The RAW vs Jpeg debate

VaE39 · Jun 24, 2009

musicaleCA said:
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).

Good point haha. Never thought of it like that.

Sounds like my 7 year old laptop isn't working for me anymore. I can only view 1 picture at a time or she'll freeze up. Good thing I got another one on the way.

musicaleCA · Jun 24, 2009

7 years? Whoa. I step-down the use on a computer after three (that is to say that I get a new computer and stop using the old one for anything resource intensive)...

zsparks · Jun 24, 2009

N0YZE said:
Heck, even Google's Picasa application can view them.

Its a great tool if you can't run or afford lightroom.

aklaube87 · Jun 25, 2009

I actually don't mind Picasa too much as I mentioned earlier. Its noob, but is quite convenient, as almost all google products

benlonghair · Jun 25, 2009

GIMP and UFRaw are both free and work pretty well.

benjikan · Jun 25, 2009

Let me give you a simple analogy. JPEG vs RAW is akin to Slide film vs Negative film. To get your exposures tack on with slides, you have to be within 1/2-2/3 of stop to get a good slide exposure. Once the slide is shot, that is it, game over. I used to shoot slides, because I knew my metering and what the outcome was and as a result, I generally got very good exposures. RAW is analogous to negative film, in that you can be 2-3 stops over or under and still get detail out of the image. Thus the reason for calling it DNG (Digital Negative). RAW files have a lot more latitude than JPEG does and can reveal detail that would be considered lost in JPEG. It is for this reason that I always shoot RAW for all of my pro shoots.

aklaube87 · Jun 25, 2009

One of the best explanations I've heard thus far, I appreciate the clarification. I've personally just started using RAW last year and 've seen a world of change for the better. There's a lot more detail/information, hence they're about twice as large. I always felt guilty shooting JPEG as a beginner, knowing that fact; they were just easier to work with. You need to take the step and just shoot eveyrthing in RAW to get used to it.

JerryPH · Jun 25, 2009

Here are a few links found in a 1 second google search:

Let's start off with the immortal Ken Rockwell (thats a joke, ok?)
Next is one from FINN PRODUCTIONS.
Next one is from PHOTODOTO

Now, I can go on and on and on with links, but he bottom line is that the JPG format offers nothing much more than convenience and acceptable final results if you do little to no post processing and suffers from generational losses (every time you save that same JPG over, you lose a couple % of the quality).

- RAW is a lossless format file (save it 10,000 times, it is identical to the original).
- It has the ability to store a greater dynamic range (preserves details in the lightly underexposed and overexposed areas that can be brought back).
- It permits one to correct white balance issues without effort

If one does moderate to heavy post processing on your photos, using a RAW file gives you greater lattitude and a broader range of final results that are the vast majority of the time superior to a file post processed from a JPG source.

A google search came up with over 5.5 million hits on "RAW vs JPG" and 90% of them say the same things I said above, just in different ways..

If you are not too fussy and in a rush, JPGs are fine. If you want to draw out that final touch of a nuance and have a few extra seconds of time, RAW is what you want.

I started out only JPG, but ever since I bought the D200 and migrated to the D700 over the last 2 years, I have shot nothing but RAW. It gives me more and saved my butt more often than I want to admit.

coreduo · Jun 25, 2009

If one intends to have the pics edited, then RAW is the best. Scientifically proven.

aklaube87 · Jun 25, 2009

For casual shooting: After editing a photo and making corrections in RAW, I'd like to send it to family/friends but most cannot open these types files. Any suggestions for a file format to resave it in, size not being an issue?

Bitter Jeweler · Jun 25, 2009

JerryPH · Jun 25, 2009

aklaube87 said:
For casual shooting: After editing a photo and making corrections in RAW, I'd like to send it to family/friends but most cannot open these types files. Any suggestions for a file format to resave it in, size not being an issue?

JPG