which format

[archer379]

I was wondering for a beginner like me should i be shooting in RAW or jpeg format?

 

[Big Mike]

I suggest shooting in RAW. There may be a bit of a learning curve with the workflow...but it's probably worth it.

 

[Rand0m411]

Im a noob too, but if you plan on doing any type of post processing I would recommend RAW format. RAW stores the original metadata no matter what changes you make to the photo as well as being better to apply changes too, since its an uncompressed image.

 

[frXnz kafka]

This will undoubtedly turn into a RAW vs JPEG debate

If you can use RAW, do it. If you must use JPEG, you'll be no worse off. RAW is great because it allows you to make adjustments that don't harm the data. If you watch your histogram while editing a JPEG in Photoshop you'll see huge spikes and dips. This is because data is being destroyed.

That said, JPEG allows you a much faster frame rate, which is great if you're shooting fast paced action. It also takes up much less disk space, which is great if you have a small memory card or are shooting a lot of pictures in one go. You probably won't notice a difference in image quality between JPEG and RAW until you start making very big enlargements, and even then you might not see it. I shoot RAW because I have no reason not to, and because it makes it a bit easier (to me) to store an original file along with edits.

 

[Village Idiot]

That said, JPEG allows you a much faster frame rate, which is great if you're shooting fast paced action. It also takes up much less disk space, which is great if you have a small memory card or are shooting a lot of pictures in one go.

Actually, every DSLR I've used in the past three years has the same FPS regardless of JPG or RAW, RAW files are larger and fill the buffer faster not allowing you to shoot as many photos in a burst.

 

[Socrates]

Actually, every DSLR I've used in the past three years has the same FPS regardless of JPG or RAW, RAW files are larger and fill the buffer faster not allowing you to shoot as many photos in a burst.

Yeah, that's actually the case and the difference can be quite substantial. Using my D80, maximum burst with RAW is six shots. Twenty-three shots with Large/Fine jpg and one hundred shots with all other jpg combinations.

 

[frXnz kafka]

Actually, every DSLR I've used in the past three years has the same FPS regardless of JPG or RAW, RAW files are larger and fill the buffer faster not allowing you to shoot as many photos in a burst.

Hmm, I just tried it out on my camera and you're right. But the sentiment remains the same. If you need a lot of pictures and you need them fast, JPEG is better than RAW.

 

[Socrates]

I was wondering for a beginner like me should i be shooting in RAW or jpeg format?

Contrary to most of the other responses, if you're truly a beginner, stay away from RAW for a while. If you're learning how to drive, you don't want to learn how to use a nav system at the same time. After you get comfortable with understanding camera basics, such as shutter speed, aperture, ASA/ISO, then you might try RAW and see if you like it. Many of us don't bother with it.

 

[Mystwalker]

Unless you are going to process the RAW file, you are probably better off just shooting jpeg. I believe jpeg is better then unprocessed RAW. Processed RAW is better then jpeg - if you know what you are doing.

I shoot with RAW+jpeg ... a waste of storage space (for me) considering I've "touched" the RAW shots less then a dozen times and eventually deciding I have no idea what I was doing and ended up using jpeg

 

[Village Idiot]

Hmm, I just tried it out on my camera and you're right. But the sentiment remains the same. If you need a lot of pictures and you need them fast, JPEG is better than RAW.

So if you need quick FPS and need quality and a final product you can edit, RAW is better than JPG?

I've never once shot a JPG with my camera and I manage to get by, even when I need speed.

 

[frXnz kafka]

So if you need quick FPS and need quality and a final product you can edit, RAW is better than JPG?

I've never once shot a JPG with my camera and I manage to get by, even when I need speed.

Read my original post, I think that will answer your questions.

And by the way, you can edit JPEG. I don't know what you're talking about there.

 

[danjchau]

-------------

 

[RKW3]

And by the way, you can edit JPEG. I don't know what you're talking about there.

But editing a JPEG is much more limited than editing a RAW. In example; when you need to lighten shadows, recover highlights, convert the shot to B&W, etc.. Doing all of that is much harder to do to a JPEG file compared to a RAW.

 

[Village Idiot]

Read my original post, I think that will answer your questions.

And by the way, you can edit JPEG. I don't know what you're talking about there.

Not to the extent of a RAW file, as listed above. Issues like WB and exposure can't be correct as well. And with a JPG file, it's what you shoot is what you get.

You've heard of shooting to the right and being able to drop the exposure in photoshop to catch areas that appear slightly blown so that they're exposed normally for an image that's better over all?

You have to be shooting RAW files to do that.

 

[andrew99]

But editing a JPEG is much more limited than editing a RAW. In example; when you need to lighten shadows, recover highlights, convert the shot to B&W, etc.. Doing all of that is much harder to do to a JPEG file compared to a RAW.

You can open JPEG's in Photoshop Camera Raw (via Bridge). I've done this to be able to play around with the recovery and fill light settings on a JPEG. Works pretty well.