RAW or JPG

Big Mike · Oct 7, 2004

I was wondering this myself and another thread has sparked me to ask this...

Do you DSLR shooters shoot in RAW? All the time or just some of the time?

How often do you make prints? How often do you make large prints that would require you to start with a RAW file?

Do most of your photos just end up on your computer and/or to be displayed on the web?

Have you ever taken a jpg and later regretted it? Why?

Corry · Oct 7, 2004

While you people are at it, could you just explain the difference to me? I don't really understand it!

Ant · Oct 7, 2004

I shoot exclusively JPG.

I'm not interested in printing large prints. I don't like doing a lot of post editing and, to be totally honest, I can't see that much difference in image quality if I select high quality JPG.

If I shot in RAW I'd be doubling my storage space requirements without getting anywhere close to doubling the quality of the image.

Still, it's a very subjective choice. Other peoples preferances will vary.

Big Mike · Oct 7, 2004

core_17 said:
While you people are at it, could you just explain the difference to me? I don't really understand it!

I might not have the best explanation but...

RAW is all the information that the camera can record...it's not compressed or changed. Some things can be edited...white balance for example.

JPG...the file is compressed to save space. I think you can choose the level of compression. Some of the data is lost.

santino · Oct 7, 2004

Big Mike said:
core_17 said:

While you people are at it, could you just explain the difference to me? I don't really understand it!

Click to expand...

I might not have the best explanation but...

RAW is all the information that the camera can record...it's not compressed or changed. Some things can be edited...white balance for example.

JPG...the file is compressed to save space. I think you can choose the level of compression. Some of the data is lost.

perfectly explained :thumbsup:

Digital Matt · Oct 7, 2004

I only shoot in raw, and I make prints of lots of my photos, up to 24x36. Quality is important. I also post process my photos to get the look I want,

mentos_007 · Oct 7, 2004

ok, so I don't shoot in RAW. Why? My xD Picture Card is too small for it... I have only 128 MB and 16 MB cards, and xD are one of the most expensive digi cards. To be honest I don't see a difference between raw and jpg on prints 20x30 cm.

voodoocat · Oct 7, 2004

Hey, went ahead and made this a poll for you.

I picked RAW. I can fit about 90 RAW shots on a 512 meg card.

hobbes28 · Oct 7, 2004

I don't have any choice. I've been bugging Kodak to update the firmware to let me shoot in RAW when I want to.

santino · Oct 7, 2004

I voted film but if I had a DSLR with enough memory I would shoot in RAW

danalec99 · Oct 7, 2004

RAW for serious stuff!
Higher JPEG for not so important "snaps".

But is there really a mighty difference between a large print High JPEG and a large print RAW? I haven't printed a large one yet!

Big Mike · Oct 7, 2004

danalec99 said:
But is there really a mighty difference between a large print High JPEG and a large print RAW? I haven't printed a large one yet!

I think this is the real question.

santino · Oct 7, 2004

Big Mike said:
danalec99 said:

But is there really a mighty difference between a large print High JPEG and a large print RAW? I haven't printed a large one yet!

Click to expand...

I think this is the real question.

yeah it is, I'm no expert and I don't have no experience with digital stuff but I've heard, that in RAW for example you can change the contrast and so on and your pics won't loose too much of their quality, is it true? :scratch:

deb · Oct 7, 2004

I shoot some images raw. Mostly to see what all the commotion is about. I shoot some images as tiff, which are lossless like raw but lack the additional manipulation raw affords. I shoot some images as very large jpegs.

The tradeoffs as I see them:

Large jpegs take a little less time to record than tiff and raw, show minimal signs of loss and work fine in most instances. An exception to this for me has been a photograph containing large areas of similar color but different textures......some of the texture is lost. (i.e. early evening shot of water with ripples when most of the water is in the shade and the color differences between the still water and the ripples is minimal, some details in the ripples will be lost.)

Tiff is slower than the jpeg as far as recording time (depending on the image I've timed it anywhere between 11 and 18 seconds), files are larger than raw files but if white balance, contrast etc are correct a post processing step is eliminated.

Raw allows you to change your mind about some of the camera settings after the picture has been recorded. If you are unsure about some aspect of the picture, you have one more chance to change some of the camera settings (I can adjust color, white balance, contrast, sharpness).

If I'm taking several versions of a picture, I'll get one or two in raw format. I'll then switch to xtra fine jpegs unless there is a reason to think that I'll lose a lot of detail.

I'm shooting with with Minolta 7i and 7hi (slr type cameras) as opposed to the true slrs, so there may be some caveats that are specific to the true dslr cameras.

bshearer · Oct 7, 2004

Personally I feel that if you are not willing to really learn a good Work Flow process for your images once you get them on the PC, then you shouldnt really even think about doing it in RAW. My perception is more that the RAW REQUIRES, not just allows, additional munipulation.