Noobie question
Discussion
I love photography, though I'm not very good. Only took up digital photography relatively recently, and started with a Sureshot compact, as I thought I would still use my 35mm SLR (wrong!)
With a view to getting the best out of the camera I have, can someone tell me in very simple terms, what the advantages of taking pictures in RAW are? I know the camera is capable of doing that, but RAW images seem to take up a lot of memory, so I tend to shoot everything as JPG.
Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I need a laymans explanation (yes I am blonde
)
With a view to getting the best out of the camera I have, can someone tell me in very simple terms, what the advantages of taking pictures in RAW are? I know the camera is capable of doing that, but RAW images seem to take up a lot of memory, so I tend to shoot everything as JPG.
Sorry if this question has been asked before, but I need a laymans explanation (yes I am blonde
)Less in camera processing and more detail.
JPG is 8 bits per pixel deep, raw is typicaly 12. Also no compression has been used, JPG looses detail (lossy compression algorythm).
This extra info allows more detail to be extracted, especialy from the low light areas/under exposed bits.
also allows you to do things like adjust white balance.
Ananagy is negative vs print.
JPG is 8 bits per pixel deep, raw is typicaly 12. Also no compression has been used, JPG looses detail (lossy compression algorythm).
This extra info allows more detail to be extracted, especialy from the low light areas/under exposed bits.
also allows you to do things like adjust white balance.
Ananagy is negative vs print.
This site has some excelent stuff.
www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
I have learned a lot from there.
Nick.
www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml
I have learned a lot from there.
Nick.
RAW is essentially a digital negative. It records exactly what falls through the lens onto the sensor.
JPG applies a fair few adjustments, not least of which is compression, to make a more user friendly file.
RAW requires specialist software to convert (that doesn't necessarily mean expensive though, there are shareware convertors) and, because of its "unfiddled with" nature, you have a lot more leeway to adjust things like contrast, exposure compensation, saturation etc than you do with a JPG.
While it's exceedingly handy to have that, especially when getting to grips with a new camera or lens, or learning in general, it's very easy to fall into the trap of using P mode for everything, carpetbombing and then spending hours post-processing the pics.
Most of the pro sports togs for example, will be using JPG as they simply haven't got the time to process the pics from a game to get sent to a website and have to rely on their photographic knowledge to get the settings right (most of the time they'll send them straight from the ground/track as there'll be a wifi network for laptops to attach to).
Swings and roundabouts really but, if you've got the capacity, and you want the ability to correct stuff after the fact, I'd go for RAW.
JPG applies a fair few adjustments, not least of which is compression, to make a more user friendly file.
RAW requires specialist software to convert (that doesn't necessarily mean expensive though, there are shareware convertors) and, because of its "unfiddled with" nature, you have a lot more leeway to adjust things like contrast, exposure compensation, saturation etc than you do with a JPG.
While it's exceedingly handy to have that, especially when getting to grips with a new camera or lens, or learning in general, it's very easy to fall into the trap of using P mode for everything, carpetbombing and then spending hours post-processing the pics.
Most of the pro sports togs for example, will be using JPG as they simply haven't got the time to process the pics from a game to get sent to a website and have to rely on their photographic knowledge to get the settings right (most of the time they'll send them straight from the ground/track as there'll be a wifi network for laptops to attach to).
Swings and roundabouts really but, if you've got the capacity, and you want the ability to correct stuff after the fact, I'd go for RAW.
graham@reading said:
RAW requires specialist software to convert (that doesn't necessarily mean expensive though, there are shareware convertors) and, because of its "unfiddled with" nature, you have a lot more leeway to adjust things like contrast, exposure compensation, saturation etc than you do with a JPG.
Just as a point I beleive if a camera does RAW its maker usualy supplies software for conversion. It may not be the best but it should have it.
Also Picasa(free) and Photoshop(not) usuly will handle the files OK.
If your filling up your memory card get a bigger one!
One issue tho is because the files are bigger they take longer to write to memory, this means slower shooting times, a lot of sports shooters shoot JPG because of this issue.
RobDickinson said:
graham@reading said:
RAW requires specialist software to convert (that doesn't necessarily mean expensive though, there are shareware convertors) and, because of its "unfiddled with" nature, you have a lot more leeway to adjust things like contrast, exposure compensation, saturation etc than you do with a JPG.
Just as a point I beleive if a camera does RAW its maker usualy supplies software for conversion. It may not be the best but it should have it.
Also Picasa(free) and Photoshop(not) usuly will handle the files OK.
Yeah, sorry I meant it's not quite as ubiquitous as jpg, ie Paint won't and Photoshop needs to convert them prior to actually working on them etc etc. RAW isn't a standardised format either (varies from manufacturer to manufacturer and even camera to camera from teh same company). In fact, that's probably WHY it's not so easily handled.
therossatron said:
RobDickinson said:
JPG is 8 bits per pixel deep, raw is typicaly 12.
I'm a bit confused by this? 8 bit per pixel would make the image have a maximum of 256 colours no? I always thought these images were 24bit.
Edited by therossatron on Thursday 23 November 09:56
8 bits per RBG channel, so 256 possible levels of red, 256 possible levels of green and 256 possible levels of blue.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff