RAW vs JPG, should I start shooting in raw?

[penfold1]

Well, I have always shot in JPG just because I did not want to deal with the extra hassle of converting images to JPG.

Is it worth my time to start shooting in RAW and post-editing each photo?

Thanks for any information you can give me.
-Penfold

 

[dEARlEADER]

are you happy with your jpegs?

 

[nynfortoo]

Try it and see. It's the only way you'll truly know.

 

[RyanLilly]

yes

 

[RyanLilly]

no

 

[nymtber]

I shot a few in RAW yesterday, with Photoshop CS3 and whatever RAW plugin my Sony A200 software installed, I convert my RAW files to .TIFF or .JPEG in photoshop, the sony RAW program is SLOW. That said if im just snapping pictures ill be shooting .jpeg because it makes great pictures and less work. I did save a very poorly lit (took under tree) picture of my girlfriend using photoshop, the original was a jpeg. Editing RAW leaves a few more options...

If you dont wanna do the work, shoot in JPEG, but Use raw for those very very important pictures when your going to want the best quality, portraits, macro, landscape with tripod, etc.

Photoshop is FUN I havnt even touched on anything yet. Just basic image editing!

 

[Overread]

There is a good RAW vs JPEG comparison here -
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm
3 pages, but welll worth reading

Also for editing here is a run through of RAW editing:
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/workflow_basic/workflow_basic.htm

Personally I think if you have a 4GB memory card then shooting RAW is the best way to go. 2BG and 1BG cards tend to fill up rather quick when shooting whilst with 4BG you can get around 400 shots with RAW.

 

[Moglex]

I can't speak for other manufacturers but the utility Canon provides makes dealing with RAW a breeze.

You simply download the RAW files then tell the program to process them all with the standard setting and go and make a cup of tea.

(It's not the niftiest of programs - a lot slower than the camera doing it - I hope that's because it's using a more sophisticated algorithm).

Now you have a set of JPG/TIFF files and if any of them look as if they may need special treatment you can go back and 'develop' them with non standard parameters.

Obviously if you know in advance that some images will need separate treatment you can accommodate that.

But apart from the short wait whilst the images are initially processed (and the extra storage required both in the camera and on the PC) there's very little downside and you know that if necessary you have the extra flexibility of individually treating any image that requires it.

Of course, if you have enough space on your memory card you can usually shoot RAW+jpg and eliminate the initial processing phase.

 

[DWS]

if you are totally satisfied with your jpg's stick with them; however, if you sometimes or often think "it could be better", then go RAW

 

[Bifurcator]

If you are editing them, shoot Raw
If you are directly printing them, shoot JPG

Seconded!

And I add: Only if you know some photoshop technique.

 

[penfold1]

thanks everyone. Pictures can always be improved, so raw it is for now on!

 

[taracor]

Well, I mean you can edit Jpegs, the thing with RAW is if you know exactly how you are going to edit it, THEN you use it..(ie set white balance and exposure compensation)

As long as you don't save over it, you can edit Jpegs without too much quality loss. Especially if you turn it into a tiff first, and work off that, which is what I and a lot of other people do.

 

[JerryPH]

I've shot 90% in RAW and been happy with the results. This after shooting RAW+JPG and then comparing the results. The JPGs that come from personalized PPing starting from RAW files are always superior in my case. Even PPing the JPGs, the results are closer, but still not quite equal.

The RAWs files contain nuances that are just not there if you process or edit a JPG... even if you start from a JPG.

Try both, use what you find works better for you.

 

[Garbz]

Also don't by into the crap that RAW files are harder to use than JPEGs because RAWs need to be edited. Any competent image processing program keeps the process identical to both.

RAWs need to be converted. Printing them in a program that recognises the RAW format like Photoshop, Aperture, Lightroom, Bible Pro, AcdSee Pro2, ... does just that. Leave everything as defaults and you're only 1 single key press worse off than JPEG files.

 

[nynfortoo]

Funnily enough, too, my iView Media Pro program loads in my RAW files much quicker than JPGs, so it's actually quicker for me to browse RAW files.

Flipping through JPGs in iView, I'm left with 1-second or so delay from rotating my scroll wheel to seeing the image. It's almost instant with RAW.