RAW versus Jpeg

bp4life71 · Sep 16, 2009

Title says it all..sort of.

What is the difference between the two, and what is the benefit of one over the other. Thanks.

Phranquey · Sep 16, 2009

Not meant to be rude...

The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum - Search Results

This one has been around the block a few times.

IgsEMT · Sep 16, 2009

well in quick summary, though I didn't read above link here it is...
Image you're shooting film, oh the lovely film:
When you're done with your shot you have your negatives that need to be developed (aka RAW).
But when you're shooting polaroid - you get the picture right away (JPG) but lets say it is a fancy polaroid that gives you the picture but allows you certain tweaks (JPG on your computer).
As for which is better, that depends on you. When I shoot my kid running around, I shoot JPGs, when I'm shooting a wedding, based on the studio I'm working with, I'll shoot only JPGs or RAW+JPG.
Personally, although you can play much more with RAW image then with JPG, I hate shooting jpg b/c it takes me twice as much time processing it then it takes me jpg.

good luck

Error · Sep 17, 2009

Why shooting RAW file if you can shoot the subject in a proper exposure or in a right ingridients. RAW will double your time to process the images individually.
JPEG can print it automatically while RAW; you need to edit it first… I don’t know if RAW will come out the proper exposure if you print it directly from your camera… I haven’t tried it yet.
Practice to shoot the subject in a JPEG mode without using any programs to enhance your photos or don’t make a habit of using any program (Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom etc) to edit your work as match as possible.

PS.
For me if you edit your photos you will not call that as a real photograph instead it’s an art because you edit it, and you will not call yourself as a Pro Photographer instead you’re a Photoshop Photographer.

bigtwinky · Sep 17, 2009

One of our best local sports photogs, does all the Montreal Canadians games, has shot 8 olympics, shoots all his sports in JPGs. He told me he doesnt have the time to process each of the images when he is taking 100+ images in a hockey game and has to send them to the newspaper for a print run that night.

Plus, as a JPG is not as big, you can continious shoot more JPGs than RAWs in one series before your buffer fills.

I love shooting RAW when doing portraits, landscapes and so on. Mostly things that I will plan on converting to other colour tones or potentially doing some post processcing work. RAW contains more data and thus adjustments are not as destructive as they are on JPGs

JamesMason · Sep 17, 2009

I was not aware anybody actualy shot raw. Think its a bit of a gimmick and a way to make you buy more memory cards. But hey seems some people like it, suppose it what works best for you.

robertwsimpson · Sep 17, 2009

I'm not a pro or anything, but I shoot exclusively in RAW. I mean, I guess I'll take snapshots in JPG from time to time (like for example I am house shopping and I'm taking pictures of the houses I am looking at. I do that in JPG)

To the people who think that RAW takes twice as long to process, all you have to do is set up what you like in your RAW converter and save it as a profile and then apply it to the rest of your pictures. it takes like 5 seconds. I do it all the time. Then after that, if you see something that needs a slight tweak, you can still do it.

If I'm taking a picture that has the potential to be something really good (which I'd like to think a lot of mine do) why would I want to shoot in anything less than the best format? I've captured some really great moments, but for whatever reason, the picture was slightly under or over exposed... I think that RAW gives you a better chance of pulling detail out of shadows or toning down the blown out pixels without ruining the picture.

just my two cents.

also, memory cards are cheap now.

PhotoXopher · Sep 17, 2009

Common question, but it does make me second guess shooting RAW sometimes.

Take Lightroom for example... the preview I see looks great (JPG), then the RAW file renders and blah, I have to go through and try to make it look 'right' a lot of times.

With digital you can see your photo instantly so you know if you nailed it or not. Granted some things aren't re-shootable so you take your chances.

It's not like the JPG's are un-editable or bad for print, but the main thing that keeps me shooting RAW is 'what if'.

Village Idiot · Sep 17, 2009

Are you guys serious?

Error said:
Why shooting RAW file if you can shoot the subject in a proper exposure or in a right ingridients. RAW will double your time to process the images individually.
JPEG can print it automatically while RAW; you need to edit it first I dont know if RAW will come out the proper exposure if you print it directly from your camera I havent tried it yet.
Practice to shoot the subject in a JPEG mode without using any programs to enhance your photos or dont make a habit of using any program (Adobe Photoshop, Lightroom etc) to edit your work as match as possible.

PS.
For me if you edit your photos you will not call that as a real photograph instead its an art because you edit it, and you will not call yourself as a Pro Photographer instead youre a Photoshop Photographer.

That's BS. Film allows editing between the negative and the final print. Tools and techniques you can use in the darkroom have representations in programs like Photoshop. Cropping, Dodging, Burning, changing the exposure, etc...

If you know how to properly edit your photos, then you'll be an amazing photographer and you'll take control to get the final edit you want, not what your camera wants.

Plus when you use RAW, you have more image data. Once you blow out a portion of a photo with a JPG, it's gone. A RAW image will still contain data for those portions of the image if it's not too far gone. That way you can slightly over expose and image and draw the overall exposure down for an image with a wider dynamic range than what is possible with a regularly exposed shot. I mean, if MF and LF platforms can accomplish this without using tricks, then how is that art?

And if you think that any edited image is art, then go back and look at all the film photography that has been edited from the original exposure and you'll find out that there's not a lot of professional photography in the world.

JamesMason said:
I was not aware anybody actualy shot raw. Think its a bit of a gimmick and a way to make you buy more memory cards. But hey seems some people like it, suppose it what works best for you.

Read above. RAW offers advantages to shooting JPG. Plus it's a lossless format. Save a JPG 100 times and it starts to look like crap. Save a RAW file 100 times and it looks like it did the first time you opened it.

robertwsimpson · Sep 17, 2009

The best thing about RAW is that you can edit the crap out of it, and then go back a month later, and even though you've changed everything a ton, your RAW file is still in tact, and you can start over from scratch. To do that with JPG, you'd have to save multiple copies of everything. Plus, going in and tweaking your photos will show you little tiny imperfections that you might not notice if you just shot in JPG and that's it. pixel peeping, although not advisable, as taught me a lot about how to make a good picture into a great picture. the funny thing is that most of the time, it has more to do with how I shoot the picture than how I post process the picture.

Goontz · Sep 17, 2009

JamesMason said:
I was not aware anybody actualy shot raw. Think its a bit of a gimmick and a way to make you buy more memory cards. But hey seems some people like it, suppose it what works best for you.

Really? I would venture to say that the majority shoot RAW.

Jaszek · Sep 17, 2009

I shoot RAW 80% of the time. When it's just snapshots then it's JPEG. I bought a dSLR to have full control of the camera. That means I want the images to look how I want them to look, not the camera. I want to have the freedom to sharpen the image as much as I want to, change the white balance and do other **** like that.

Error · Sep 17, 2009

In RAW file you cant see the images bigger when you film stripping the folder instead it will only show you as a big icon with the size of 1x1 ½ while the JPEG are instantly viewable in a bigger image and yes through the LCD on your DSLR camera you can view it and see if you have the right exposure. Dont tell me that in every event like sport, car racing etc. you still dont know what setting your going to use?

Theres nothing wrong if you mastering the right exposure/ingredients just to get the proper exposure when shooting JPEG mode. I know that the new generation some photographer are doing editing as well as enhancement for their works just to keep their images in a nice outcome... but, for me I dont believe of doing that kind of process because youre destroying the quality of your photos.

If youre a photographer in news paper and your work need it to be publish by tomorrow say the events is today and you have ½ hour gap to be printed your work and publish it by tomorrow, do you think that you have time to edit it? Editing is only for those whos not in a rush situation and of course for your portfolios and other website competition just to show them how the images will come out if they are not in a rush. If Im a news paper director then youre going to show me your edited portfolio Im not going to hire you as a pro photographer because I dont want to delay my business for just giving me that kind of work (edited).

Every photographer has different opinions about how they going to do their work and how they going to present it.

g-fi · Sep 17, 2009

I shoot in RAW + basic JPG exclusively. I use the basic JPGS to go through and preview all my shots and eliminate the ones that I'm not going to use, and then process my RAW files. Honestly, I don't really understand the "RAW takes so much more time" argument. Before I upgraded the memory in my laptop, RAW files took a little longer to load, but a $12 memory upgrade = RAW files loading only slightly slower than a high quality JPG. I don't have some crazy top of the line laptop either, or a ridic amount of memory. I don't get it. Why would you not shoot in RAW? I also don't subscribe to the "If you edit, you're not a photographer" line either. I would rather do some editing in post than miss a shot because I was too busy worrying about getting it perfect SOOC.

With how cheap memory is these days, and how good programs have gotten at handling RAW files (I even installed a codec to preview my raw files right in Windows Explorer so I don't have to open them to get a basic idea of what my pictures look like), I think it comes down to purely personal tastes.

I prefer to shoot RAW because it maximizes my chances of getting the shot exactly the way I "saw" it.

g-fi · Sep 17, 2009

Error said:
In RAW file you cant see the images bigger when you film stripping the folder instead it will only show you as a big icon with the size of 1x1 ½ while the JPEG are instantly viewable in a bigger image and yes through the LCD on your DSLR camera you can view it and see if you have the right exposure. Dont tell me that in every event like sport, car racing etc. you still dont know what setting your going to use?

Just wanted to point out that there are files you can install on your computer to preview RAW files without using a viewer or editor. My workflow process involves eliminating RAW files that are obviously unusable before I even open the first image file, and it certainly comes in handy to be able to view the files without opening them.