Is RAW really worth it?

[KmH]

A Raw image file is kind of like a film negative. Though developed, it's not finished yet, and needs some additional work.

No Raw image file editing is done by the camera, but some editing is done out side the camera by the Raw converter software used to make all the 1's and 0's in the file into an image.
Since a Raw file is edited outside the camera, edits can be very subtle, done locally or globally within the image, and can be done very precisely.
Raw image data files have a 12-bit depth (4096 colors per color channel), or a 14-bit depth (16,384 colors per color channel)

JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group) was designed to be a SOOC (Straight Out Of the Camera) edited, finished, ready-to-print file format. JPEG is limited to an 8-bit depth (256 colors per color channel).
The initial JPEG editing done in the camera was decided on by the JPEG team and the team of camera software engineers who would never see your photo but that designed your camera.
Plus, the minimal editing adjustment controls the camera has only offers limited range and only global image adjustments.
Bit depth, JPEG, TIFF, Why Should I Use Raw? - Photo Editing Tutorials

 

[unpopular]

Where did you get that? JPEG predates digital photography by at least a decade.

My guess is that it was designed for digital transmission of photographs as the old AP Wire system was being replaced by ftp....

 

[KmH]

Where did you get that? JPEG predates digital photography by at least a decade.

My guess is that it was designed for digital transmission of photographs as the old AP Wire system was being replaced by ftp....

JPEG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The name "JPEG" stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, the name of the committee that created the JPEG standard and also other still picture coding standards. The "Joint" stood for ISO TC97 WG8 and CCITT SGVIII. In 1987 ISO TC 97 became ISO/IEC JTC1 and in 1992 CCITT became ITU-T. Currently on the JTC1 side JPEG is one of two sub-groups of ISO/IEC Joint Technical Committee 1, Subcommittee 29, Working Group 1 (ISO/IEC JTC 1/SC 29/WG 1) – titled as Coding of still pictures.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP] On the ITU-T side ITU-T SG16 is the respective body. The original JPEG group was organized in 1986,[SUP][6][/SUP] issuing the first JPEG standard in 1992, which was approved in September 1992 as ITU-TRecommendation T.81[SUP][7][/SUP] and in 1994 as ISO/IEC 10918-1.The JPEG standard specifies the codec, which defines how an image is compressed into a stream of bytes and decompressed back into an image, but not the file format used to contain that stream.[SUP][8][/SUP] The Exif and JFIF standards define the commonly used file formats for interchange of JPEG-compressed images.
JPEG standards are formally named as Information technology – Digital compression and coding of continuous-tone still images. ISO/IEC 10918 consists of the following parts:

 

[unpopular]

I don't see anything about "cameras". I doubt that in 1992 a file format suitable for digital photography was their motivation. Though, this is off topic...

----

JPEG is a terrible format by today's standards. I don't know why people stick with it, even most web browsers can display PNG files; there is no reason to even use it, IMO. There are other non-proprietary formats that are significantly better, especially for storage in-camera.

 

[christop]

I don't see anything about "cameras". I doubt that in 1992 a file format suitable for digital photography was their motivation. Though, this is off topic...

----

JPEG is a terrible format by today's standards. I don't know why people stick with it, even most web browsers can display PNG files; there is no reason to even use it, IMO. There are other non-proprietary formats that are significantly better, especially for storage in-camera.

I don't think he's saying that JPEG was designed specifically for cameras in any way (scanned photos were the norm when it was developed).

But I believe JPEG is still relevant today for photographs. PNG is a lossless format so it cannot compress photographs as well as the lossy JPEG can at quality levels that most people would find acceptable (though "acceptable" quality is highly subjective). I haven't done any comparisons lately, but I would imagine that a photograph would compress to a smaller file size as JPEG at quality 95 or lower than as a PNG most of the time. It's all about a compromise between size and quality (more pictures fit on a memory card, which is what many people care about).

In terms of quality to file size, better photographic compression algorithms do exist (as I'm sure you're well aware), but JPEG is so widely supported by almost all browsers and image viewers/editors that another format would have difficulty gaining acceptance in consumer digital cameras.

 

[fractionofasecond]

Yes, RAW is worth it.

 

[KmH]

History of the Digital Camera

 

[greybeard33 5]

It is worth it for me because of the way I like to work (or um play). I couldn't care less if ever make a dime with photography, I play around with it to help me keep my sanity. That means shooting Raw, importing them into Lightroom, Editing them with Photoshop and then exporting them as JPEG's for publication etc. If I were shooting for profit and time was money I would probably only shoot in JPEG and edit everything with lightroom. It all comes down to whatever gives you what you are looking for. My workflow gives me what I want.

 

[Garbz]

It's worth it because I didn't spend $3500 on an 8bit camera without the ability to do highlight recovery or change white balance quickly to preset values.

But I do understand. I see plenty of people driving around town with their handbrake on. (and oh I wish this were just a stupid joke)

 

[matthewo]

If Your photos look perfect and dont need editing, I guess jpg is Fine.

RAW allows for much more adjustment in post, while still retaining good quality

Usually RAW will look a little flat and desaturated compaired to how jpg files come out the camera. Main thing to remember is turn off all features when shooting RAW. Example: nikons' Active d lighting will affect metered exposure by up to a stop sometimes. It will under expose then bump shaddows. If shooting RAW and editing in lightroom this data will be thrown out. Its only uses for jpg(inbeded in photo) or extra data on RAW read by Nikon software like NX view

 

[manaheim]

It's worth it because I didn't spend $3500 on an 8bit camera without the ability to do highlight recovery or change white balance quickly to preset values.

But I do understand. I see plenty of people driving around town with their handbrake on. (and oh I wish this were just a stupid joke)

Wow... if you get a grumbly comment from Garbz, you've seriously accomplished something.

 

[Fred Berg]

Raw is only worth using if you have enough time and patience to dedicate to the editing process. If you are happy with the jpg images that you and your camera can produce together, then this is a very attractive option that make raw seem like a bit of a chore.

 

[JSER]

I'm on my way to shoot a location I've been after for months. Super low light, I'm going to be shooting at iso 100, f/1.8 and 10-14 second shutter. Until now I've only ever shot in jpg, so I'm wondering if its really worth the extra large file size to shoot in RAW? Anyone have a legitimate argument as to why I should use RAW rather than jpg? Chances are I'll use both and look at the difference in LR4 when I get home, but if I can save a significant amount of space and have a similar result, what's actually the point of raw?

I hereby apologize in advance for any and all feuds this may cause, since I'm confident there are proponents for either side.

Yes don't ever shoot a paid wedding etc with jpag only

 

[Mike_E]

IF you're going to walk into the bank's vault take as big a bag as you can get.

If the image is important grab all of it.

 

[JC1305US]

Always shoot raw. The more options you have in lightroom the better. Its like shooting with a safety net, because you don't want to lose a great shot because of some minor technical glitch.