RAW

Raw is the unprocessed image format that is recorded by your camera.

When you take a picture and save as a JPG you camera processes the image in accordance with the picture style you have chosen by default (standard, vivid, sepia and so on).

When you camera does this it makes a decision on how the final image will look and discards all of the information it doesn't need to achieve the same result.

The problem this presents is that if you want to use the information it has chopped, you can't as it is forever lost. So if you want to rescue an underexposed image or change the white balance or do some heavy processing, your options are limited.

Shooting in raw stores the image exactly as the camera "saw it" no post processing is done in camera. This means that all the information is present to be used - allowing you to pull detail out of blown highlights or lighten deep shadow.

This means that you initially notice two things about raw images - they are very big and they look flat, soft and lifeless.

In order to bring life to your raw files they need to be post processed using adobe raw, lightroom or the software supplied with your camera. Once processed you can save the finished image as jpg and retain the raw for processing in other ways.

So raw advantages:
Flexibility in processing
The ability to rescue images

Disadvantages
They are big
The need processing
They are manufacturer specific

JPG Advantages
Relatively Small File Size
Ability to use straight out of camera

JPG Disadvantages
Format is lossy and discards information, which gives more limited post processing options

As for which to choose - it really is up to you. My advice is that if space is a premium or you have total control over lighting and other inputs, jpg is great.

If you want total control over your images and are prepared to put some work in on PP, then the power of raw is unmatched.

Others will of course have different opinions, but I hope this helps a bit!

EDIT - this was a quick reply - so I may have missed some bits!
 
Last edited:
TBH most DSLR's have little difference in write times for RAW or JPGs, I think your issue may be because of the type of camera rather than the file type.
Using a decent peice of software like Lightroom to keep your files in order means its actually alot better than saving jpgs straight from the card to the PC.
With a RAW in Lightroom, the program imports the files to folders and arranges them however you choose. (I use day/month/year).
You then process your file and export it as a JPG to a seperate folder. The RAW file
stays untouched in its original folder.
Should you feel later down the line that you want to re-edit a particular photo, simply re edit the RAW in Lightroom and then export it again. You can do this as many times as you wish.
This makes producing different size, resolutions, edits, watermarked, non watermarked versions of the same image easy and keeps everything organised efficiently.
 
I've recently started trying out RAW but so far I've not found many positives.
Click to expand...

Don't worry too much Edward - I think this is everyones experience!

Raw is very powerful, but it's not uncommon for novice rawists to kind of think "what's all the fuss about?"

Developing (no pun intended) a good raw workflow is pretty essential to really getting to grips with it as a format. I remember when I loaded up the first version of lightroom it was like a moment of revelation that really allowed me to press ahead with raw (which I use 90% of the time these days). Nowadays I can process raws in a similar time it takes to do a JPG. So much so I just kind of naturally assume that DSLRs shoot in raw and that's the standard format (just as film cameras used film that needed processing)
 
Last edited:
One other thing to remember is that whilst both raw and jpeg file are compressed files, raw is a loss less compresion and jpeg is a lossy compression.

also, you need never have a jpeg version of a file; you can convert from raw to TIFF and then work on the TIFF version in photoshop.
 
mortimerhill said:
One other thing to remember is that whilst both raw and jpeg file are compressed files, raw is a loss less compresion and jpeg is a lossy compression.

also, you need never have a jpeg version of a file; you can convert from raw to TIFF and then work on the TIFF version in photoshop.
Click to expand...

I always shoot in Raw, but find with a careful workflow I can use JPEG once I've done all the initial conversions. By using the highest quality settings and converting to 16bit colour to do any colour sensitive work.

I've never felt the need to use TIFF as an intermediate format, although many photographers do, I can't see the gains. RAW, convert to JPEG, Pixel level editing in PS, export smaller JPEGs if required.
 
Agree that it is workflow dependant. I use the very basic iPhoto on Mac to store and edit all of my images. The fact they are raw and will need some changes applied makes no difference to me as I usually tweak jpegs too. Using raws slows nothing down as they upload quickly, and process quickly.
I have however had cameras where Apple don't recognise the raw format and it was a pain in the neck to use the provided software that was always slower and didn't work as well, had to convert and move the keepers to iPhoto as that is where I store etc,.
So I have seen both sides to the workflow and the latter put me off using raw but luckily my current cameras raw files are readable by Mac.
 
If you go to the bottom of this page http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm there are some articles on raw.
There might be more info. than you want but some of the other articles on the site are good as well :)
He mentions TIFF files as part of the raw process but, as others have mentioned, that does not always have to be the case.
 
Last edited:
Apart from having no idea what the poster was on about with his loss loss and lossy comments (that's lost me for starters!) can you edit photos shot in RAW in Adobe Photoshop Elements? Or do you have to purchase new/different softawre.
and is there a simple idot's guide to what Lightroom is?

Yup, I'm a very novie novice!
 
the best starting point for learning about lightroom is adobe's website - they have loads of articles and tutorials on there.

But in a nutshell Lightroom allows you to:

1) Import images into a catalogue, which can then be keyworded to allow searching and filtering (very useful for finding images in a big catalogue)

2) Sort, Rate and reject images

3) Process 1 or multiple images in a method analogous to a dark room

4) Export process images to disk, web, email or another editining package

5) Create slideshows for web, disk and in version 4, video has been added.
6) Create print packages and print images.

7) Version 4 allow geotagged images to be displayed on a map too - but I have yet to work out if that's a good thing (I suspect it is having been able to relive my journey from Nairobi to Dar Es Salaam!).

Elements should import raws, however if you have a newer camera and an older copy of elements you may need to update your software.

Lightroom 4 currently costs around £100 and is amazing value.
 
Last edited:
TheMole said:
Apart from having no idea what the poster was on about with his loss loss and lossy comments (that's lost me for starters!) can you edit photos shot in RAW in Adobe Photoshop Elements? Or do you have to purchase new/different softawre.
and is there a simple idot's guide to what Lightroom is?

Yup, I'm a very novie novice!
Click to expand...

Some file formats (jpg in particular) discard image information to reduce the physical size of the file created - this is called "lossy" as in it loses information. Typically, if you have a picture with lots of very similar colour (maybe a blue sky) the jpg conversion will group areas of the image together and give them a single RGB level. This saves file space and therefore size but straight out of the cazmera the image quality is perfectly acceptable for most hobby use. A major problem with jpg files is that if you open a jpg and re-save it again it does the same lossy conversion all over again and you progressively get smaller files with poorer image quality and can begin to see "blocky" areas in skies/shadows/etc.

Raw files, in contrast, are generally lossless although some cameras also do a small amount of compression. This is great for post processing as it gives you much wider latitude for making changes. The downside - of course there had to be one - is that raw images always need editing as your editing software doesn't know what the settings (white balance, sharpness, contrast, etc) in your camera were so the image is (generally) flat - has low contrast - not as sharp as it could be and may have a colour cast - white balance wrong.

Can your version of Elements open raw files? Yes. It uses a plug-in called Abobe Camera Raw (ACR for short) which is a free download from the Adobe web site. Elements has ACR included as standard but if you have a new camera you may have to get the latest version from the web site.

Lightroom is basically a photo cataloguing program that also has most of the editing features needed by a photographer. LR can also handle raw files.

Hope that helps :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top