Raw ? Jpeg or both ?
Discussion
LongQ said:
If you are currently shooting jpg consider shooting RAW instead. In camera jpeg processing is designed to give an acceptasble result (dependent on the picture 'style' or whatever settings you have control over) but is a compromise. RAW requires more work to get an image out (though maybe not much unless you really want to go to town on an image), but offers more options for dealing with a wider dynamic range with less planned intrusion from the in camera processor. I reckon I get about 2 stops of latitude (at a pinch) from my 400D if I start with a RAW file. That can be the difference required for recovering an 'on the limit' highlight or the detail in a deep shadow.
I started with jpeg and have now moved onto RAW (after advice as above from m'learned colleague LQ).Not done much with it yet though so no idea on 'cons'
Raws need to be processed so take more time, even if you just convert them all to jpg's like the camera would save.
However jpg coe pre compressed out of the camera an every time you open and close them they get compressed again.
The raws are full quality and you can convert them exactly how the camera would if you choose but you can also choose to open them in another program and make other adjustments to e.g. the white balance, the colour curves, make it black and white etc etc. Doing this to a jpg would be using a poor pre compressed base, whereas doing it with raw can do it to an unaltered image as the camera captured it.
Basically, if you make a mistake you can save a raw more times than a jpg
.
However jpg coe pre compressed out of the camera an every time you open and close them they get compressed again.
The raws are full quality and you can convert them exactly how the camera would if you choose but you can also choose to open them in another program and make other adjustments to e.g. the white balance, the colour curves, make it black and white etc etc. Doing this to a jpg would be using a poor pre compressed base, whereas doing it with raw can do it to an unaltered image as the camera captured it.
Basically, if you make a mistake you can save a raw more times than a jpg
.All good comments above re the comparisons between RAW and JPG.
Nothing wrong with jpg at all, many cameras produce perfectly good results and don't offer RAW facilities. However they will have the potential to leave you with some compromised processing and one has to accept that or attempt to minimise the camera's 'worst tendencies' with whatever adjustments to the default jpg processing may be available.
Yes if you shoot RAW there will be some extra processing required to get a sharable image from the original. However this need not take much time or effort since each RAW file offers a jpg thumbnail - which is what you see on the camera screen. There are prpograms around that are able to use the information about the processing of that thumbnail to rapidly batch process your RAW shots into a sharable, as-the-camera-would-have-developed-it jpg. (I'm assuming that, like me, one is reluctant to shoot RAW + JPG due to memory usage and in-camera processing times.)
So using something like FastStone Image Viewer one can overcome some of the processing time objections for RAW only shooting and obtain some rapidly shareable output with simple editing facilities or, at a more basic level, something like Instant JPEG From RAW (IJFR) from http://www.rawworkflow.com/
If a camera offers RAW I tend to use it rather than trying to decide what to use and when. If not I'll work with what it offers as jpg. More often than not that will be perfectly acceptable - but sometimes slightly frustrating. (Of course this can also be true of RAW images ...)
Nothing wrong with jpg at all, many cameras produce perfectly good results and don't offer RAW facilities. However they will have the potential to leave you with some compromised processing and one has to accept that or attempt to minimise the camera's 'worst tendencies' with whatever adjustments to the default jpg processing may be available.
Yes if you shoot RAW there will be some extra processing required to get a sharable image from the original. However this need not take much time or effort since each RAW file offers a jpg thumbnail - which is what you see on the camera screen. There are prpograms around that are able to use the information about the processing of that thumbnail to rapidly batch process your RAW shots into a sharable, as-the-camera-would-have-developed-it jpg. (I'm assuming that, like me, one is reluctant to shoot RAW + JPG due to memory usage and in-camera processing times.)
So using something like FastStone Image Viewer one can overcome some of the processing time objections for RAW only shooting and obtain some rapidly shareable output with simple editing facilities or, at a more basic level, something like Instant JPEG From RAW (IJFR) from http://www.rawworkflow.com/
If a camera offers RAW I tend to use it rather than trying to decide what to use and when. If not I'll work with what it offers as jpg. More often than not that will be perfectly acceptable - but sometimes slightly frustrating. (Of course this can also be true of RAW images ...)
just one more thing... RAW files are much bigger and fill up the buffer quickly if you're shooting in continuous mode. So for me if it's snapshots, race meetings, school sports days then it's Jpegs. Portraits, laandscape then RAW definitely offers more choice around things like white balance assuming you're using some decent PP software.
Thanks guys good info. Main concern with RAW is storage. I'm now storing Hi-Def AVCHD as well and it's taking a toll on my backup solution !
I think I may shoot in just RAW at airshows/ bases and perhaps RAW and Jpeg for family outing / hols etc.
I guess I can then keep that special shot in RAW ( if I ever manage to take one ) and the rest as Jpeg.
I think I may shoot in just RAW at airshows/ bases and perhaps RAW and Jpeg for family outing / hols etc.
I guess I can then keep that special shot in RAW ( if I ever manage to take one ) and the rest as Jpeg.
nick heppinstall said:
Thanks guys good info. Main concern with RAW is storage. I'm now storing Hi-Def AVCHD as well and it's taking a toll on my backup solution !
I think I may shoot in just RAW at airshows/ bases and perhaps RAW and Jpeg for family outing / hols etc.
I guess I can then keep that special shot in RAW ( if I ever manage to take one ) and the rest as Jpeg.
Nick,I think I may shoot in just RAW at airshows/ bases and perhaps RAW and Jpeg for family outing / hols etc.
I guess I can then keep that special shot in RAW ( if I ever manage to take one ) and the rest as Jpeg.
I have absolutely no sympathy if you are shooting video as well! That really does use storage like there is no tomorrow.
Other than that a general observation would be that - if you thought buying the camera gear was an expense when you realise just how much additional computer kit and stuff you need to get the best possible outcomes and store it all in a failsafe way you'll reralise that was just pocket money. (Especially the video part ....)
I think I would be tempted to experiment to get the 'style' of jpg you want from, say, P mode or a custom setting and then leave the controllable stuff set to use RAW. It's easier to remember to set the right things that way and may suit your purpose well.
LongQ said:
nick heppinstall said:
Thanks guys good info. Main concern with RAW is storage. I'm now storing Hi-Def AVCHD as well and it's taking a toll on my backup solution !
I think I may shoot in just RAW at airshows/ bases and perhaps RAW and Jpeg for family outing / hols etc.
I guess I can then keep that special shot in RAW ( if I ever manage to take one ) and the rest as Jpeg.
Nick,I think I may shoot in just RAW at airshows/ bases and perhaps RAW and Jpeg for family outing / hols etc.
I guess I can then keep that special shot in RAW ( if I ever manage to take one ) and the rest as Jpeg.
I have absolutely no sympathy if you are shooting video as well! That really does use storage like there is no tomorrow.
Other than that a general observation would be that - if you thought buying the camera gear was an expense when you realise just how much additional computer kit and stuff you need to get the best possible outcomes and store it all in a failsafe way you'll reralise that was just pocket money. (Especially the video part ....)
I think I would be tempted to experiment to get the 'style' of jpg you want from, say, P mode or a custom setting and then leave the controllable stuff set to use RAW. It's easier to remember to set the right things that way and may suit your purpose well.
Yeah.... Luckily I'm a bit of an IT saddo so my bacup solution for my pics and video is fairly solid.... I hope ! I shoot RAW unless I'm out of space & cant get more.
The ability to have all available data, adjust white balance and go back and reprocess old images with new technique from the raw file is to me a huge benefit, I dont have many 'finished' images & dont work commercialy so I have no time or profit motive.
The ability to have all available data, adjust white balance and go back and reprocess old images with new technique from the raw file is to me a huge benefit, I dont have many 'finished' images & dont work commercialy so I have no time or profit motive.
RobDickinson said:
I dont have many 'finished' images & dont work commercialy so I have no time or profit motive.
It has been said (on this forum) that pros shoot JPG because it 'takes too much time to process RAW and time is money'. My view is that the most important thing is the results, not the time taken to get them. Why send out something that's *almost* right, when you can make it better? My clients don't say 'Aha, I can see you've shot RAW to maximise DR and WB flexibility', they say 'Wow, that's really good'. And really, that's all that matters 
Edited by Simpo Two on Sunday 18th April 13:19
Guess its down to each photogs clients and business model, a sports shooter may just want to get the image straight from the camera to the back page, clients may not need any extra processing above WB set etc for a catalog etc, shoot 800 pairs of shoes a day or whatever.
As I decide my workflow I shoot raw..
But I'm not sure for most the 'extra time' realy exists when using things like lightroom now anyhow.
As I decide my workflow I shoot raw..
But I'm not sure for most the 'extra time' realy exists when using things like lightroom now anyhow.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff