The RAW vs Jpeg debate

VaE39 · Jun 23, 2009

I've been shooting for about 2 years now and had yet to shoot in RAW. After reading all these debates I decided to shoot in RAW to test it out so I could be able to adjust and save pictures. So after coming back from just a random shoot to see the results, I put the pictures on my pc and I can't open the files. Is there a program typically used to view them? Or should I just go back to shooting JPEG?

BTW I just got the new macbook pro and photoshop cs4...well its on its way soon. Would I be able to view RAW files on that?

adamwilliamking · Jun 23, 2009

I didn't know there was a debate..

Adobe ACR is probably the most well known, it is a plug in that you can download for photoshop. Search that, or Capture NX any of the name brand ones. Or I think iPhoto can read them now as well, but you have your important blue PC! so i dunno... ?

icassell · Jun 23, 2009

RAW files are proprietary for each manufacturer. You should have a reader on the software disk that came with your camera. If you don't, your CS4 should take care of that problem -- it is packaged with Adobe Camera Raw which is up-to-date with most of the common RAW file formats. Even though I have a couple of RAW decoders (including Canon's own and Capture One), I use Adobe Camera Raw.

anastasiaphoto · Jun 23, 2009

Once you get your macbook pro and CS4 you will be able to view your RAW files.
Use Adobe Bridge to view RAW files, also to edit in the Bridge camera raw adjustment area (which is amazing)

Please don't ever shoot in Jpeg again.

Best of luck!

TriniPhototakeoutta · Jun 23, 2009

quick question. what is the real advantage of shooting in RAW? is it that jpeg is a compressed format and RAW is uncompressed so you can edit better with RAW photos?

musicaleCA · Jun 23, 2009

With JPEG, your camera interprets the sensor data, and adds sharpening (rather dumbly), vibrance, contrast and so on to the image, then discards all the original sensor data and outputs an 8 bits/channel JPEG, which is compressed and contains far less data than the RAW file.

RAW files are simply the raw, untouched data from the sensor, and are 16bits/channel. They contain way, way more information which allows for far more accurate and effective post-processing, and also allows certain tools to be used that are useless on JPEG.

(Some) Advantages of shooting RAW:

-accurate adjustment of white balance in PP
-highlight recovery (recovery of blown-out highlights, to an extent)
-accurate adjustment of exposure
-recovery of clipped blacks (to an extent)
-control over sharpening
-far more accurate saturation and vibrance and saturation adjustments for particular colours
-it makes you breakfast in the morning...</sarcasm>

manaheim · Jun 23, 2009

I would respectfully encourage using search on this topic. It has been discussed ad nauseum, probably at least 1-2 times a week. Lots of very valuable information to be had.

aklaube87 · Jun 24, 2009

Professionally, stick with Adobe (much more settings and options to tweak).

If you're just doing some basic editing, Google Picasa (free) is a good way to view and organize your RAW photos.

TriniPhototakeoutta · Jun 24, 2009

oh ok. thanks musicaleCA. understand it now, RAW=better post processing. i'll search the forums, thanks manaheim.

manaheim · Jun 24, 2009

:thumbup: search is king. :sexywink:

benlonghair · Jun 24, 2009

What is there to debate? Go out, shoot a bunch of pics in RAW, then shoot a bunch of pics in JPEG and download them and do post processing. If you're happy with the info and results you get from JPEG, shoot JPEG. If you like the extra adjustments you get with RAW (personally I like GIMP and UFRaw cause they're free) use RAW. It's not that hard.

VaE39 · Jun 24, 2009

Thanks for the help everyone. I figured RAW is the way to go but I shot 1 time in RAW and I couldn't view it so I switched back to Jpeg like a noob haha. I've just heard people say for a beginner its better to learn before relying on RAW to fix white balance and what not

musicaleCA · Jun 24, 2009

Bah, of course it's better to learn, but there's a difference between reliance and using RAW to fix those little mistakes you might make starting-out. I started on RAW, and it saved me a couple times when I forgot to change my WB (fluorescent WB in daylight is just a little cold :greenpbl: ). As long as you take the time to learn from the mistakes that RAW will save you from (to an extent) in PP, I'd say you're good. Besides, it's probably easier to understand some other concepts, like sharpening, with RAW (because the camera hasn't touched the image).