JPEG vs RAW - Beginner

[DreamPhotos]

I'm going to try to "self teach" myself how to really use my DSLR and get myself off of Auto mode. I'm also planning on learning how to really edit and not just use iphoto on my Mac. With that being said, is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW before I start learning?

 

[480sparky]

More to the point, your question should be: What am I lacking in shooting JPEG that I would gain using raw?

Until you understand what you can possibly gain, it makes little sense to shoot raw. Once you can actually benefit from it, then the transition will be much easier to make.

 

[DreamPhotos]

I did some reading in the forums and it looks like you should have a good solid knowledge base of editing to shoot in Raw. I think that I should stick with jpeg for now until I get a handle on editing.

 

[KmH]

Image Files

• Understanding Bit Depth
• Understanding Image Types: JPEG & TIFF
• Understanding RAW Files: Why Should I Use RAW?

 

[Ysarex]

I did some reading in the forums and it looks like you should have a good solid knowledge base of editing to shoot in Raw. I think that I should stick with jpeg for now until I get a handle on editing.

Then again you might find mention in some of the forums that you really shouldn't be making changes to JPEGs at all. I never allow my students to use the phrase "edit JPEGs." The words we use to describe what we're doing can be very telling. I insist that my students refer to making changes to JPEGs as repairing them. Which then begs the questions, how did they get broken in the first place, if you broke it why did you break it, and do you plan on breaking more of them?

Joe

 

[dxqcanada]

I suggest shoot JPEG + RAW, if you are unsure.

I shoot RAW, and I am not that experienced at post processing ... so if I can do it, so can you.

 

[CaptainNapalm]

You should shoot RAW. Even if the benefits of this don't seem apparent at first, you will appreciate this choice later once you really get into editing your work. You don't want to revisit your photos a year down the road, find a few keepers, and realize they were shot in JPEG which limits your editing options. Happened to me.

 

[Designer]

As written above, shoot both. It will mean that you're going to fill up some memory with the RAW files, but better to have them than not have them.

The software that came with your camera will allow you to upload to your computer and view them, even if you don't do any editing now.

Meanwhile, the JPEGs will be what you view primarily and send to friends.

You can get some low-cost RAW converter softwares and even some free ones.

 

[hirejn]

There's no one right answer but I suggest you read this to learn more about each format and make a decision that works for you. Then shoot RAW. Seriously, you should understand each file before you use it. The one thing most photographers aren't aware of is that even with perfect negatives, it still pays to have the flexibility of RAW because new software can take advantage of RAW information and it gives you more flexibility for changing the way you develop the file when new software comes or when you want to reinterpret the negative. You just can't do that to the same extent with JPEG. The type of file you choose has no relation to skill. Especially as a beginner, you might appreciate the flexibility of RAW when new software or developing techniques become available.

 

[imagemaker46]

Shoot which ever way you want, everyone does everything a little different. There is no one perfect solution to the question, and a lot of it still comes down to what you are planning to shoot, and what you are using the images for.

 

[weepete]

Shoot raw for the photos you want to edit, shoot jpeg for snapshots and the ones you dont. I'll also shoot jpeg for fast action where I want to max out my buffer and FPS.

 

[Light Guru]

is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW

This question has been asked more times then you have pressed the shutter button. Doing a search on the forum and on the web at large will provide you will more then enough to answer your question.

 

[skieur]

1. If you are neither skilled nor knowledgeable in editing and post processing then there is no benefit to shooting in RAW.

2, If you are very skilled in editing, have some of the best plug-ins, and can edit in 16bit there may be little benefit for you to shoot in RAW

3. If speed and "getting the shot" are most important in, for example sports or journalism, then shooting in RAW will slow you down and therefore be disadvantageous.

4. Editing and processing in RAW is slower than in JPEG and time is money for professionals.

5. Extreme fine tuning of an image in RAW has limited value if you cannot decide where to position the sliders to make minute changes.

RAW is not a format for everyone to use on all occasions, rather it is a useful option to have available when needed since there are advantages and disadvantages to its implementation.

 

[TCampbell]

I'm going to try to "self teach" myself how to really use my DSLR and get myself off of Auto mode. I'm also planning on learning how to really edit and not just use iphoto on my Mac. With that being said, is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW before I start learning?

You will certainly have more adjustment latitude if you learn to shoot in RAW.

There is one difference at the time of shooting when you shoot in RAW... which is that the camera doesn't apply any changes to the image if those changes would result in a loss of data. E.g. if you tell the camera to shoot in black & white, but are in RAW format, you'll notice your RAW shots are actually in COLOR (but are "tagged" that you intended for them to be B&W). Also... white balance settings are also not applied in camera... you have to apply them when you process your images on your Mac.

This means the first significant difference is that if you want accurate white balance, then you'll want a neutral gray card... snap a photo that includes the gray card in the photo (it can be anywhere -- it's not like "custom white balance" in JPEG where the gray card must occupy the center of the image.) You only need one of your images to have a shot of that gray card as long as everything else is taken in the same lighting conditions. BTW... notice I said "if" you want accurate white balance. I shoot in RAW but often do not bother to shoot a gray card. If you're out sooting candids... it's not important. I only use the gray card when I know accurate white balance will be important. The reason only one image needs to include the gray card is because with RAW processing tools you can copy an adjustment from one image and tell the software to apply to many other images (this is true of Aperture, Lightroom, and even Photoshop.)

Next... iPhoto _only_ does it's work in JPEG format. It can read a RAW image... but will immediately convert the RAW to a JPEG and will then do all processing on the JPEG. This means you instantly lose your adjustment latitude when you use iPhoto because iPhoto was designed for JPEG... but is able to import RAW.

A better choice would be to get Aperture (since you're on a Mac). This has a few advantages.

First... it's optimized for RAW workflow (but can work with JPEG). Second... since both iPhoto and Aperture are Apple programs, they actually know how to open and read each other's photo libraries -- you can access all your iPhoto images while in Aperture. Aperture is the original digital asset management and adjustment program designed for RAW workflows... it is what Adobe Lightroom was modeled after. The two approximately have the same capabilities but Aperture is a bit less expensive ($79). Also any other Apple software that might leverage your media (iMovie, Pages, Keynote, etc. etc.) will all be able to directly read your libraries without you having to export the images first. On a Mac... I would suggest Aperture over Lightroom.

When you use Aperture, each adjustment is technically independent of the others. With iPhoto, it saves your original image (which it will not directly alter) and any adjustments you make are saved to a copy of the the image. It doesn't make this clear as you use it, but notice you always have that option to "revert to original" -- that actually causes it to discard the current working copy and create a fresh working copy based on the original (which it tucks away safely and never edits directly). But apart from that... each time you change the image, the change is applied to the image more or less permanently... you cannot make a change... followed by 5 or 6 more changes and then later decide that you want to get rid of that first change. It's "all or nothing" when you want to go back (I think you can "undo" the last single change but that's it.) With Aperture, adjustments are tracked individually and any of them can be turned off, deleted, or re-adjusted at any time without impact any OTHER adjustment you made. This is because the working copy of the image does not actually exist as a physical image... it opens the original (which it refers to as the "master") and then applies the list of adjustments very rapidly only to your on-screen image. Only the "list" of adjustments is being maintained... not a physical copy of the image (although you can tell it to create one... there's little reason to do so). This is much more control than iPhoto offers. When you ultimately want to print or share an image, it "exports" the "version" of the image (basically the "master" with all your adjustments applied is called a "version".)

While this sounds complex, it's actually quite easy to use.

Lastly... pick up a copy of either Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" or the Scott Kelby Digital Photography series (I think that's 4 volumes now.) Both are popular... Understanding Exposure is probably more popular.

 

[Robin Usagani]

FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.