JPEG vs RAW - Beginner

[480sparky41 40]

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

I would agree that's true if your raw converter doesn't apply the camera settings during the conversion.

 

[DiskoJoe]

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

A raw captures more data then a jpeg would and needs to edited to remove some of the excess.

Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.

ALWAYS!!!

 

[robbins.photo]

Ok, well as you can see opinions vary on the topic quite a bit. For my part to start with I would suggest you use both RAW and JPG both, and do some post processing with both so you can appreciate the differences between the two and get a better handle on what you can do with a RAW file as opposed to a JPG. The RAW will give you a lot more options in post processing and allow you to fix things much easier than you can with a JPG, in some situations it will allow you to fix things that you just can't fix with a JPG.

Once you get a better handle on the differences, then you make your choice based on your equipment and your shooting situation. For example, normally I shoot in RAW because it gives me more options when I go to post process files. However RAW files are much bigger than JPG, and they take longer for the camera to write to the card, thus taking longer to clear the buffer. Once your buffer fills up the camera will slow down and shoot much slower until the buffer is given a chance to clear.

So I will occasionally shoot JPG when I'm shooting sports - I use a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 mps card, and when I'm shooting JPG I can fire 5 FPS pretty much as long as I keep the shutter button pressed. If I switch to RAW I can generally get a burst of 16-17 RAW files before the camera slows to roughly 2 FPS. So if I'm shooting sports or sometimes a fast moving critter I will sometimes switch to JPG so I can fire longer bursts and not miss the action I wanted to capture. I don't use JPG mode often, usually 16 frames is sufficient, but on occasion if I really feel like I need to open up with a long burst I'll change to JPG.

Just my 2 cents worth of course.

 

[AceCo55]

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

A raw captures more data then a jpeg would and needs to edited to remove some of the excess.

Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.

ALWAYS!!!

Obviously not shooting sports - 3000/4000 shots ... I just can't afford the extra time it takes to process RAW files. So whilst you advice might be true for a lot of situations, I wouldn't be quite so dogmatic about it.

 

[Robin Usagani]

All I was saying is.. if you are not going to edit it, shoot with Jpeg.

 

[Derrel]

All I was saying is.. if you are not going to edit it, shoot with Jpeg.

And set the camera's controls PROPERLY, to create the kind of JPEG files that will look good. Don't shoot JPEG and be a lazy butt and leave EVERYTHING set to the Default Values!!! Modern, higher end d-slrs can create amazing SOOC JPEG files--if the user sets the camera up properly, for the conditions, and for the intended use.

 

[bratkinson]

Mr/Ms Dreamphotos -

As it would appear that you are still very new to the world of photography, my recommendation is to shoot JPG with Automatic White Balance (AWB) enabled and spend your time learning about the exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed and ISO speed) rather than trying to learn the ins and outs of editing RAW images. When I was new to digital photography after 35 years of shooting film, I didn't even KNOW what RAW was and was perfectly content with the JPG results straight out of the camera. Although I did find some shots that needed color 'touch-up' and horizontal horizon fixing in post but was still satisfied with JPGs for several years.

So, spend time learning photography and how to use the shooting capabilities of your camera before spending time and money learning editing.

 

[imagemaker46]

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

A raw captures more data then a jpeg would and needs to edited to remove some of the excess.

Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.

ALWAYS!!!

You obviously have never had to work under a very tight deadline where getting pictures out fast means getting them used. Sometimes it's only a matter of seconds that makes the difference. If a pay cheque was on the line you would reconsider your "ALWAYS"

 

[480sparky41 40]

.............Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.

ALWAYS!!!

Flat out: bad advice.

 

[apaflo]

.............Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.

ALWAYS!!!

Flat out: bad advice.

That was advice to a beginner, and in that context it is absolutely correct.

For a pro shooting photojournalism, sports, or anything which requires high volume and speed to be successful it does make sense to shoot JPEG. It also assumes the photographer is experienced and knows exactly how to get the type of shots wanted every time, which by definiiton is not the case with a beginner.

Shoot RAW and always edit each shot is very good advice in this circumstance, for a beginner, because it provides the experience needed to become good at 1) editing and 2) shooting. It also means that a shot taken by a photographer lacking that knowledge may well be useless today, but with the RAW file available it might be a very useful shot in the future when their editing skills have been better honed.

 

[480sparky41 40]

.............Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.

ALWAYS!!!

Flat out: bad advice.

Except that it was advice to a beginner, and in that context it is absolutey correct.

For a pro shooting photojournalism, sports, or anything which requires high volume and speed to be successful it does make sense to shoot JPEG. It also assumes the photographer is experienced and knows exactly how to get the type of shots wanted every time, which by definiiton is not the case with a beginner.

Shoot RAW and always edit each shot is very good advice in this circumstance, for a beginner, because it provides the experience needed to become good at 1) editing and 2) shooting. I also means that a shot taken by a photographer lacking that knowledge may well be useless today, but with the RAW file available it might be a very useful shot in the future when their editing skills have been better honed.

I didn't say raw should not be used. I'm saying the advice to 'always shoot raw' is plain, flat-out bad advice. Raw has it's advantages, but also disadvantages, and sometimes the cons far outweigh the pros.

Would you recommend someone always shoot with a 50mm? Always shoot with a tripod? Always shoot in bright sunlight? Always shoot with the Magic Green A?

 

[apaflo]

I didn't say ...

As noted, the best advice the OP has received is that a beginner should always shoot in RAW and to edit every photo.

Obfuscating the context with discussion that doesn't apply to the question asked is not helpful.

 

[480sparky41 40]

As noted, the best advice the OP has received is that a beginner should always shoot in RAW and to edit every photo.

Obfuscating the context with discussion that doesn't apply to the question asked is not helpful.

And I will, again, repeat what I did say: That is just plain flat-out bad advice.

 

[Sharkbait0708]

As a beginner myself there is some good advice in this thread! Thanks! Are there maybe more details about the difference between the two rather than just which you should use!

 

[apaflo]

As a beginner myself there is some good advice in this thread! Thanks! Are there maybe more details about the difference between the two rather than just which you should use!

The nature of digital photography is that you do use both the RAW file and the camera generated JPEG with every shot, no matter what else is done.

It's just a question of when or if the RAW file is discarded, and how much interactive use it gets before that.

Every click of the shutter produces raw sensor data. The camera has a JPEG generation system, which among other things provides a preview image and data for histogram presentions that show blinking highlights and a graph. A JPEG image is also embedded in each RAW file if that is saved to the memory card, and it produces a JPEG file if that is saved to the memory card.

Hence it is clear that regardless of what is saved, both are generated and both are used.

An in camera JPEG image is generated using configuration options selected prior to making the exposure. Most cameras have a large variety of settings, some of them that can be fine tune and others that are generic. Things like "Night", "Daylight", "Portrait", and so on are more generic and may change the specific sharpening, saturation, contrast settings. The significant point is that what you actually do shoot and which settings you use need to match, and can never be more than a very good guess. The advantage is that if the guess is close enough, a finished product is produced instantly.

The raw sensor data from which the in camera JPEG is produced is saved to the RAW file, and the JPEG generation configration can then be an external process, adjusted by observation to be not just close enough, but rather to precisely match results with what is desired. The typical example is that Color Balance can be controlled very precisely, either for what looks best or for the closest match to the actual colors seen at the time. Or one image can be generated for one criteria, and another for a different criteria.

Neither workflow is inherently "best", but they each are better for different aspects of photography.

A beginner needs to see what the camera produces, so shooting in JPEG mode is perhaps essential. But not getting a RAW file for future use means losing many images that could be very useful. Shooting in a RAW+JPEG mode is very helpful. Working on how to produce better JPEG images than the camera defaults can make will also allow a beginner to make better camera configuration choices for the in camera JPEG images.