purse so to speak, but every little helps when you're after that last little bit of quality.
 
FirebrandNIRE said:
In my experience Jpeg images are all too often too flat.
Click to expand...

Only if they aren't PP'd properly. As Hoppy said, there's very little that you can do with a RAW file that you can't do with a Jpeg, apart from the loss of some of the dynamic range.

The simple answer is to shoot in whichever format suits the situation and your requirements, but only experience and practice can tell you what that is.
 
I use Adobe Lightroom as a primary work flow editor then a little PShop.
Lightroom is probably the best workflow software available.
 
I use Raw but im just a happy snapper at the moment so could get away with Jpeg,But i allways think i might get a great shot where adjustments would make it better so thats why i use Raw.

When i get my flash im going to be using it alot more so Raw will be very handy then,Should get my Nifty Fifty on tuesday so then im halfway there just need to sort out the flash as alot of my pictures are indoors.
 
HoppyUK said:
And, having sung the praises of JPEG, I'll happily admit that I shoot Raw now too (and JPEG). I used to shoot JPEG only, but that was when (not so long ago) a 1Gb memory card was £100.

Another big change for me was Lightroom, which is such an easy programme to work using Raw - I never got on with Photoshop, or any other previous PP software, that seemed like a lot of effort for very little benefit.

I've since reworked a lot of old JPEG images in Lightroom, so I know how much you can do - and it's quite a lot. Lighten, darken and correcting colour balance is easy. But you can't work on any data that the JPEG has deleted, and the most noticeable thing I find there is over-exposed skies that can get completely clipped when it hits the JPEG ceiling. Even if there's only a tiny bit of detail there, you can rescue it from the Raw. Ditto things like shiny cheeks and foreheads. It's not enough to make a slik purse so to speak, but every little helps when you're after that last little bit of quality.
Click to expand...


Totally. With Lightroom it doesn't really matter what format you shoot. Take your shots, import, edit and select, export for various uses - it makes not a jot if the original is raw or JPG.

Blown highlight recovery, boosting shadows and having all the info for WB adjustment is why I shoot raw, I just wish I could afford the underwater housing for my D700 :gag:
 
HoppyUK said:
Nonsense.

You can do far more with a JPEG in PP than most people think without any noticeable loss of quality. What kills quality is saving and resaving every time you change anything which compounds the compression, but doing it once or twice on a fine quality JPEG is virtually invisible. And if you get things right in camera in the first place, you shouldn't need to do much anyway.

You can get it 100% right in camera, and many professionals shoot nothing else. They haven't got time for post processing, and neither have the publications they work for. Wait for the Olympics - that will all be shot straight to JPEG.

Edit: A JPEG is a methematical compression. It reduces file sizes, but doesn't lose a single pixel. For example, if you have an area of plain tone, like a sky for example, you can either write that as 01010101 four million times, or 01x4m. That's how it works with a Fine quality JPEG, simply locking groups of common tones together mathematically.
Click to expand...


Really? :cuckoo:
 
Oggy said:
Really? :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

You don't lose pixels, not with a highest quality JPEG, eg fine or super-fine or whatever different manufacturers call it. Sure you do if you start crunching them down to really tiny files for web output or whatever.

The reduction in file size is obtained by locking clusters of common tones/pixels together mathematically. But they're all still there, you just can't separate them out individually and can only process/reprocess them in clusters.

Edit: you lose very subtle tonal range, not sharpness. In fact you gain sharpness, as that is applied in the JPEG process.
 
Last edited:
dont blow the highlights in the first place, job done :)

"save as" the JPEG and you always have a master copy, job done again :)



i shoot JPEG fine [nikon]

i have never regarded photoshop [or whatever] as a tool to remedy poor technique.
i always aim to get a good photo to start with same as i did with my film negatives.
i hate hdr so i dont need it for that either.
my Cf cards hold lots of photos and so does my computer :)

the choice is yours
 
I am also new to cameras never mind dslr.

Had mine a week and have been taking jpegs. Now thinking of shooting raw going forward as I'm on a massive learning curve already so may as well learn this at the same time.

I'm also downloading gimp today to use going forward may as well learn that also.
 
straycat said:
dont blow the highlights in the first place, job done :)

"save as" the JPEG and you always have a master copy, job done again
Click to expand...

:lol::lol: It is all too easy to shout that from the rooftops but imo it dont happen like that in real life. As with Hoppyuk stating that you can get it 100% right in camera :thinking: That will always be the case with controlled lighting in a studio or outside with lighting stands reflectors etc, but try doing it with birds or wildlife. You can be in a situation where you have your subject in the frame, it might still be sat there 2 minutes later it might be gone 3 seconds later :shrug: An overhead branch moving in the wind or a cloud passing your only light source can change your settings instantly, I have seen my shutter speed drop from 1/400 to 1/60 in the blink of an eye when using spot metering as an example. Depending on the markings of the bird this can in turn blow the highlights. The same as tracking a subject in flight or on the move on a lake, your subject changes direction the light is hitting it from a different angle and is now being lit in a completely different way. And you can recover as much with JPEG as I could with a RAW file? I dont believe that for one minute ;)
 
"And you can recover as much with JPEG as I could with a RAW file? I dont believe that for one minute"

???



well i shoot at night rock and roll at night and birds and wildlife during the day.
i dont think i better shoot raw in case the light changes etc.i get the photo riight in the camera as i dont want to spend ages on photoshop.
ie. that is i dont need to recover a photo.
 
straycat said:
"And you can recover as much with JPEG as I could with a RAW file? I dont believe that for one minute"

???



well i shoot at night rock and roll at night and birds and wildlife during the day.
i dont think i better shoot raw in case the light changes etc.i get the photo riight in the camera as i dont want to spend ages on photoshop.
ie. that is i dont need to recover a photo.
Click to expand...

:thinking: You might need to rephrase that as I am confused now as to what format you use:shrug:
 
Last edited:
straycat said:
"And you can recover as much with JPEG as I could with a RAW file? I dont believe that for one minute"

???

well i shoot at night rock and roll at night and birds and wildlife during the day.
i dont think i better shoot raw in case the light changes etc.i get the photo riight in the camera as i dont want to spend ages on photoshop.
ie. that is i dont need to recover a photo.
Click to expand...

You can usually recover up to two stops of EV in Jpeg, but up to 5 stops in RAW - that is a huge difference. Sometimes you need to recover areas of a photograph in a situation that has a high dynamic range.

There is basically no such thing as the right way, or only way, to take a photo. Some circumstances suit Jpeg better, others RAW.
 
i dont need to shoot raw because i dont need to "recover" [which infers there is something wrong] any photos.


and i said i dont like hdr


i do agree shoot raw if you want to :)
 
straycat said:
i dont need to shoot raw because i dont need to "recover" [which infers there is something wrong] any photos.


and i said i dont like hdr


i do agree shoot raw if you want to :)
Click to expand...

That is fair enough but like I say what you and Hoppy came out with imo are very bold statements. Do not take this as an arguement ;) but for example if your pictures were that good in camera why the need then for Elements in your PP:shrug: Surely the Nikon software would be more than capable of dealing with the minimal editing you would do. I am not saying which is right or wrong to use but I think it is fair that the OP be told to have a go at using both and see how he gets on with it. There have been umpteen topics on raw v jpeg, not only on TP but various other sites. I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion would be to shoot RAW or at least have a backup of your pictures in it.
 
straycat said:
i dont need to shoot raw because i dont need to "recover" [which infers there is something wrong] any photos.
Click to expand...

A photographic God..................:clap:
 
u8myufo said:
That is fair enough but like I say what you and Hoppy came out with imo are very bold statements. Do not take this as an arguement ;) but for example if your pictures were that good in camera why the need then for Elements in your PP:shrug: Surely the Nikon software would be more than capable of dealing with the minimal editing you would do. I am not saying which is right or wrong to use but I think it is fair that the OP be told to have a go at using both and see how he gets on with it. There have been umpteen topics on raw v jpeg, not only on TP but various other sites. I think it would be fair to say that the general opinion would be to shoot RAW or at least have a backup of your pictures in it.
Click to expand...

What are these bold statements that you seem to disagree with? I said the same thing in my first post!

"As a beginner, unless you really want to dive into post processing right away, shoot both. Spent a little time tweaking the pictures styles (contrast, sharpness, colour, saturation etc) so you get a decent result straight out of the camera. But keep the Raws so that if you snap a masterpiece and want to squeeze every last drop of quality out of it, or need to go back and try to rescue a disaster, you have all the original data to work on."
 
HoppyUK said:
What are these bold statements that you seem to disagree with? I said the same thing in my first post!

"As a beginner, unless you really want to dive into post processing right away, shoot both. Spent a little time tweaking the pictures styles (contrast, sharpness, colour, saturation etc) so you get a decent result straight out of the camera. But keep the Raws so that if you snap a masterpiece and want to squeeze every last drop of quality out of it, or need to go back and try to rescue a disaster, you have all the original data to work on."
Click to expand...

What I referre to Richard is you saying that " You can get it 100% right in camera " That means every shot imo, I think the law of averages would prove otherwise. Yes anybody can get a useable JPEG from camera but when you quote something like the Olympic games then those photographers are in a position to run off thousands of shots to get the few that will be used and no doubt thousands of images will be trashed in the process. The way I look at it is like this, I have spent hard earnt cash on my kit. Yes I can shoot JPEG and get it good but feel I needed to shoot RAW to get the full potential from all of it. Maybe that is the wrong school of thought :shrug:
 
u8myufo said:
What I referre to Richard is you saying that " You can get it 100% right in camera " That means every shot imo, I think the law of averages would prove otherwise. Yes anybody can get a useable JPEG from camera but when you quote something like the Olympic games then those photographers are in a position to run off thousands of shots to get the few that will be used and no doubt thousands of images will be trashed in the process. The way I look at it is like this, I have spent hard earnt cash on my kit. Yes I can shoot JPEG and get it good but feel I needed to shoot RAW to get the full potential from all of it. Maybe that is the wrong school of thought :shrug:
Click to expand...

No, I don't disagree with that at all.

Maybe that comment I made was badly expressed, though I think I've made it clear later that there is sometimes more to be had from a Raw file, if only in the area of highlight recovery.

Yes, you can often get a JPEG 100% right SOOC, depending on the subject and how you set up the camera (HTP, AOL, picture styles. Exposure!). Or near enough right most of the time, and that's plenty good enough for very many professionals. That was the point about the Olympics.
 
HoppyUK said:
No, I don't disagree with that at all.

Maybe that comment I made was badly expressed, though I think I've made it clear later that there is sometimes more to be had from a Raw file, if only in the area of highlight recovery.

Yes, you can often get a JPEG 100% right SOOC, depending on the subject and how you set up the camera (HTP, AOL, picture styles. Exposure!). Or near enough right most of the time, and that's plenty good enough for very many professionals. That was the point about the Olympics.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: The thing is Richard there are no doubt people that can make a stunning job of editing a Jpeg file, however without the software and experience your average Joe blogs like myself could not achieve such results. What I found, was that it was far easier for me to get to my final image using Raw than it was messing about trying to alter a Jpeg :shrug:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top