Another Raw/Jpeg question.

AdrianBetti · Jul 2, 2008

So if I shot something in .RAW then went in photoshop and made it into a jpeg for use, would that be the same as if I shot it in JPEG in the first place?

MACollum · Jul 2, 2008

No, because you could apply your own settings to the image, rather than the camera's settings. The other benefit to shooting in RAW is that you always have the sensor data and can go back and change your editing at any time and have another version of the same picture, with a higher quality than you would have if you edited over and over. Or you can go back later and edit again when you have more experience or learn a new technique. This is something I do all the time.

Rachelsne · Jul 2, 2008

agreed

when shooting in Raw you have much more freedom when it comes to fixing any pictures that need tweaking

Dmitri · Jul 3, 2008

When you load it in photoshop, you get to load it first in a program called Adobe Camera Raw which lets you do a lot to the photo first - like change the white balance, exposure settings, etc. These are things that, once jpeged, can't really be undone (or require a lot of effort).

Just be careful - I have found that it is also pretty unforgiving. Many people (including myself) find that when shooting in Raw, you need a low ISO (100 or 200) to avoid tons of noise that have to be fixed later, and not always easy

Also, Raw takes up HUGE space. So if you shoot a lot, be prepared to buy an extra memory card :lol:

Mav · Jul 3, 2008

AdrianBetti said:
So if I shot something in .RAW then went in photoshop and made it into a jpeg for use, would that be the same as if I shot it in JPEG in the first place?

No because the in-camera RAW to JPEG conversion uses a lot of highly proprietary algorithms as far as image processing and noise reduction that isn't matched by third-party RAW converters. They only do their best guess, own implementation, or best reverse engineering of what the camera maker's as-shot settings would have made a JPEG look like. Some third-party RAW software conversion manufacturers have quietly admitted that they simply can't keep up with what the camera makers are doing with their in-camera JPEG processing nowadays. The newer Nikons from the D300 on up take care of chromatic aberration (color fringing) issues right in the camera RAW to JPEG processing! You lose that if you shoot RAW. I don't even think it's included in Nikon's own external Capture NX software yet for computer based RAW editing.

If you like the look you can get with RAW or a third-party editor and the extra editing capability it gives you and don't mind the extra space and time, by all means shoot RAW. I've always been quite pleased by the JPEG output of my Nikons though, and hence little reason for me to bother with RAW.