RAW or JPEG?

RAW or JPEG? That's the eternal question.



I've heard arguments for both sides, but have yet to make a final decision on what I should shoot with.



I'd like to try RAW, but don't see a huge difference between it and the highest quality JPEG.



What are the advantages of RAW?



Any help would be appreciated.



Thanks! : )

I'm new to digital photography, but I think the unanimous response here would be to use Raw.



First, everything is stored in a raw file, including the color of shirt you were wearing during the shoot (well, maybe not that), so you have tons of data to work with when you go to fine tune the image. There is no compression in Raw, so the files are huge, but at the same time, you get no loss from compression, which you do get every time you store a jpg.



That's a diginewbie's quick take. There are a lot more advantages I expect the more seasoned shooters will be able to list, but I'd suggest using Raw for pretty much everything.



Bob

It's all up to final destination.



1. If you shoot with no further editing then JPEG is enough. That is: later you will only open and close the file.





2. If you intend the smallest editing then do RAW or TIFF if available.



The main problem of JPEG is that each time you save it you lose quality. Experiment with a JPEG image: resave a JPEG image in a different copy and compare it to the original. The simple action of saving leads to quality loss. The differences are visible even for non professionals. Only a JPEG lover would not see the difference.



RAW is magic. It is magic once you learn it. To learn it you need a bunch of pictures, three days off and kids and wife gone on a holiday far far away.



Wish you good luck.



P.S. Do RAW and let us know!

RAW. well, if you do anything in photoshop or equivilant then it's best to use raw. Once you get used to the raw files you'll never use jpeg again.



However they're much bigger and take longer to process... much, much longer if you ask my wife...

Raw if you're serious about your work . . . Jpg if you want to send a snapshot of your kid biting the cat to Aunt Bertha in Des Moines.

Yes RAW requires some committment, and I can understand being hesitant about making the jump. Like Imagodigpix said if you don't edit your images don't waste your time. A well exposed jpg will get you the same quality a RAW image will get (if you aren't nit picky). In my experience RAW offers me two large advantages; color balancing, and wider dynamic range. I use those two benefits all the time and can't imagine not having it. Adjusting the color balance is so much harder with a jpg than it is with a RAW. That saves me a lot of time. Second is exposure. I can't tell you how many pictures I've saved because I had it in RAW due to exposure. Along with that is dynamic range. I can process a RAW image and drop the exposure to catch the highlights and then with the same RAW bump the exposure up to get the shadows. Then I combine the two images, many of my best images were processed using that method. As far as space goes, space is cheap. Big hard drives are dirt cheap and that shouldn't be a reason not to do it. Good luck.



Mark

I believe that JPGs are 24 bpp (bits per pixel) and RAWs are 36 bpp. What this means is that there is a lot more information in each pixel.



RAWs are unprocessed, and JPGs are post-processed by the camera. Some cameras (and settings) will do more processing than others. Point-and-shoots usually do a lot of processing, while SLRs will do less processing (unless you bump up their settings). For RAWs, you will be doing the ALL of the post-processing work.



RAWs are lossless, JPGs are lossy.

Preference for RAW by far. It contains all the original info captured (like a "digital negative"), has great flexibility in exposure (dynamic range), it's lossless, 12-bits per channel, and has no color space associated with it (can easily set white balance).



Even in JPEG mode, every image is "shot" in RAW and converted to a JPEG according to the parameters set in-camera. Shooting in RAW mode allows you to change your mind on those settings (flip-flop all you want ;-) as you adjust the image yourself and save to JPEG.



It's usually best to save the RAW file as a 16-bit TIFF for editting, which is another lossless format, and then flatten, convert to 8-bit, and save as a JPEG. (8 bits per channel, that is. 8 bits times 3 channels equals 24 bits per image.)



Even shooting in JPEG, there are some things that are just best done yourself if you're interested in the best pixel quality - i.e. noise reduction, and (especially) sharpening, which can sometimes increase noise and pixel distortion when done in-camera.



Kate

I am using both.. My Coolpix is very slow in writting Raw files and kills my battery.





So I am mostly taking jpegs for everyday pics and for special shots I switch to RAW. I quite happy with JPEG output of my Coolpix.



RAW filew have a lot of advantages but you should be good at photoshope or paintshop too......

Thanks to everyone for their input! I think I will be moving to RAW because I do like to adjust and finetune my images ... I love Photoshop! Like Mpalis mentioned ... I may very well use JPEG for everyday shots and RAW for special ones. On occasion when I am not near my computer and I want to shoot a lot of photos (like my recent trip to New York City), I'll use highest-quality JPEGs. Hey, I'd rather have that (and more images) than "oops! I don't have any more space on my memory card because I shot all RAW". Yes, I love to shot a lot of images! To give you an example ... on my recent NYC trip (which was 3.5 days), I took over 900 photos. : )

Hi, Contrary to popular belief, most professional photographers prefer Jpeg to raw-just as they prefer P-shift to manual settings-They need to be out with their cameras, making a living-instead of wasting valuable time in front of a computer-the expert is the person who buys the picture,they don't give a monkey's whether you used raw or jpeg,or mac or PC-they are only interested in the result-Shooting in raw,is the same as the film photographer spending all day in the lab processing,dodging, burning etc-If you get it right in the camera, there should be very little post-processing needed- regards. Kenneth William Caleno (Dip. Phot.)

Oooh, another good argument for JPEG! Hmmm, decisions decisions. I'll mostly likely use JPEG if I'm going to be shooting a lot of images. I may use RAW for sessions with fewer shots and that are perhaps more studio-like and posed. We'll see. Thanks for everyone's input!

Originally posted by Kenny123:
Hi, Contrary to popular belief, most professional photographers prefer Jpeg to raw-just as they prefer P-shift to manual settings...



I, personally have never met any profesional photographer that prefers JPEG to RAW until I got onto the Microstock forums...



It baffles my mind... really it does...



Some numbers and figures for you away from the speed, battery power, time argument.



Every image is made up of colour-ranges and tones... it is a virtual impossibility to have one solid colour without some gradient in your image (if you don't believe me, look at your wall, your mind will tell you it's "white" but if you REALLY look, you will see it has gradients of grey, and reflected light from your carpets, ceiling and windows...



Ok, JPEG is 8-bit colour range, and most basic RAW files is 12-bit (although you get 14-bit, 16-bit and 24-bit as well)



If you break up any giving medium toned image into 5 sections (lightest areas to darkest areas) and we work only on the lightest 20% of the image (the top f/stop), mathematicaly speaking your 8-bit jpeg can only give you 69 steps in your gradients accross that top 20% now 69 steps is not bad and you might never need more, but your 12-bit RAW file gives you 2,048 steps. (that is the difference between blue sky and burnt-out white)



However, it's the Shadow details where RAW really jump up and saves the day.



In the bottom part of the spectrum, the darkest 20% of the image, the average 8-bit JPEG will only give you 20 steps of gradient on any given tone... the 12-bit RAW file gives you 128 levels in this area... more than double that of a JPEG under the best possible conditions!



So, how does this translate into real world images, simple... you have about 3-stops more dynamic range to play with in an image if you shoot RAW, than if you shoot JPEG, and that is before you start editing it in your RAW converter...



That means you have Shadow details without a burnt out sky...



That means you have blue sky without blocked out black areas in you shadow areas...



I hope that gives you a bit more light on the subject



(ok... with all of that said, it doesn't help to shoot RAW, then just simply convert it to 8-bit jpeg... effectively that is where you started with the JPEG from the camera)

Raw files are 12-bits and JPEG files are 8-bits so they're "better"? Not necessarily. The 12-bit CCD is a linear encoding of light. Each of the 4096 levels represents an equal number of photons. The human eye's response to light isn't linear though. Humans are sensitive to percentage changes in light, not absolute changes. So at the high end of the 4096 values there is "too much" information while at the low end of the 4096 values there is "too little" information. And since essentially every output device in common use is 8-bits or less per color, your software is going to need to convert the Raw image to 8-bits per color at some point in any case.



A similar argument also abounds about JPEG compression. There is a fear that somehow because JPEG is a "lossy" compression algorithm you'll be throwing away vital pixels. The truth is that modern JPEG compression - when used with the High quality settings found in modern D-SLRs or Photoshop - is essentially "visually" lossless if used only once or twice on an image. Ultimately, it's all about what the human eye can see. By forcing the choice of exposure, tone curve, and white balance at the time of capture JPEGs limit your options to change your mind after the fact - just like slide film did. But that doesn't mean that slides aren't as good as negatives or that JPEGs aren't as good as RAW files. It means you need to decide on your goals for your photography and about which format fits your shooting needs and style.



By shooting JPEG one can often capture a higher percentage of split second action shots. And by setting the exposure and white balance right when capturing the image you don't have to do much work in the digital darkroom to get the final image just right. By shooting RAW some of the camera settings which were applied to the RAW data can be undone when using the RAW processing software. For instance, sharpening, white balance, levels and color adjustments can be undone and recalculated based on the raw data. Also, because RAW has 12 bits of available data, you might be able to extract shadow and highlight detail which might have been lost in the 8 bits/channel JPEG (or TIFF).



However, RAW formats differ between camera manufacturers, and even between cameras, so dedicated software provided by the manufacturer has to be used. Furthermore, opening and processing RAW files is much slower than JPEG or TIFF files. To address this issue, some cameras are offering the option to shoot in RAW and JPEG at the same time (Nikon). Today, many third party image editing and viewing software packages are becoming RAW compatible with most popular camera brands and models - ******** Photoshop CS. However, the way Photoshop processes RAW files can be different from the way the camera manufacturer's software does and not all settings may be recognized.



I say, try both and see what fits your workflow. I shoot for offset printing (catalog and magazine photos printed on a printing press) and have to go a step further. I have to shoot, then convert our company's digital images (sometimes I shoot RAW, sometimes JPEG) from RGB to CMYK and then save in the EPS format. Many do not realize this when seeing their photos in a book, magazine or catalog - they are not printed as you've processed them, but converted to a colorspace that is based on 4 colors of ink, not the 3 channels of light.

If your shooting with professional equipment then RAW speed is not a factor. I can can shoot 4-5 RAW files in a row and by the time I look to check my previews the images are already written to the card. So the argument for speed is not an issue. Again this is using professional equipment. I use a Canon 5D and 80X flash cards. Microdrives suck if they spin down and present lag time.



There is more color information in a raw file and some of it is human perceivable. This is especially true when you need to color correct an image. I know in my business, (design) we can tell if an image has been shot as a jpeg or RAW when it comes time to take some yellow out of peoples face as most cameras add more red in jpeg mode.



One other argument for RAW and this is the biggest thing for me. I have brought images back from the dead when I was forgetting to watch my exposure and under/over expose a scene. In RAW you can fix a lot of exposure problems before opening. As an additional benefit, you can create double exposure effects with a single image. By blending the images afterwords you can really save yourself some time over traditional methods.



In regards Kenny123's post... that just sounds like ignorance to me. if you spend your photography career shooting in program modes with jpeg's your destined to a life of only shooting for microstock sites and for yourself. I don't know ANY REAL PRO's that shoot with your prescribed method. thats just bad information!



In the end it depends on your workflow. RAW is much better than jpeg once you get used to it, it will in the end save you alot of time as you will not have to edit images individually. I recommend checking out Ben Willmore's Mastering Camera RAW as a good primer. I also recommend stopping by RAW WorkFlow and checking out their video tutorials on using RAW. They are pushing their product of course but the information is still really good to someone looking at RAW.

Hmm, I'm not sure which professionals Kenny's referring to here. Maybe he means professional wrestlers. . because every serious pro I know thinks native jpegs are more than adequate for web sends and family snapshots of the dog and the baked ham dinner, but not much of anything else.



Originally posted by Kenny123:
Hi, Contrary to popular belief, most professional photographers prefer Jpeg to raw-just as they prefer P-shift to manual settings . . . regards. Kenneth William Caleno (Dip. Phot.) write your text here

I would have to agree LightArt. Most Pro's don't use jpgs, but some do. Digital Pro Photo mag had a great article on Sports Illustrated covering the super bowl. They had to manage a enourmous amount of images from 20 or 30 photags all with Canon 1D's firing away at 8 pictures per second. They did it right on spot with couriers running the flash cards back and forth. Guess what they used, yep RAW. So I don't buy the whole thing of Photags who shoot high volume don't use RAW, it simple isn't true. Lots of wedding Photags wouldn't dream of shooting anything else but RAW (think blow highlights from a white dress) and they have to deal with thousands of images from a single day.



Mark

Originally posted by Apletfx:
If your shooting with professional equipment then RAW speed is not a factor. I can can shoot 4-5 RAW files in a row and by the time I look to check my previews the images are already written to the card. So the argument for speed is not an issue. Again this is using professional equipment. I use a Canon 5D and 80X flash cards. Microdrives suck if they spin down and present lag time.



There is more color information in a raw file and some of it is human perceivable. This is especially true when you need to color correct an image. I know in my business, (design) we can tell if an image has been shot as a jpeg or RAW when it comes time to take some yellow out of peoples face as most cameras add more red in jpeg mode.



One other argument for RAW and this is the biggest thing for me. I have brought images back from the dead when I was forgetting to watch my exposure and under/over expose a scene. In RAW you can fix a lot of exposure problems before opening. As an additional benefit, you can create double exposure effects with a single image. By blending the images afterwords you can really save yourself some time over traditional methods.



In regards Kenny123's post... that just sounds like ignorance to me. if you spend your photography career shooting in program modes with jpeg's your destined to a life of only shooting for microstock sites and for yourself. I don't know ANY REAL PRO's that shoot with your prescribed method. thats just bad information!



In the end it depends on your workflow. RAW is much better than jpeg once you get used to it, it will in the end save you alot of time as you will not have to edit images individually. I recommend checking out Ben Willmore's Mastering Camera RAW as a good primer. I also recommend stopping by RAW WorkFlow and checking out their video tutorials on using RAW. They are pushing their product of course but the information is still really good to someone looking at RAW.





I am afraid thet both yourself and lightart are showing your ignorance here-Most pro photographers in Asia and in LA use the P-shift mode for both film and digital cameras-Ask Rinder99 about all the Hollywood pros making $thousands a week photographing celebrities-they are professionals, and they use P-shift mode-In this mode you get to compensate for exposureand a myriad of other settings-Okay if all you shoot is landscapes-then manual is the only way to go-but how many of you know how to use a hand-held meter properly? I have been in this business for over 45 years,and just 3 years ago I completed a 3-year full-time refresher course-resulting in a level 6 diploma in photographic imaging-so don't tell me I am ignorant,just because you won't listen to what's happening out there, regards, Ken

Originally posted by Kenny123:
I am afraid thet both yourself and lightart are showing your ignorance here-Most pro photographers in Asia and in LA use the P-shift mode for both film and digital cameras



Ken, I think you need to drink a chill pill...



Who cares how many pro's shoot RAW and how many shoot JPEG?!?! who cares about program modes...



At the end of the day, you need to have the images that sell in you pocket, how you get them doesn't matter.



The FACT is that RAW can give you better images than JPEG, but also that JPEG is mostly adequate for general shooting...



as a sidenote... I did a quick poll on messenger, out of 43 Professional photographers that I know and work with (ranging from wildlife, Nature, to sport, to wedding, to advertising, to newspaper) only 2 shoot JPEG



The wildlife guys use RAW because it's virtually impossible (according to them) to get an accurate rendition of animals, birds and insect colours in JPEG.



The Nature guys wanted to know if I am smoking something and couldn't think of any reason to shoot JPEG when you have RAW available.



The sports guys all shoot RAW. as does the advertising and fashion guys... as well as the wedding guys (the wedding guys I think is the most vocal about it, because they have to mix backlight from the windows and chapel doors, video light from the video guys, and their own strobes with Natural light, and still get pure whites (with details) and solid blacks (with details) because that is what they are paid for...



The only two that I found that shoots JPEG are both wedding assistants and just doesn't have the equipment to shoot weddings on RAW...



Originally posted by Kenny123:
Ask Rinder99 about all the Hollywood pros making $thousands a week photographing celebrities-they are professionals, and they use P-shift mode





Off course they do... all they have to do is do a full frame flash from dead front, as fast as they can and get the image to their editors/gossip mag on their 3G phone before the guy next to them gets it there... They can't shoot RAW even if they wanted to! what is the comparison?!?! We are talking about a different horse here...



I really doubt that real celeb shooters, like Annie Leibovitz, who generally takes two to four days to do her light setup, will then go and shoot jpeg... Or doesn't she count?



And seeing that you brought Rinder into this discussion, although he advocates JPEG, do you not find it funny that the guys he promotes "for others to learn from" like Dave Black, etc... all seem to shoot RAW?!

Originally posted by Kenny123:
I am afraid thet both yourself and lightart are showing your ignorance here-Most pro photographers in Asia and in LA use the P-shift mode for both film and digital cameras-Ask Rinder99 about all the Hollywood pros making $thousands a week photographing celebrities-they are professionals, and they use P-shift mode-In this mode you get to compensate for exposureand a myriad of other settings-Okay if all you shoot is landscapes-then manual is the only way to go-but how many of you know how to use a hand-held meter properly? I have been in this business for over 45 years,and just 3 years ago I completed a 3-year full-time refresher course-resulting in a level 6 diploma in photographic imaging-so don't tell me I am ignorant,just because you won't listen to what's happening out there, regards, Ken



Kenny. . . I do agree that you really do need to chill. I didn't use the word ignorant in referring to you. And these forums are simply an exchange medium for ideas. .not for conflict. I think that there will always be those that use Jpeg images, professional and amateur alike, and be quite content with them. But the fact remains that RAW image capture provides professionals with so much more lattiude and ability to post process photos that it is the choice of MOST professionals. .at least in the US. I can't speak for China, Singapore, Japan or other countries. So perhaps we're talking apples and oranges here.



I am curious. I note that your portfolio photos, for the most part, have no EXIF data attached. Is that because you shoot primarily film? If so then I would think that Raw or Jpeg wouldn't be much of an issue from you, but rather the method you use to scan the images.