JPEG vs RAW (NEF)

dewey · Nov 29, 2006

It's easier to shoot JPG... I don't think anyone will argue that.

You get more control when shooting RAW... I know someone will, but nobody should argue that.

I wouldn't have some of my very favorite shots if I was shooting in JPG because I couldn't have corrected them the way I wanted.

To each his/her own. I think if you want to make money it's wise to shoot in RAW.

Digital Matt · Nov 29, 2006

Shooting raw is not going to make you a better photographer, nor is it going to make your pictures better. You have to enjoy spending time in the "darkroom", or else don't do it. If you get 4x6s printed from your roll of 35 when you develop it, and that's the extent of it, then fine. If you enjoy taking your negs into the darkroom and pulling a custom print, then do that. It's all up to you.

Alex_B · Nov 30, 2006

Digital Matt said:
Shooting raw is not going to make you a better photographer, nor is it going to make your pictures better. You have to enjoy spending time in the "darkroom", or else don't do it. If you get 4x6s printed from your roll of 35 when you develop it, and that's the extent of it, then fine. If you enjoy taking your negs into the darkroom and pulling a custom print, then do that. It's all up to you.

well said .. probably all which needs to be said

newrmdmike · Dec 1, 2006

except that its totally off topic.

Iron Flatline · Dec 1, 2006

I like working with RAW. I use it as a quasi error compensation insurance, though I'm pretty confident in my shooting. I usually get it right (or close enough) but I like being able to fine-tune it. When I shoot family fun times I shoot JPGs, if I remember to toggle it back and forth. I forget that often.

On a related note, I read in a magazine (in an article about fine-tuning some of the deeper custom settings, one of my fav. topics on this forum) that every shoot should be approached like a race mechanic deals with a new track. It requires fine-tuning and a custom set-up.

EBphotography · Dec 1, 2006

newrmdmike said:
except that its totally off topic.

I think Matt is just explaining the RAW/JPEG comparison a little bit, certainly helps in my understanding, even if it may not directly relate to the question it helps with the topic.

GSDMan · Dec 1, 2006

newrmdmike said:
except that its totally off topic.

Metaphor - the RAW of the english language

THORHAMMER · Dec 2, 2006

i will admit jpeg+raw comes in handy for a wedding. youll find a lot of shots come out perfect with a 8mp or larger sensor camera type...those "perfect shots, will save you a lot of processing time, but the ones that are exceptional or you know need to be blown up really big youll have the raw handy for that.... helps you make proofs a lot faster, thats all...

raw is all-powerful though...

fmw · Dec 2, 2006

I don't understand why raw takes more time. One should never edit the original image. One should work on a copy and save that copy in some handy format like tiff or psd or jpeg. In Photoshop the RAW comes up in the RAW screen. One single click opens it in Photoshop. Then you can save it out into whatever form you like so the original is untouched. What's the big deal? One click?

Perhaps the answer is to shoot fewer frames and work at making them better in the first place. Then there are fewer images to edit and store. One thing digital has done is caused photographers to become overly trigger happy.

Alex_B · Dec 2, 2006

RAW does take more time, at least on my computer. If I shoot at more than 10 MP, and squeeze 100 of such images through my poor little computer, then he starts to sweat and I can do nothing but write or read emails in parallel.
I usually set everything for say 100 images in the raw converter, when i am done with that, i let it convert. It is ok for me to go for a drink then or wdo whatever, but I guess if you have to process hundreds of images each night for business, then it can be a pain ...

Alex_B · Dec 2, 2006

newrmdmike said:
except that its totally off topic.

well, topics evolve ... so what is discussed further down in a thread might not exactly what it started with.

I myself often post things which are far more off topic

sorry if I annoy anyone with this habit!

Digital Matt · Dec 2, 2006

newrmdmike said:
except that its totally off topic.

It's not even remotely off topic. The topic is raw vs jpg, and reasons for shooting raw, or not shooting raw are being discussed. If someone is questioning whether or not to shoot raw, you have to look at more than just the algoryhthms behind it.

dEARlEADER · Jan 19, 2009

TheSon · Jan 19, 2009

Why not just shoot Raw+Jpeg? After you look at your pictures, you can erase all of the RAW images that you are not going to use. Therefore saving space.

I only keep RAW images that I will want to PP. If the Jpeg/RAW shot looks crappy, I'll just keep the Jpeg.

That way I at least have the RAW image if I need it.

And for Alex... if you're serious about photography, and have top photo equipment, then you should have top computer equipment as well (not a "poor little computer"). These days they go hand in hand with digital photography (and are cheap).

dEARlEADER · Jan 19, 2009

TheSon said:
Why not just shoot Raw+Jpeg? After you look at your pictures, you can erase all of the RAW images that you are not going to use. Therefore saving space.

I only keep RAW images that I will want to PP. If the Jpeg/RAW shot looks crappy, I'll just keep the Jpeg.

That way I at least have the RAW image if I need it.

And for Alex... if you're serious about photography, and have top photo equipment, then you should have top computer equipment as well (not a "poor little computer"). These days they go hand in hand with digital photography (and are cheap).

Interesting point.