Edit in RAW format then Convert to Jpeg?

[Box801]

Hello everyone, will I get better edits if I adjust the photo in RAW format first then convert it to jpeg? Will it make a large enough difference to do this? All I am really doing is posting image to Flickr, not really getting prints.

 

[mrmacedonian]

Yes you want to edit the photograph in Photoshop Camera RAW or another program such as Lightroom or a variety of other programs. Once you're done editing then use the software to export a copy of the edited version as a JPG, not necessarily convert the original file. you want to keep the RAW as well as save the edit's settings in a .xml file, which Camera RAW and Lightroom do when you File -> Save while/after editing.

 

[LCARSx32]

Are you already shooting in RAW and want to know if you should do post processing? If you're shooting in RAW, you'll definitely want to pp the pictures. RAW is raw sensor data. It hasn't had white balance applied, sharpening, saturation, etc. You'll need to do it.

If you're currently shooting in JPG and are asking if you should shoot in RAW, then that depends. If you want a lot of control over your images in post processing, you'll want to shoot in RAW. RAW gives you the most control possible. You can generally get a better picture shooting in RAW than JPG. The algorithms photo editing software employs is much more than your camera can do.

If you only want to do minimal post processing, then JPG's fine.

 

[Big Mike]

Why Raw -- Part I

 

[786soul]

Definately do as the others above said. I usually go from a RAW file to a TIF file, then do some more editing and crops on that. Mainly because I hope to print some of these files. If it's for the internet I save it as a jpeg from there and resize it for the web.

 

[LarryD]

This question is always one that recurs as new (and old) photographers explore the art more fully..

............ The real answer is "It all depends"

Many professionals shoot in jpeg.. They download their already finished image and ship it off.. no more processing necessary.

The thing to remember is that jpeg is a "lossy" format, and so if you process it over and over, and even that jpeg image out of the camera; you lose some data each time you save that re-edited image. Eventually you don't have much data left.. That may not be a bad thing if you don't ever edit more than once. Your jpeg will pretty much stay the way it is as long as you want.

So, to answer your question just as you asked it:

No, you might not get "better" edits processing in RAW first, then converting to jpeg. But what you will get is the ability to process it some; save it and look it over or have lunch, come back, reprocess it a bit more; or even go back to it next year when you get new software or want to run it through a de-noise program.. or simply reset your RAW data back to square one.


Personally, I don't usually do any processing to a jpeg file (I do save a number of finished files in TIFF though, especially if a lot of time went into the processing). Jpeg is a final conversion for the web or perhaps a disc for a friend or relative (or customer), and once it's uploaded, it gets deleted - I can always make another from the RAW image, or simply convert the finished TIFF if I ever need one..

 

[vtf]

As far as better depends on your eye and ability to process the image. For some people its easier to take the picture and let the camera do the post processing. Others have the eye. Just posting to flicker for friends I would just shoot jpeg myself.

 

[Flash Harry]

^^^Me too, for proofs or upload just jpeg sooc crops, raws get work for printing or effect not to give me extra pp time, I can live without sitting in front of this box all day long. H