RAW or JPEG?
- Thread starter muttclugg
- Start date
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 2,220
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
RAW + Adobe Lightroom = heaven.
RAW + PS = headache.
JPEG + either = aww, distorsion and why won't this white balance change?
RAW + PS = headache.
JPEG + either = aww, distorsion and why won't this white balance change?
Last edited:
Use RAW and grab Lightroom or an old (free) download of Pixmantec RAWShooter Essentials.
I still prefer using RAWShooter to Lightroom to be honest.
You might as well try it, worst way you just go back to Jpeg.
I still prefer using RAWShooter to Lightroom to be honest.
You might as well try it, worst way you just go back to Jpeg.
I'm going to throw a spanner in the works for the two above (although generally I agree and I also shoot RAW, it's not for everyone).
JPEG
When you shoot JPEG your camera does all sorts of processing to the image 'in camera' it will adjust the saturation of the colours, the sharpness etc etc.
This will give you nice crisp images at a set resolution that will look good as soon as you upload them onto your computer.
For most people this is fine as that's all they want, nice images from camera to computer.
If you decide to go down this route I suggest shooting at the maximum image size and highest JPEG quality your camera will allow.
The biggest problem with JPEG is the lack of 'editability' after you upload the image on to your computer.
If you're a Photoshop guru or you want an extra level of control over your images then JPEG probably isn't for you.
RAW
Just as JPEG does all sorts of trickery within the camera, RAW does non at all. It's a very pure representation of what you were photographing just like a film negative in old money. Just like a film negative, RAW requires a bit of processing in the darkroom (or in this case on the computer) to get the best out of the image.
The benefit of RAW is that it stores a lot of data that you don't actually see. Because of this you can change the exposure of the image, or the white balance (and a whole number of options) without losing too much of the image the way you would if you tried editing the JPEG.
However, almost every image will require some processing before it gets to a polished state. Also, because the RAW file stores extra data, the file size is considerably bigger than the same image in JPEG so if you have small memory cards or you're pushed for HDD space, RAW probably isn't your best option.
Conclusion
In conclusion then, if you want a rapid turn-around of image from camera to computer and probably online then JPEG might be the best option for you. If you're happy spending a bit of time getting the best out of each image using extra software such as Photoshop, Lightroom, RAWshooter or Aperture then shoot RAW.
Bear in mind that high quality JPEG will be fine for printing from the likes of Photobox, but if you're doing pre-press work you will need to convert them to CYMK .tiff. I would personally say that RAW is better for this but again it's down to turn-around time.
I've heard the argument that if you get the settings in the camera right in the first place you should never have a need for RAW but I disagree simply because I like the extra flexibility and control.
One thing you could try is shooting both for a while, I know this will give you two of every image and reduce the amount of images you get on your memory card but it will show you the difference between the two when they come straight from the camera and will also allow you to play about with the RAW whilst having a JPEG as a reference to compare your edited version with what the camera thinks is the best example of each image.
Hope that helps.
Panzer
JPEG
When you shoot JPEG your camera does all sorts of processing to the image 'in camera' it will adjust the saturation of the colours, the sharpness etc etc.
This will give you nice crisp images at a set resolution that will look good as soon as you upload them onto your computer.
For most people this is fine as that's all they want, nice images from camera to computer.
If you decide to go down this route I suggest shooting at the maximum image size and highest JPEG quality your camera will allow.
The biggest problem with JPEG is the lack of 'editability' after you upload the image on to your computer.
If you're a Photoshop guru or you want an extra level of control over your images then JPEG probably isn't for you.
RAW
Just as JPEG does all sorts of trickery within the camera, RAW does non at all. It's a very pure representation of what you were photographing just like a film negative in old money. Just like a film negative, RAW requires a bit of processing in the darkroom (or in this case on the computer) to get the best out of the image.
The benefit of RAW is that it stores a lot of data that you don't actually see. Because of this you can change the exposure of the image, or the white balance (and a whole number of options) without losing too much of the image the way you would if you tried editing the JPEG.
However, almost every image will require some processing before it gets to a polished state. Also, because the RAW file stores extra data, the file size is considerably bigger than the same image in JPEG so if you have small memory cards or you're pushed for HDD space, RAW probably isn't your best option.
Conclusion
In conclusion then, if you want a rapid turn-around of image from camera to computer and probably online then JPEG might be the best option for you. If you're happy spending a bit of time getting the best out of each image using extra software such as Photoshop, Lightroom, RAWshooter or Aperture then shoot RAW.
Bear in mind that high quality JPEG will be fine for printing from the likes of Photobox, but if you're doing pre-press work you will need to convert them to CYMK .tiff. I would personally say that RAW is better for this but again it's down to turn-around time.
I've heard the argument that if you get the settings in the camera right in the first place you should never have a need for RAW but I disagree simply because I like the extra flexibility and control.
One thing you could try is shooting both for a while, I know this will give you two of every image and reduce the amount of images you get on your memory card but it will show you the difference between the two when they come straight from the camera and will also allow you to play about with the RAW whilst having a JPEG as a reference to compare your edited version with what the camera thinks is the best example of each image.
Hope that helps.
Panzer
Associate
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2003
- Posts
- 1,699
Well, for my pentax K100D, it can take a lot more continual jpgs than raws, so if I'm taking pictures of wildlife where I need maximum performance, then I use jpg.
Landscapes however, I use RAW.
Landscapes however, I use RAW.
If im on holidays and conscious of card space its jpg. If im anywhere close to home I use RAW just to get that extra bit of detail in the shadows and highlights. Hard drives are cheap now anyway 
I always convert all the raw's straight off the camera into tiff's. atleast then photoshop doesnt get confused about colour balancing and such.
I always convert all the raw's straight off the camera into tiff's. atleast then photoshop doesnt get confused about colour balancing and such.
I prefer RAW. When I was limited due to only having one memory card I used jpeg, which is fine for most things, but if you are planning on doing exact processing it's obviously better to shoot in RAW.
I still don't know where my missing memory cards went
I still don't know where my missing memory cards went
I'd be careful doing that and not keeping the RAW as well. recently my HDD got corrupted and I only had my images saved as .tiff. Most of them ended up totally screwed up. I now Keep the original RAW, export it to Photoshop once it's been edited and save it as a .psd then convert it to print ready .tiff and screen ready .jpeg.
It might be overkill and obviously uses lots of HDD space but like you said, HDD is cheap now and it's a hell of a lot better than losing all of your images!
Panzer
I convert mine to DNG, btw, which saves a bit of space and adds a lot more compatibility compared with proprietary RAW files. I feel a little more comfortable knowing that in 15 years on the off-chance I want to view one of my old photos I don't have to worry about there still being software that reads old Nikon RAW files.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Feb 2006
- Posts
- 2,220
- Location
- Newcastle upon Tyne
With memory and hard drives so cheap I don't see the point in converting from RAW. I the only time I shot JPEG was in Uganda last summer, where I managed to clock up 5000 6MP medium compression JPEGs 
Have you used Lightroom?
You can just do almost everything so much quicker. I am often editing 100s of RAWs at a time from gigs/theatre work/clubs so converting each one in Photoshop isn't an option.
I get great results from Lightroom so I have no need to spend minutes on each shot when seconds satisfy the client.
Also as your limited to editing the entire image at once in LR (no layers or selections) it feels much more honest. In PS I end up selecting areas etc and that to me becomes photo-manipulation.
To sum up, you can get the same results in seconds from LR, compared to minutes in PS.
But, if you're into photo-manipulation, PS is the way.
Have you used Lightroom?
You can just do almost everything so much quicker. I am often editing 100s of RAWs at a time from gigs/theatre work/clubs so converting each one in Photoshop isn't an option.
I get great results from Lightroom so I have no need to spend minutes on each shot when seconds satisfy the client.
Also as your limited to editing the entire image at once in LR (no layers or selections) it feels much more honest. In PS I end up selecting areas etc and that to me becomes photo-manipulation.
To sum up, you can get the same results in seconds from LR, compared to minutes in PS.
But, if you're into photo-manipulation, PS is the way.
Fixed and i agree...
Like someone else in here i much prefer RawShooter to Lightroom, but i use neither as I absolutely love Aperture (Mac Only though)
Why would you remove the "except for sports" qualification? There are loads of times shooting sports when speed is vastly more important than quality, and where you can't afford to effectively make your buffer 10 times smaller by shooting RAW.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 1,348
Thats destructive editing, you may as well shoot in jpeg if your going to do that. Using layers is non-destructive so you have far mroe control over what your doing.
Of course if your shooting hundreds of images all of which you NEED to keep and process then jpeg makes more sense as does quick processing.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Feb 2003
- Posts
- 1,348
What I mean is, if your editing an image without layers, you can't go back and change what you have done. Say you alter the contrast, then the levels, then the saturation and decide you want to turn the contrast back down to how it was...if you do it without layers you'll never get it back to how it was at the start. If you do it in layers, you can reset it back to the start, delete the layer etc and it won't affect the otehr settings on the other layers. WAY more flexible as your not editing the pixels underneath. Without layers you are editing the actual pixels.
(I know originals never get altered unless you over save them
)Can't say I agree with that as the sliders/editing within Lightroom work differently to photoshop, so if you did those three things, you could undo any one of the three without the other two being affected.
Photoshop is infinitely more flexible due to having layers but Lightroom is far from destructive in the manner you suggest it is.
Photoshop is infinitely more flexible due to having layers but Lightroom is far from destructive in the manner you suggest it is.