- This topic is empty.
RAW or JPEG
-
I have always shot in RAW because everyone says you should. Maybe that’s a myth. This article stirs the pot up a bit.
http://www.michaelfurtman.com/jpeg_myths.htm
I like the link to “pixel peepers”.
Didnt read it all as i think know the answer.. Jpeg is for internet use and RAW format images are a totaly uncompressed images there for contain a lot more information than a jpeg, if you choose to print the image you should convert to TIFF not jpeg ! for the best quailty print.
This is my theory anyway :)
I have always shot in RAW because everyone says you should.
Not everyone….I wouldn’t shoot raw if you paid me too! I don’t see the need for it….for my needs that is. I’ve never had a client or anyone ask me ‘do I shoot raw’…clients dont really care what you shoot, as long as you deliver the goods. Shooting raw, jpeg, film whatever, is just a means to get to the end result. I just use the jpeg way…it works for me. Find a way that works for you, not just because everyone says you should do it a certain way. Experiment!
(Jpegs from a mk2N / 5D print perfectly on A0 size posters and can even be upsized in ps to print billboard size….for sure jpegs aren’t just for the internet…IMO from experience). Experiment!!!markcapilitan wrote:
(Jpegs from a mk2N / 5D print perfectly on A0 size posters and can even be upsized in ps to print billboard size….for sure jpegs aren’t just for the internet…IMO from experience). Experiment!!!
There’s an interesting article over on the Canon CPS site describing how Advertising and Design Photographer, Paul Close created 7m high banners using nothing more than a Canon EOS 10D in JPEG mode – have a look here. I tend to agree with Mark, use what suits you best. I shoot everything RAW because I find it a faster workflow. I tried JPEG for a time and I personally found it a very frustrating experience. Some people prefer Coke, others prefer Pepsi! Some prefer Canon, others Nikon. Some prefer digital, others film. Etc., etc. :D
The size you can print up to is not proof of quality-
just proof of the minimum standards acceptable-And of course, nobody prints from raw anyway-
High quality jpeg doesn’t produce many artifacts,
and printing from a first generation jpeg, sized correctly, will give good results-Each to their own-
just make sure to ‘save as’ every time you make adjustments to your jpeg-j
I like the comfort of knowing that the RAW data will always be there no matter what changes I make. I made a change to a RAW file recently and saved it as the original (fool!!). I then went back to try a different change and the RAW file was still available – (maybe becuase I converted it to DNG and all of the origical data and the changes were identifiable).
My guess is that if I had made the same naming/administrative blunder with a JPEG, the original would have been lost forever.
For me…
JPG is allowing the camera to give the image an un-reversable face-lift without the patient actually specifying what it is that they really want. The camera will just go ahead and apply it’s own sharpening, contrast and saturation, and this can’t be reversed.
With RAW the face-lift procedure is completley optional and in your own hands, and if you don’t like the result then you can undo it and start again.
The first time I shot RAW I used the RAW+JPG setting on my camera. I was shooting flowers and when I seen the results I was horrified with the JPG results. The saturation was so OTT. From that day onwards I changed over to RAW and never looked back. So much more control.
J
I (usually) shoot RAW because it gives me more latitude for correction in PP when I screw up my exposure/WB/colour
I also use lightroom, which handles a jpeg in the same way as a raw file. Editing of a jpeg is non destructive – exactly as with a raw file. So the workflow is the same whether I shoot raw or jpeg. If I am working on a jpeg in LR, and I want to do some more work on it in PS, Lightroom will create a copy of the file before editing. So there isn’t the same risk of losing the original jpeg.
For sport, I will probably go back to jpeg, but for other stuff, I’ll stick with raw. But that’s just me, and by no means the ideal workflow for everyone.
But that’s just me, and by no means the ideal workflow for everyone.
Exactly…whatever works for YOU. I would never work on a jpeg not having it backed up already. I know my workflow so that couldn’t happen. And as for in-camera settings, again having tested loads of ways, I’ve got the cameras I use to produce a stunning jpegs straight out so need minimal work after – excluding sharpening – never let the camera do that. But again, its each to their own, much like shooting different films emulsions….some people hate Velvia some love it! You’ll never get a bunch of us to agree totally on something like raw/jpg.
If you are going to do any significant processing then RAW is the way to go. If you are happy with the one shot and get it right first time then jpeg will give many more shots per memory card and can give excellent results.
Raw holds much more information, think of it as a digital negative that has not yet been processed. It will give many more levels of brightness on each colour channel. All jpeg shots are taken in RAW format in camera, it’s just that if you shoot with jpeg selected then the camera processes into jpeg on the fly.
The following link gives a comprehensive explanation.
http://www.popphoto.com/howto/2196/jpeg-vs-raw-the-advantages-and-disadvantages-explained.html
Here is my few bits on raw and jpg. Raw files allow you to take photos in 12 bits-per-pixel which gives you something around 4090 shades, where jpg 8 bits = 256 shades. Well, you can argue what would we need 12 bits since our eyes are capable to distinguish something around 8 bits. So if you are looking into post processing your photos in exp. Photoshop or other software you have greater capabilities to do those changes and still get away with it as they won’t be as visible. So I would suggest shooting in raw if only the file size is not a problem. Another thing the capabilities of the software like lightroom etc. are great so it is actually fun to work and processing is fast. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Just another raw fun :wink:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
