- This topic is empty.
RAW VS JPEG
-
Hi, I’m just starting join photography and learn a new things every day.
I just wonder that what you prefer RAW or JPEG? I think I prefer RAW because when I download both RAW and JPEG on my computer mac and sometime show the full disk.
I think I decided RAW only for now. I know sports suit for JPEG.
Can you give me any advise?
Libby
RAW – IMO,
what quality have got setup on your camera for JPG?? if You want shoot in RAW, than setup Your camera for RAW + the smallest jpg (so U can use the small jpg to quick preview in the PC ) and the jpgs will take less space on the hdd :-)Chris
With a JPEG the heavy processing is done inside the camera and the file is not as ‘flexible’ for further editing apart from small tweaks. If you make large changes to contrast & brightness the file can easily look overcooked or have posterization (like banding)
With RAW the file is designed for editing and you have a ‘deep’ file that can by pushed and pulled. Even if your exposure is not spot on you can over recover detail from a RAW file as you have 12 to 14 bits of data typically.
Think of the RAW file as a ‘negative’ was with film. Think of a JPEG as a Polaroid camera where you are just getting a finished print and the negative is discarded.
I would advise you to shoot RAW only if excellent image quality and further editing is important to you. If not, then JPEG is fine for casual stuff.
Have fun…
It depends on my needs.
I shoot jpg when I need quick processing – for sports events and quick submission.
When I have time and shoot for myself, I always shoot raw.So, it’s a personal choice. Many will go for raw, simply because you have much greater scope for processing.
In many cases, except where you need you need to maximise memory card space or have minimal delay between continuos shots, RAW+JPEG is a good choice in that you use the RAW file for the image data, but the JPEG for the metadata (sidecar file). This allows your workstation software to utilise data created by the camera during capture (White Balance, GPS, EXIF info etc).
Obviously shooting both RAW & JPEG means longer delay between frames for continuos shooting as well as more storage space required – so just decide what is needed and what isn’t :-)
thalpin wrote:
RAW+JPEG is a good choice in that you use the RAW file for the image data, but the JPEG for the metadata (sidecar file). This allows your workstation software to utilise data created by the camera during capture (White Balance, GPS, EXIF info etc).
I don’t understand what you’re saying here. The raw file will also include all metadata and EXIF data. JPG files don’t come with a sidecar file at all. You generate the sidecar file with whatever software you use to process your images.
In a jpg image, you can’t adjust the white balance in PP, but you can with the raw.
I’m confused by your comments.
From Lightroom Documentation:
If you capture raw + JPEG photos on your camera, select Treat JPEG Files Next To Raw Files As Separate Photos to import the JPEG as a standalone photo. Otherwise, Lightroom treats the duplicate JPEG as a sidecar file. When this option is selected, both the raw and the JPEG files are visible and can be edited in Lightroom. When deselected, the raw file appears with the raw file extension and +jpg. Press Ctrl+R (Windows) or Command+R (Mac OS) to also view the JPEG file.
Regarding use of metadata I was referring to the processing done by the camera software (such as white-balance settings mostly) that can be used as a starting point for edits etc. Use of the JPEG file is then for the purpose of storing metadata&develop settings for portability/exchange and backup if desired.
But the raw file already contains an imbedded jpg (the preview you see when you look at it).
Either way, what you posted is specific to Lightroom, and doesn’t apply to the rest of the editing software on the market.
I think most of the raw vs jpg arguments has been thrashed out on here previously, I posted a big long rant about bit depth, exposing to the right and how bits are ditributed across light levels….
As mentioned above, and as is usually said elsewhere, sports photography is the natural home for jpegs on a day to day basis, the predictable (more so than normal anyhoo!!) lighting and need for very quick relay to editors desk makes it the perfect tool, and most guys have their cameras set up to register just the type of jpeg they want….
although I do know that sports illustrated get their guys to shoot raw+jpg, for short term/long term usages
storage shouldn’t really be an issue these days…. external HDD are so cheap (in relation to a camera + lens + photoshop bill)
a very quick google just netted a seagate 2tb for 80… which to be honest is even cheaper than I imagined!!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
