JPEG vs RAW - Beginner

[imagemaker46]

From day one when I started shooting digital in 2001 I have never shot RAW files, for me I have never had any reason to. It's not something I require in my line of work.

 

[manaheim]

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!!!

No.

If you're learning, shooting RAW piles a HEAP LOAD of additional stuff that you have to learn on top of what you're already dealing with. AND that heap-load is the kind of thing where- if you don't know what you're doing- you run the risk of being unable to produce an image that looks ANYTHING CLOSE the quality that you would get from an out of the camera JPEG.

Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW?

Again.. NO.

I am merely saying that there is nothing wrong with using a shortcut to simplify the camera in the early stages. (same is true for Manual vs. an automated mode)

AND skieur aptly pointed out a variety of situations where shooting RAW isn't the best choice.

As with ANYTHING... any answer that prescribes only one way of doing something- for any set of circumstances- is likely a poor answer.

 

[robbins.photo]

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!

RAW is pretty much all of the data that the camera's sensor captured stored in a file. It allows you to do a lot of subtle variations because all of the original data is still available. JPG, on the other hand, is a compressed format that has already been processed to a certain extent by the camera. It discards any data it considers to be "unnecessary", and by that it's generally subtle variations in color from one pixel to another, so subtle that the human eye wouldn't be able to perceive the difference. The end result is a much smaller file, however it also means that when you go to edit the final product you have a lot less information to work with and as a result your options are more limited.

I saw it posted somewhere earlier that "beginners" should always shoot in RAW, but I would disagree. I think your best bet as a beginner is to shoot both when you can - so you can see the differences between them yourself and learn what you can and can't do with each, hands on. Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV.

 

[apaflo]

If you're learning, shooting RAW piles a HEAP LOAD of additional stuff that you have to learn on top of what you're already dealing with.

There is no such heap load of additional stuff. The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction, which almost any RAW converter will do very easily.

One can also shoot in RAW+JPEG and even avoid that step. The point is to generate and save a RAW file for every shot.

if you don't know what you're doing- you run the risk of being unable to produce an image that looks ANYTHING CLOSE the quality that you would get from an out of the camera JPEG.

No such risk exists. The JPEG is right there.

I am merely saying that there is nothing wrong with using a shortcut to simplify the camera in the early stages.

Your "shortcut to simplify" eliminates potential for every image shot without a RAW file. If the RAW file is retained it can be processed 15 years later. If it is not retained, its potential is gone forever. Shooting in RAW mode loses nothing, shooting in JPEG mode loses a great deal.

AND skieur aptly pointed out a variety of situations where shooting RAW isn't the best choice.

None of which apply to a beginner.

As with ANYTHING... any answer that prescribes only one way of doing something- for any set of circumstances- is likely a poor answer.

Suggesting that a beginner shoot JPEG mode is exactly an "anwser that prescribes only one way". You cannot get the RAW file back if it is never generated and never saved. When shooting in RAW there is the exact same JPEG file generated and embedded in the RAW file.

Once again: a beginner should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge and experience to know posititively when or not a RAW file will be useful. When a photographer is no longer a beginner it makes perfect sense to select JPEG mode if that is appropriate.

Selecting JPEG only mode is never appropriate for a beginner.

 

[robbins.photo]

If you're learning, shooting RAW piles a HEAP LOAD of additional stuff that you have to learn on top of what you're already dealing with.

There is no such heap load of additional stuff. The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction, which almost any RAW converter will do very easily.

One can also shoot in RAW+JPEG and even avoid that step. The point is to generate and save a RAW file for every shot.

if you don't know what you're doing- you run the risk of being unable to produce an image that looks ANYTHING CLOSE the quality that you would get from an out of the camera JPEG.

No such risk exists. The JPEG is right there.



Your "shortcut to simplify" eliminates potential for every image shot without a RAW file. If the RAW file is retained it can be processed 15 years later. If it is not retained, its potential is gone forever. Shooting in RAW mode loses nothing, shooting in JPEG mode loses a great deal.

AND skieur aptly pointed out a variety of situations where shooting RAW isn't the best choice.

None of which apply to a beginner.

As with ANYTHING... any answer that prescribes only one way of doing something- for any set of circumstances- is likely a poor answer.

Suggesting that a beginner shoot JPEG mode is exactly an "anwser that prescribes only one way". You cannot get the RAW file back if it is never generated and never saved. When shooting in RAW there is the exact same JPEG file generated and embedded in the RAW file.

Once again: a beginner should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge and experience to know posititively when or not a RAW file will be useful. When a photographer is no longer a beginner it makes perfect sense to select JPEG mode if that is appropriate.

Selecting JPEG only mode is never appropriate for a beginner.

Hi.. cascade kitchen counselor here - could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time? I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly. RAW is a great format - if you have the ability and skill needed to post process it. But for those new to post processing they might actually get better results using JPG. Just something to consider.

I think the point that might be getting lost here is that Manaheim and others are not suggesting that beginners shot "only" JPG, or "only' anything - but rather that the experiment with both formats so that they get a better appreciation for how they both work.

Also, we could do something about those hard water spots on your dishes. You know, when your ready.. lol

 

[apaflo]

could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time? I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly.

The point is, and was at the beginning, to generate and save a RAW file. That can be done in either of two RAW modes, RAW or RAW+JPEG, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

The manufacturer of every camera provides free software with their cameras that processes RAW files. There are several third party free packages available on the Internet.

RAW is a great format - if you have the ability and skill needed to post process it. But for those new to post processing they might actually get better results using JPG. Just something to consider.

Extracting the JPEG file from the RAW file is not difficult, and it was pointed out at the beginning of this thread how learning to do at least minimal post processing should be part of learning photography, just as are any number of other things a beginner doesn't necessarily know on day zero. Downloading files from a camera, storing them, resizing them, etc etc... and extracting a JPEG from the RAW file does not add excessively to that learning curve.

As has been repeatedly stated, RAW+JPEG mode generates and saves the RAW file, and that is what a beginner should do.

I think the point that might be getting lost here is that Manaheim and others are not suggesting that beginners shot "only" JPG, or "only' anything - but rather that the experiment with both formats so that they get a better appreciation for how they both work.

That isn't true. "Manaheim and others" are saying exactly to shoot JPEG only and dispense with a RAW file. That is advice they are providing to a beginner.

They repeatedly say do not shoot RAW, and that is absolutely backwards from what a beginner should be doing. They are not saying shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG mode and save the RAW file too, they are saying shoot JPEG only until they have a need for the RAW file. The fact is a beginner needs the RAW file for every shot.

 

[robbins.photo]

could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time? I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly.

The point is, and was at the beginning, to generate and save a RAW file. That can be done in either of two RAW modes, RAW or RAW+JPEG, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

The manufacturer of every camera provides free software with their cameras that processes RAW files. There are several third party free packages available on the Internet.

RAW is a great format - if you have the ability and skill needed to post process it. But for those new to post processing they might actually get better results using JPG. Just something to consider.

Extracting the JPEG file from the RAW file is not difficult, and it was pointed out at the beginning of this thread how learning to do at least minimal post processing should be part of learning photography, just as are any number of other things a beginner doesn't necessarily know on day zero. Downloading files from a camera, storing them, resizing them, etc etc... and extracting a JPEG from the RAW file does not add excessively to that learning curve.

As has been repeatedly stated, RAW+JPEG mode generates and saves the RAW file, and that is what a beginner should do.

I think the point that might be getting lost here is that Manaheim and others are not suggesting that beginners shot "only" JPG, or "only' anything - but rather that the experiment with both formats so that they get a better appreciation for how they both work.

That isn't true. "Manaheim and others" are saying exactly to shoot JPEG only and dispense with a RAW file. That is advice they are providing to a beginner.

They repeatedly say do not shoot RAW, and that is absolutely backwards from what a beginner should be doing. They are not saying shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG mode and save the RAW file too, they are saying shoot JPEG only until they have a need for the RAW file. The fact is a beginner needs the RAW file for every shot.

Wow, well the hostility is really unnecessary. I have nothing against RAW files, never have - and you will note that beginners should use both has been repeatedly stated by both sides, not just by you.

And no, I don't always generate a RAW file, because in certain situations using JPG only gives me better results. With my equipment I can only get a burst of about 16-17 RAW files in a burst before my camera slows from 5 FPS to 2 FPS - so when I'm shooting sports, I often shoot JPG only.

For a beginner I think it's best that they experiment with both - to find out which will work better in a given situation. Generally any advice that starts with "always" or "you must" when it comes to photography is bad advice. That was Manaheim's point, and one I happen to agree with. I think it's great that you feel qualified to speak for Manaheim, but before you do you might want to go back and re-read some of what he's posted, for example, this:

"Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW? Again.. NO."

So he's not saying what you think he's saying apparently, which was my point. My advice to any beginners out there, use both. Shoot some RAW, some JPG, and some RAW+JPG so you can see the differences in shooting speed, find out how fast your camera's buffer fills up using each, and experiment with post processing both file types. Ignore anyone who tells you different, because honestly it's just bad advice. JPG has it's advantages, so does RAW - so see for yourself what is going to work best for you in the kinds of shooting situations you find yourself in most often.

 

[480sparky41 40]

........ The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction,.........

...which is merely a thumbnail... NOT a full-scale JPEG. The thumbnail is what you see when you scroll through your albums and file directories. If you do actually 'extract' that thumbnail, it would be far too small to do anything with.

beginner[/B] should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge.......

OK, send your noob to a fact-paced event like their kid's basketball game. Set their camera to shoot raw only, and tell 'em to have at it.

So they start taking images. Click, click, click.............. then................... nothing.

The camera's locked up. They pull their eye away from the viewfinder to look the camera over. Hmmmm. Nothing seems to be wrong. It works now. Oh well, missed a few good opportunites there, but hey, apoflo tells me this is the way to do it.

Click, click, click............. um............... nothing again...............


What the he11? Looking camera over again (and missing more great shots), it seems to work again. Back to the action.

Click, click, click................................. you guessed it.


Oh, wait, it works again. Well, what the heck is going on here?

Click, click................... nothing.



Not until they get back home and ask the forum why their camera does this do they find out why this was an exercise in frustration. They only have a 3-shot buffer when shooting in raw. They don't have a top-end body that can fire off 20-30 frames of raw, process them lightning-fast and get 'em onto the card. After the third shot, it takes 5-10 seconds to clear enough buffer memory to even take one more frame.




Oh, the futility.








But, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.

 

[apaflo]

Wow, well the hostility is really unnecessary. I have nothing against RAW files, never have - and you will note that beginners should use both has been repeatedly stated by both sides, not just by you.

Then you should not be hostile. Instead, stick to points that apply to what the OP asked about! Arguing points that are not controversial doesn't help either.

Some people in this thread have repeatedly told a beginner not to shoot RAW. That is the point of contention. It is a flawed concept primarily because those who suggest it are unaware of the signficance of choosing one or the other as it pertains to what the OP asked about. (We don't care if there are differences for a professional photographer, or amateur photographers, or for someone who doesn't want to edit images, or for you or for me!)

And no, I don't always generate a RAW file, because in certain situations using JPG only gives me better results. With my equipment I can only get a burst of about 16-17 RAW files in a burst before my camera slows from 5 FPS to 2 FPS - so when I'm shooting sports, I often shoot JPG only.

Wonderful, but that is for a different thread. This thread is advice for a beginner. The question was "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?" Clearly the OP necessarily must shoot RAW in order to learn how to edit RAW files. JPEG files are never appropriate for editing, it is not an intermediate format, it is a display format... the final product.

For a beginner I think it's best that they experiment with both - to find out which will work better in a given situation. Generally any advice that starts with "always" or "you must" when it comes to photography is bad advice. That was Manaheim's point, and one I happen to agree with. I think it's great that you feel qualified to speak for Manaheim, but before you do you might want to go back and re-read some of what he's posted, for example, this:

"Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW? Again.. NO."

This thread is not about what amateur photographers might do. It is about what one photographer who is a beginner and wants to learn about "how to really edit" images. That is an endevour which excludes shooting in JPEG mode literally by definition.

So he's not saying what you think he's saying apparently, which was my point. My advice to any beginners out there, use both. Shoot some RAW, some JPG, and some RAW+JPG so you can see the differences in shooting speed, find out how fast your camera's buffer fills up using each, and experiment with post processing both file types. Ignore anyone who tells you different, because honestly it's just bad advice. JPG has it's advantages, so does RAW - so see for yourself what is going to work best for you in the kinds of shooting situations you find yourself in most often.

Perhaps the people the OP should ignore are those who won't read his original question and instead provide answers to unrelated questions. The OP wants to learn to "really edit". He also wants to avoid auto modes. He didn't ask about when RAW is better and when JPEG is better. You say "JPG has it's [sic] advantages", but there are no advantages to shooting JPEG when the purpose is to learn how to "really edit" images.

 

[480sparky41 40]

...... He didn't ask about when RAW is better and when JPEG is better.........

Yet your response is always the same: Shoot raw no matter what; there is no other choice; raw is where it's at. Raw is be better. In all cases. Case closed.


Perhaps the OP should simply take some shots in raw and try editing them to see what it's about. Not only what you need to do, but what raw is capable of providing. Then, the OP can learn how to edit raw files, and then make the decision as to shoot raw, raw+JPEG, or JPEG... and which choice is best suited for the situation.

 

[table1349]

could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time? I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly.

The point is, and was at the beginning, to generate and save a RAW file. That can be done in either of two RAW modes, RAW or RAW+JPEG, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

The manufacturer of every camera provides free software with their cameras that processes RAW files. There are several third party free packages available on the Internet.



Extracting the JPEG file from the RAW file is not difficult, and it was pointed out at the beginning of this thread how learning to do at least minimal post processing should be part of learning photography, just as are any number of other things a beginner doesn't necessarily know on day zero. Downloading files from a camera, storing them, resizing them, etc etc... and extracting a JPEG from the RAW file does not add excessively to that learning curve.

As has been repeatedly stated, RAW+JPEG mode generates and saves the RAW file, and that is what a beginner should do.

I think the point that might be getting lost here is that Manaheim and others are not suggesting that beginners shot "only" JPG, or "only' anything - but rather that the experiment with both formats so that they get a better appreciation for how they both work.

That isn't true. "Manaheim and others" are saying exactly to shoot JPEG only and dispense with a RAW file. That is advice they are providing to a beginner.

They repeatedly say do not shoot RAW, and that is absolutely backwards from what a beginner should be doing. They are not saying shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG mode and save the RAW file too, they are saying shoot JPEG only until they have a need for the RAW file. The fact is a beginner needs the RAW file for every shot.

Wow, well the hostility is really unnecessary. I have nothing against RAW files, never have - and you will note that beginners should use both has been repeatedly stated by both sides, not just by you.

And no, I don't always generate a RAW file, because in certain situations using JPG only gives me better results. With my equipment I can only get a burst of about 16-17 RAW files in a burst before my camera slows from 5 FPS to 2 FPS - so when I'm shooting sports, I often shoot JPG only.

For a beginner I think it's best that they experiment with both - to find out which will work better in a given situation. Generally any advice that starts with "always" or "you must" when it comes to photography is bad advice. That was Manaheim's point, and one I happen to agree with. I think it's great that you feel qualified to speak for Manaheim, but before you do you might want to go back and re-read some of what he's posted, for example, this:

"Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW? Again.. NO."

So he's not saying what you think he's saying apparently, which was my point. My advice to any beginners out there, use both. Shoot some RAW, some JPG, and some RAW+JPG so you can see the differences in shooting speed, find out how fast your camera's buffer fills up using each, and experiment with post processing both file types. Ignore anyone who tells you different, because honestly it's just bad advice. JPG has it's advantages, so does RAW - so see for yourself what is going to work best for you in the kinds of shooting situations you find yourself in most often.

Nothing new , this isn't the first forum that the poster has come to, done the same exact thing and then gotten banned for. Sadly now it starts here at the Photoforum.

I would suggest that if certain post and posters are ignored they will find a new home as it is all about the argument.

 

[manaheim]

Heated remarks aside... and apaflo... I'm going to come right out and say that you've unnecessarily added an edge to this thread, and I'd suggest you back off a bit.

apaflo.... I'm not sure what your basis of knowledge is or where this position is coming from. Let me tell you where I am coming from.

I have been a photographer for about 10 years. I have shot as both a professional and an amateur. My work has won several awards in (admittedly) local/regional competitions. I have shot twelve weddings, three of which as primary photographer. I have made a career as a successful commercial real-estate photographer, providing pictures of about a hundred commercial buildings in the Boston area. I have also professionally shot sporting events, conventions and portraiture. I'm not a full time pro by ANY means, but I'm far from clueless.

Let me rephrase my previous statements as such:

* Shooting a RAW has drawbacks. (as 480 pointed out... speed and storage space)
* Storing a RAW has drawbacks. (storage space, time to transfer)
* Processing a RAW has drawbacks. (time to transfer, complexity of making color, exposure, tint and other choices)
* All of these things introduce complexities into a process.
* If you are an amateur, making an existing complex thing even MORE complicated can lead to frustration.
* There are, of course, many benefits to RAW as well, but you have to know how to take a picture before you can benefit from them. In other words, learn to walk before you try to run.
* You have to make your own choices.

MY advice is for amateurs to not shoot RAW UNTIL they reach a point where they realize an image that they have taken fell down because of the lack of it. There's simply no need to invest all the time, effort and storage space on RAW images until you know why you're doing it. This will allow them to focus on what is really important- the composition and artistry. Without these things, the RAW vs JPEG debate is pointless.

Which brings me to my next point...

You seem to be advocating that you should have the RAW because you can "go back" years later and "fix" the image. I can't help but laugh at this. Trust me, all my early RAW images did me very little good in later years, because the problems I had with my pictures had NOTHING to do with whether or not they were taken as RAW. They couldn't be fixed. They just sucked. This is the case for most people who are new to photography... and typically when they hit the point that they realize they need RAW, is also typically the point at which some of their images have a hope of being useful compositionally to be worthy of the effort.

Is this the case for everyone? No. Certainly not. I pushed my mom to start shooting raw after only a few months of shooting because she was just naturally good at composition and was starting to bump into problems that could have been fixed or helped by having the RAW. The norm, however, is still the same. RAW is a waste of time and effort for nearly everyone new to the craft.

 

[runnah]

You guys are silly.

 

[apaflo]

........ The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction,.........

...which is merely a thumbnail... NOT a full-scale JPEG. The thumbnail is what you see when you scroll through your albums and file directories. If you do actually 'extract' that thumbnail, it would be far too small to do anything with.

Most cameras, specifically including Canon and Nikon, embed a full sized JPEG that is identical to the JPEG file. There may well be some models that don't, in which case a RAW+JPEG mode will exist

beginner[/B] should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge.......

OK, send your noob to a fact-paced event like their kid's basketball game. Set their camera to shoot raw only, and tell 'em to have at it.

This thread is not about learning how to shoot a fast paced event such as basketball. That is a topic for an advanced forum, not for beginners asking about how to get away from auto modes and how to learn editing.

 

[manaheim]

Lots of amateurs shoot pictures of their kids playing basketball.