Shooting mode; RAW vs. jpeg

[NM Rich]

WOW, I was monkeying around with the shooting modes on my Nikon D40x. Shooting in the NEF RAW format vs. the jpeg mode sure makes a HUGE difference in file size! The RAW version was almost 11mb and the jpeg version was 2.3mb.

Does anyone use the RAW mode when shooting and what would be the benefits to that?

Thanks for any replies!

Rich

 

[Socrates]

WOW, I was monkeying around with the shooting modes on my Nikon D40x. Shooting in the NEF RAW format vs. the jpeg mode sure makes a HUGE difference in file size! The RAW version was almost 11mb and the jpeg version was 2.3mb.

Does anyone use the RAW mode when shooting and what would be the benefits to that?

Thanks for any replies!

Rich

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Do a search for varying opinions. In my case, I use RAW/NEF for intended masterpieces but I stick with jpg for snapshots of my grand-daughter.

 

[NM Rich]

This has been discussed ad nauseum. Do a search for varying opinions. In my case, I use RAW/NEF for intended masterpieces but I stick with jpg for snapshots of my grand-daughter.

Thanks for your reply!

I'll explore the search function a little more...

 

[Mav]

There's really no right or wrong answer as far as what to shoot. A lot of it depends on your personal style, then it depends on how much you shoot, what you shoot, and how much post processing you like to do.

 

[Craddosk]

If your JPEG is only 2.3mb, your shooting at pretty low quality. If your going to shoot Jpeg, shoot at Fine, Large quality. That way, if you crop, you'll still get good pictures.

 

[LaFoto]

Maybe my reply to this other beginner to the hobby (see here - Post 35) may help you understand why it makes sense to always shoot RAW, no matter the file size...

Yes I had to invest in a 4GB card when I (finally, took me a long while, too, mind you!!) started to shoot RAW, and I still only get about 450 photos out of that one (when my sister would get ten times as many with her shooting only jpg), but I think it is absolutely worth the while.

Boy, it took me ages to change the wrong colouring in the photos of the company inauguration when it would have been one little change of settings in the RAW converter, if only at that time I had taken those photos as RAW files...

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The search tool is your friend.

 

[Mav]

Maybe my reply to this other beginner to the hobby (see here - Post 35) may help you understand why it makes sense to always shoot RAW, no matter the file size...

That's a rather extreme example though. Yes if you're going to do extreme things then shoot RAW. Yes, if you're shooting an important event and cannot afford to make mistakes, shoot RAW. But for most normal photography and even post-processing JPEG is perfectly fine. It gives you plenty of leeway. You can push exposure by 2+ stops with little to no quality loss, and you can also adjust white balance similarly all while saving a ton of disk and memory card space and processing time.

 

[Arch]

iv just bought another SD card for £6.49 thats like 10-12 dollers?....

Shoot RAW all of the time is my advice. Its ok saying only shoot RAW when you need to.. but thats like having a better lens in your bag than the one your using and saying, only use the good one on special occasions... use it all the time and you will never regret missing an opportunity.

 

[Mav]

I've shot RAW and JPEG side by side, and have never been able to tell the difference except in the event of technique errors on my part such as blown highlights. I've tested my wife blindly on RAW vs JPEG shots asking her which one looked better after I had spent a good amount of time post-processing both, and the results were random. She couldn't tell. A NICE LENS however, she knows immediately. The sharpness, the contrast, the color, how it picks up every little detail (or flaw) on her face. :blushing: She can tell my nicer lenses from my junkier ones very easily. So I like to shoot with nicer lenses, but I still only shoot in JPEG. Nikon does have nice workable JPEG outputs though, so that's part of it.

Anyways I'll now bow out. No time for RAW vs JPEG holy wars today.

 

[Socrates]

iv just bought another SD card for £6.49 thats like 10-12 dollers?....

Shoot RAW all of the time is my advice. Its ok saying only shoot RAW when you need to.. but thats like having a better lens in your bag than the one your using and saying, only use the good one on special occasions... use it all the time and you will never regret missing an opportunity.

Well, I'm not a pro. In addition to my intended masterpieces (for which I use RAW/NEF), I do take a lot of family snapshots that are just fine out of the camera, except for perhaps some cropping. It makes absolutely no sense to use RAW for the snapshots as the only impact is the requirement to convert each one to jpg for distribution to the family members.

There is another down-side to RAW. In machine-gun mode (3 fps), I can shoot only six consecutive shots before I have to wait several seconds. The highest quality and size of jpg is only slightly better (eight shots) but the lower quality levels and sizes allow several hundred consecutive shots!

The better lens doesn't result in any extra work for me.

 

[Mav]

Better lenses result in less work time for me since great lenses need little PP work. They're already sharp, crisp, clear, and colorful straight off the camera and I don't even really need to touch them. OK now I'm done.

 

[Arch]

...except for perhaps some cropping. It makes absolutely no sense to use RAW for the snapshots as the only impact is the requirement to convert each one to jpg for distribution to the family members.

Well if your going to crop them anyway, whats another 1min to convert the RAW file to a jpeg?... jpegs are quicker to work with granted, but not that much quicker.
However yes, if you are literally going to take it from the cam to an email to anty Sally then by all means risk the jpeg. I say 'risk' because one day while idly snapping at my Niece i happened on a killer shot... Her smile and look where perfect... My bro now has a large framed picture in his living room... (another version they had made to a canvas)... thank god i was shooting RAW

(... btw i shoot RAW+Jpeg... thats one for anty Sally and one for my archives )

 

[BoblyBill]

I would also advise shooting only RAW (or RAW+JPEG). Although MAV makes great points, the only disadvantages of RAW is the large file sizes (which SD and CF cards are getting cheaper as or harddrives and burnable DVD's) and conversion time to a usable file (usually TIFF or JPEG, in which if you use CS3, you can use bridge to convert large amounts of pictures to a say 16bit TIFF or 8bit JPEG quite easily). In all other regards RAW is better.

 

[Socrates]

Well if your going to crop them anyway, whats another 1min to convert the RAW file to a jpeg?... jpegs are quicker to work with granted, but not that much quicker.

Well, let's see...
I took 150 shots at a recent birthday party for my grand-daughter. That's two and a half hours for the conversion. Yes, jpegs ARE "that much quicker."

Now, speaking as a photographer...
If your niece's "smile and look were perfect," why the need for PP? What camera errors needed fixing? PP, even simple cropping, is nothing more than a mechanism to fix mistakes that never should have happened to begin with.