- This topic is empty.
Which format JPEG or RAW
-
Hey all, just wondering what format do people shoot in JPEG, RAW or both?
I’ve only ever shot in JPEG and just wondering what the benefits are with the RAW format?
The only thing I know about RAW (*.NEF, I’m a Nikon person) is what google has told me :oops:
Cheers
CormacRAW all the time here. For me, the RAW file gives me enough information so that I can fine tune the exposure in Camera Raw.
The results seem to me to be much better than doing thins in photoshop with the jpeg. Also of course the jpeg has been modified
by the camera which doesn’t always suit so using RAW its pretty much unaltered.Hi Cormac.
I shoot in both Jpeg & RAW. I prefer Jpeg for fast subjects if shooting bursts of shots and for images that don’t require much post processing. Storing Jpegs (smaller files), don’t take up much space on your hard drive either. RAW files are much larger than Jpegs due to keeping ALL of the data that the sensor received at the time of taking the shot. Jpegs lose most of this data, and therefore lose detail that can be recovered when processing. This loss of detail may not be too important in shots correctly exposed, but it will be essential to retain this data for subjects where there is a wide dynamic range between highlight & shadow.I tend to think of RAW as negatives & Jpeg as a photographed copy of a photo.
miki g wrote:
I tend to think of RAW as negatives & Jpeg as a photographed copy of a photo.
Very good comparison !
Always photograph in RAW, as I pull the shadows out quite a bit with astro photography.
RAW. But bare in mind that unless you like a soft, flat image you’ll have to post process it to get your desired result. If you’re starting out just give it time with jpeg until you learn how to get the best out of your post processing and obviously develop your photographic eye.
Alan.
Always RAW, you’ve much more freedom to play with in post production with a raw file… they may be big but they are also lossless – jpg as a form of compression is pretty poor as an archival format. every time you copy or open a jpg and close it it re-compresses, throwing away pieces of information which are irretrievable. a hundred or so of these and you’ve got quite a significant loss. perhaps you may only ever open or copy the thing three times, but on the other hand depending on the image you may want to do more than this… so i keep the RAW and only make jpgs for emails or printing. photoshop EPS is a good lossless compression although can be slow to open, as is TIFF.
i also would think of it in terms of RAW = negative , jpg = throwaway processed copy
RAW when I want to get the most out of the images I’m shooting. JPEG when I’m just shooting for fun. There’s no comparison when it comes to editing freedom, exposure latitude and white balance flexibility, in my opinion. The main advantage for me though, is having the freedom to decide on the final look for an image at the editing stage, without baking in the final look into your image, as you do by shooting JPEG.
I use Lightroom by the way, and any RAW files have a basic preset applied at the import stage, so I never see a soft, flat image, but rather one that is just as complete as any JPEG out of a camera. The difference being, when I want to tweak an image, there is a lot of scope there to do so having the RAW file. This is definitely worth the sacrifice of slightly larger files, the hit in image buffer during shooting RAWs as opposed to JPEGs, and the necessity of the intermediate step of editing software to output a finished image. A final point worth mentioning is the latitude of RAW files for b&w conversion, due to its greater bit depth.
In any event, its probably worth noting I’m shooting solely jpegs with my new little compact for the last few months, and having a blast, :)
Cormac, seeing as you’re shooting Nikon, it might be worth mentioning if you use Lightroom, under the profiles section in Camera Calibration in the develop module, there are three profiles that approximate the D2X mode settings. When I import my Nikon .nef’s to Lightroom, I have a preset set up that changes the profile to D2X Mode 2, as well as applies a slight contrast and clarity boost, a little capture sharpening, and a little vignetting. I find this gives me a very good looking jpeg without having done anything other than apply a preset to my imported .nef’s. Since setting up a basic preset like this, the only editing I do to each image, are things that the image needs specifically, like cropping, etc. The preset takes care of the basics.
Also, if you select lossless compressed raw, as a setting in your camera, your raw files should not be too much bigger than your jpegs. In my case, its the matter of the difference between a 5mb jpeg, or an 8mb raw file.
Cheers for all the info guys, makes a lot more scene to me now, much appreciated.
Now time to give it try…
Hi Cormac
Shooting RAW has its advantages as the file records more detail, contrast, tones and in the event of colour casts or a incorrect white balance it makes it a lot easier to amend.
If you have ever photographed a landsacape and wondered where your clouds in the sky had dissappered to, RAW would be a solution to helping you recapure details like these.
However you cannot print a RAW file and as mentioned already RAW files look flat until they are edited so all RAW files require editng.
Until you have an understading of RAW Id suggest shooting JPG and RAW so you have your JPG files ready to go and a little further down the line when you have learned a bit more about RAW you can return back to your archived RAW files to rediscover your images.irishwonkafan wrote:
Or use film…
like me !
I set my dial to “F” :lol:
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
