JPEG or RAW?

Status
Not open for further replies.
CuppaTia

CuppaTia

Messages
25
Name
Tia
Edit My Images
Yes
This question isn't for anything in particular, at the moment most of my shoots are outdoors. My college said RAW was a waste of memory space and now looking on here, it's quite important!! I'm aiming to do some Out of Focus and Autumn shoots... Maybe some long exposure if I can find my tripod.

Would it be best to take a few on JPEG and RAW or shoot the lot on just one?

2 years in college and I have to start from the basics all over again. So, so I frustrated.
 
An often discussed topic - most recently here...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=442246

Also in the tutorials section
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...d.php?t=210392

The answer for *you* depends on your workflow, what you are going to do with the images etc. So on that basis, given you are still experimenting, why not try both and see which work best for you.

As a general guide - RAW gives more latitude for processing, but uses more space, and (depending on your workflow), can add in an extra step to 'develop' the RAW to an image. Jpeg automates this step in Camera, and in doing so given you smaller 'already processed' images, at the cost of discarding the now superfluous information.

That's not to say you can't further process a jpeg on the PC after, but you have just a little but less information to work with (perhaps a little less detail in the shadows to recover etc). Whether you need this information or not is another question and one for you to find our through trial and error.

I'd recommend reading through the other threads - lots of sometimes polar opinions, but a good source of background to help you make your own decision.
 
I agree - although why not shoot both and see what works best for you :shrug:

More detail ( if lost like blown area's) can be recovered from shooting raw, asraw can be described as a digital negative


I shot RAW and only RAW-but thats a personal choice

Les (y)
 
Furtim said:
An often discussed topic - most recently here...
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=442246

Also in the tutorials section
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...d.php?t=210392

The answer for *you* depends on your workflow, what you are going to do with the images etc. So on that basis, given you are still experimenting, why not try both and see which work best for you.
Click to expand...

I'll have a look at the links and try shooting in both. See what happens!

Thank you both!! :D
 
CuppaTia said:
This question isn't for anything in particular, at the moment most of my shoots are outdoors. My college said RAW was a waste of memory space and now looking on here, it's quite important!! I'm aiming to do some Out of Focus and Autumn shoots... Maybe some long exposure if I can find my tripod.

Would it be best to take a few on JPEG and RAW or shoot the lot on just one?

2 years in college and I have to start from the basics all over again. So, so I frustrated.
Click to expand...

well, I've heard some rubbish in my time- BUT this takes the biscuit

Les :shrug:
 
neil_g said:
loooooooads of discussion on the matter.

to suggest RAW is a "waste of space" is very misleading however. i hope this wasnt on a photography course..
Click to expand...

It was a photography course!! The tutors have let us down terribly. I'm hoping you guys can put me on the right path! :) But thanks everyone!
 
sounds like it- plenty of advice to be had in this forum, all you have to do is ask :D

Les (y)
 
There are reasons for and against shooting Raw / Jpeg.

Memory space is no more than a valid consideration.

You say you're going to be shooting long exposures. That's one time I would certainly be shooting Raw or both as adjustments are often required.
 
Maybe they are suggesting RAW is a waste of space when the images won't be processed beyond what the camera itself will present in the form of a JPEG, which is valid I think. I have loads of RAW files here taking up space, and many of these photos probably won't even be viewed again, as I was just getting top grips with the camera and experimenting.
 
I when though an development phase that probable took a year, when I first started out I'd shoot just JPEG, this was because I didn't really do editing as a I didn't really understand editing....as I started editing and spending more time listening to photographers I started to shoot both RAW and JPEG, but would more than often just use the JPEG as I didn't really have the editing skills or tools to process RAWs as the software I used while good it could render a good RAW>JPEG conversion, the I got some paid software that allowed me to edit RAWs much more comprehensively and as my editing confidence grew I switched to just shooting RAWs and have never really looked back

But that is my story and everyone is different....it depends on your situation as to which is better for you (y)
 
JT74 said:
Maybe they are suggesting RAW is a waste of space when the images won't be processed beyond what the camera itself will present in the form of a JPEG, which is valid I think. I have loads of RAW files here taking up space, and many of these photos probably won't even be viewed again, as I was just getting top grips with the camera and experimenting.
Click to expand...

I see what your saying, maybe that is true. :) We edited A LOT of our work. Studio to landscape and everything in between. Our final pieces were shot in JPEG too. My last piece of work was studio, I was shooting bare backs of people. Detail of the skin was very important... Would've I benefited from shooting in raw in this case? I will have to upload the images when I have a computer to hand.

Also, one tutor tried to do a HDR workshop but it failed miserably!! Would RAW be important for HDR? I'd like to try again.

Thank you all! :)
 
Yeah, I would say RAW is a huge help for any advanced editing, but not essential. Try adjusting the white balance or exposure on the same image in both JPEG and RAW formats, the difference will be obvious.
 
Last edited:
RAW VS JPEG is simple.

Are you going to process the shot on your PC using lightroom or similar?

If yes use RAW, there is a lot more information there and you can do more with it. As an experiment shoot something under exposed in RAW and JPEG and try to adjust the brightness. the RAW result will give you a lot more room for manoeuvre. People moaning about space should spend more on Cards. My 50d Shoots RAW at about 20-25mb a file, an 8gb card can hold about 350 shots and costs £25, not exactly a large sum.

Considering how much people will spend on a lens to get that extra f stop, seems silly to complain about spending a relatively small amount on a card. Even on my busiest shoots I've not filled up 3 cards. I now have 3 8gbs and 1 16gb.

If you don't edit them, then save yourself time as space and shoot jpeg.

I normally just shoot raw because I process everything through lightroom.
 
Not just cards, there is the HD storage issue too. I know storage is not prohibitively expensive, but when you consider cloud backups etc. any space saved is a bonus.
 
You might as well shoot on the lowest possible quality then to save space...

If you are that bothered about space delete the RAW after they have been processed, only put processed JPEGs in the cloud.

A 2tb external HDD costs £65

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-STB..._2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381499893&sr=8-2&keywords=2tb

2tb should hold about 100,000 of my RAW files, which coincidentally is the shutter life of my 50d. I guess I should have a backup too. Assuming I delete NOTHING for £130 I have a double back of EVERY RAW shot my camera will ever take.

That's nothing really is it.
 
That a College teaching a Photography course does not address the Jpeg and RAW options seems very irresponsible to me. They should be showing the students the advantages and disadvantages of both formats. They can then make an informed decision as to which is best for the type of photography they do.

If the idea was to see what the student got correct in camera, then fair enough, but if the students then went on to do any serious editing, then they should be told/showed what can be done with a Jpeg and a RAW file. :wacky:

CuppaTia said:
My last piece of work was studio, I was shooting bare backs of people. Detail of the skin was very important... Would've I benefited from shooting in raw in this case?
Click to expand...

A RAW file has all of the information possible to be recorded by the camera, so if you want to extract the maximum amount of detail/information, it would have been the best option imho. Not to say that you can't get excellent quality Jpegs, but there is just more information to play about with. :shrug:
 
chris-red said:
You might as well shoot on the lowest possible quality then to save space...

If you are that bothered about space delete the RAW after they have been processed, only put processed JPEGs in the cloud.

A 2tb external HDD costs £65

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Seagate-STB..._2?ie=UTF8&qid=1381499893&sr=8-2&keywords=2tb

2tb should hold about 100,000 of my RAW files, which coincidentally is the shutter life of my 50d. I guess I should have a backup too. Assuming I delete NOTHING for £130 I have a double back of EVERY RAW shot my camera will ever take.

That's nothing really is it.
Click to expand...

Ha! It's not me, I'm not bothered at all :D It was the college/tutor that introduced the 'waste of space' notion. I'm just trying to explain why the college/tutor might have said this.
 
As above, where it is dependant on the time scale I have to supply the client.

When supplying motorsport images I shoot jpeg every time as I have a 12 hour turn around time to supply the organisers and production team.

When I shoot weddings it is raw on every shot.

Also if the shooting conditions are harsh I will especially shoot raw, this Saturdays job at a company party I was hired for was fine..... until the party started and then it was literally pitch black so raw shooting, the speedlight was getting hammered then various alterations were needed to get the shots how I wanted.

For a college to suggest that would really say that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

But long and short, if its a quick turn around then jpeg all the time, if its a harsh environment then I always do raw.
 
Ken Rockwell propaganda hits UK colleges. :-(

My daughter has just started A-Level Photography, I'm hoping she doesn't get fed this kind of misinformation.
 
PistolPeteUK said:
KR propaganda hits UK colleges. :-(

My daughter has just started A-Level Photography, I'm hoping she doesn't get fed this kind of misinformation.
Click to expand...

I doubt it's the KR BS effect, well I at least hope it isn't. ;) More likely older lecturers stuck in the past, or that the lecturers don't understand, don't know what to do with the files, or don't have the software to show what to do with RAW files. :bonk:

It would be interesting for the OP to ask why the college thought RAW files were a waste of space.

Be careful of mentioning KR, as he eventually benefits in some way from the publicity. :bang:
 
barratt1988 said:
The argument about size it poor as the jpeg on my camera are 16mb and the raws off my previous where 12mb. Id have raws any day of the week
Click to expand...

:eek: - what have you got thats outputting 16Mb as a jpeg - mine is about 4mb
 
big soft moose said:
Holy **** - what size is a D7100 raw ?
Click to expand...

Well the RAWs out of my 5D3 average about 35mb :D with my record being I think about 41mb I think the D7100 is a similar sized film in MP so I'd assume something similar to be the case :thinking:
 
Having had a think about this thread, I think I can understand why at the start of a photography course using jpg would be an advantage.

It removes the temptation to use raw files as stabilisers - knowing you can pull back a couple of stops when you fluff up the exposure. It gets you concentrating on getting exposure right first-time. It gets you thinking about composition. Ideally, shots should then be printed with no PP and no cropping.

But the next phase should include moving to explore what raw can offer. And then leave it up to the photographer to decide what works for them.
 
Alastair said:
Having had a think about this thread, I think I can understand why at the start of a photography course using jpg would be an advantage.

It removes the temptation to use raw files as stabilisers - knowing you can pull back a couple of stops when you fluff up the exposure. It gets you concentrating on getting exposure right first-time. It gets you thinking about composition. Ideally, shots should then be printed with no PP and no cropping.

But the next phase should include moving to explore what raw can offer. And then leave it up to the photographer to decide what works for them.
Click to expand...

Very good reply,I think you have a very good point :)
 
simonblue said:
Very good reply,I think you have a very good point :)
Click to expand...

I sort of agree. But to me raw is a creative tool rather than a saviour. And I no people go on about bein able to be creative with jpeg but the truth is you are severly limited.

Shoot what ever format you wish. My personal preference is to hold all the data and me decide what to do with it rather than the nikon technician who writes the programs
 
To me one important advantage of RAW is that without degrading the original you can choose how all the tones are mapped throughout the tonal range - this will have not just an aesthetic but an emotional bearing on the result. You still have to get the exposure right (eg when whites are blown there's nothing left there to recover).
 
Alastair said:
Having had a think about this thread, I think I can understand why at the start of a photography course using jpg would be an advantage.

It removes the temptation to use raw files as stabilisers - knowing you can pull back a couple of stops when you fluff up the exposure. It gets you concentrating on getting exposure right first-time. It gets you thinking about composition. Ideally, shots should then be printed with no PP and no cropping.

But the next phase should include moving to explore what raw can offer. And then leave it up to the photographer to decide what works for them.
Click to expand...

Alastair, I think you have a good point. However, I am left uncertain of using manual on DSLR's, I'm not 100% what everything does and all I'm left with is brilliant knowledge of how to analyse other photographers work. I'm practically starting fresh and learning all the basics. Raw never came up in any of our work!
 
sounds like your course was proper pants - but don't worry you are in the right place now - theres some properly gifted togs on here (and some less gifted ones like me ;) ) who will be happy to help you learn all you need to to get the most out of your camera
 
big soft moose said:
sounds like your course was proper pants - but don't worry you are in the right place now - theres some properly gifted togs on here (and some less gifted ones like me ;) ) who will be happy to help you learn all you need to to get the most out of your camera
Click to expand...

Thanks Pete! I need the help big time!
 
Alastair said:
Having had a think about this thread, I think I can understand why at the start of a photography course using jpg would be an advantage.

It removes the temptation to use raw files as stabilisers - knowing you can pull back a couple of stops when you fluff up the exposure. It gets you concentrating on getting exposure right first-time. It gets you thinking about composition. Ideally, shots should then be printed with no PP and no cropping.

But the next phase should include moving to explore what raw can offer. And then leave it up to the photographer to decide what works for them.
Click to expand...
This is interesting, I took part in a 'competition' along these lines, the nearest we had to manipulation was shooting in camera B&W. I don't normally rely on lots of PP tricks but I have to say it was weird shooting JPEGs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top