I kinda understand the differences between these two formats, but what I want to know is why and when should you use RAW over JPEG?
RAW vs JPEG
- Thread starter Damo
- Start date
RAW is like having a digital negative that you have to develop in the digital darkroom. You can't "print from the camera". It also gives you more latitude to make adjustments for improperly exposed photos.
I shoot RAW exclusively on my DSLR, and I have to spend time "developing" the shots. I find this better, because if I'm not paying attention to my settings, which is usually the case, then I can "fix" them in the computer.
I shoot RAW exclusively on my DSLR, and I have to spend time "developing" the shots. I find this better, because if I'm not paying attention to my settings, which is usually the case, then I can "fix" them in the computer.
There are two pretty simple things that differentiate RAW from JPG.
JPG files are 8 bits of color data per pixel. That gives you a certain amount of color depth that's recorded, so if an exposure forces part of the image to exceed that 8 bit color depth, you've lost it either to white or black. Also, as you approach the edges of the data limits, you get color shifts. RAW files are usually 12 or 14 bits of color data, which is exponentially more data to work with. White or black areas on-screen actually will have a lot of underlying data to work with, which means they can often be recovered. Also, color shifts at the edges of the data will be less extreme.
Then, there's the compression issue which I'm sure you understand.
All of this adds up to me using RAW virtually all the time unless I know I'm shooting a bunch of shots that aren't worth the time to process - which is rarely. If I'm volunteering and just taking snapshots of the work and people, for instance, I'll switch to JPG simply for the file size difference.
With Nikons, there is little reason not to do this - when you open the image in the Nikon RAW image viewer, all of your in-camera settings are applied, so what pops up is exactly what a JPG out of the camera would look like. No processing necessary. It is my understanding that Canons will not apply in-camera settings, so you must adjust all images to your liking.
It's a bit of a personal choice. I just see no reason why I should be throwing away perfectly good image data - both through color depth and compression. Hard drive space is cheap, memory cards are cheap, and the processing is easy. It gives me latitude for my screw-ups, and flexibility in the processing. I doubt I've switched my camera to JPG in 6 months.
JPG files are 8 bits of color data per pixel. That gives you a certain amount of color depth that's recorded, so if an exposure forces part of the image to exceed that 8 bit color depth, you've lost it either to white or black. Also, as you approach the edges of the data limits, you get color shifts. RAW files are usually 12 or 14 bits of color data, which is exponentially more data to work with. White or black areas on-screen actually will have a lot of underlying data to work with, which means they can often be recovered. Also, color shifts at the edges of the data will be less extreme.
Then, there's the compression issue which I'm sure you understand.
All of this adds up to me using RAW virtually all the time unless I know I'm shooting a bunch of shots that aren't worth the time to process - which is rarely. If I'm volunteering and just taking snapshots of the work and people, for instance, I'll switch to JPG simply for the file size difference.
With Nikons, there is little reason not to do this - when you open the image in the Nikon RAW image viewer, all of your in-camera settings are applied, so what pops up is exactly what a JPG out of the camera would look like. No processing necessary. It is my understanding that Canons will not apply in-camera settings, so you must adjust all images to your liking.
It's a bit of a personal choice. I just see no reason why I should be throwing away perfectly good image data - both through color depth and compression. Hard drive space is cheap, memory cards are cheap, and the processing is easy. It gives me latitude for my screw-ups, and flexibility in the processing. I doubt I've switched my camera to JPG in 6 months.
that's not true; Canon has 'Picture Styles' that can be applied to jpg or raw files and these can be customized as well; their DPP conversion software (which is free, btw...unlike noink!) has this capability.
i prefer to do the thinking for myself though, and don't trust the camera's algorithims to make image processing decisions for me. you can shoot jpg for that if you want.
one of the best timesavers for raw conversion (i use adobe camera raw) is to standardise the camera body's profile, and also create default development conversion profiles which you can apply to raw files as you want. the beauty of working in raw is that it's non-destructive, and every adjustment just gets saved to a sidecar .xmp file.
Gotcha. Still, I guess my point is that each file has to be processed individually (or batch processed with a profile) - you can't modify settings on-the-fly in the camera and have them affect the final output.
I think you're misunderstanding what it's doing. It simply applies the in-camera profile as the default settings to work from. You can completely wipe those out, or modify them, or whatever. Just gives you a baseline that can be modified in the field. Nothing is "thinking" or "making decisions" for you, just providing you the option of doing your image processing in the field.
"I eat 'em raw like sushi."
since i don't use DPP i might be totally wrong, but my understanding is that you can modify the 'picture style' parameters (contrast, saturation, sharpening, etc) in the camera, and then the subsequent RAW files will have those settings saved in it's xmp file. how different is that from how nikon does it?
see above. what i consider 'making decisions' is the adjustment of the afore-mentioned parameters.
If that's the way it happens, it's not different - when I was talking to Fraser prior to purchasing my DSLR, that was not the case (at least, it was not as he described it).
I just note it because I think it's a very intelligent way to handle the processing. Why start with nothing when you can start with a set of parameters that are customizable on the fly.
No different from adjusting them yourself, and if they aren't enforced in any way (that is, if they can be totally removed with no damage), there's no good reason to not allow such flexibility.
Kinda like AF points - why not do it, if you can allow the option?
like i said, i've got my 'customization' profile in my RAW defaults.
do you often change in-camera settings like contrast or saturation? just curious.
btw, perhaps Fraser was talking about a different RAW converter (iirc he uses C1)...i think the picture styles as applied to RAW only works if you are using DPP.
do you often change in-camera settings like contrast or saturation? just curious.
btw, perhaps Fraser was talking about a different RAW converter (iirc he uses C1)...i think the picture styles as applied to RAW only works if you are using DPP.
Missed this - but pictures profiles aren't actually doing anything to the raw file. They are simply a set of instructions that the processing program (DPP) will apply to the raw file when it is imported. They are text directions along the lines of what you'd see in an XMP sidecar file.
Basically, they are just like white balance with any RAW image and affect nothing as it can easily be overruled in post. In this case, they only work in DPP as mentioned. DPP sucks anyways.
I'm using a combination of LR and photoshop for processing now. I'll use C1 4 Pro if i am doing portraits as it does better skintones, but is really only useful for me now as a single shot processor. Lack of any sort of database utility makes it useless (26 000 photos this year).
Basically, they are just like white balance with any RAW image and affect nothing as it can easily be overruled in post. In this case, they only work in DPP as mentioned. DPP sucks anyways.
I'm using a combination of LR and photoshop for processing now. I'll use C1 4 Pro if i am doing portraits as it does better skintones, but is really only useful for me now as a single shot processor. Lack of any sort of database utility makes it useless (26 000 photos this year).
Last edited:
I use RAW approximately 99% of the time. The only time I don't is when I notice I'm running out of card space and haven't brought an extra with me. 
:
:
i always shoot raw. i mainly use it for white balance correction.
Depends on what I'm shooting.
High volume stuff (sports, auto racing, candid wedding shots) is all .jpeg. I don't have time for Lightroom to build previews for 2500 RAW shots that I need to sort and get uploaded via ftp before I leave for dinner.
You'd be amazed what you can do to a .jpeg. If you **** up the exposure by a couple of stops...well, then a RAW file helps. Of course, you're also not a very good photographer if you do that on a regular basis.
High volume stuff (sports, auto racing, candid wedding shots) is all .jpeg. I don't have time for Lightroom to build previews for 2500 RAW shots that I need to sort and get uploaded via ftp before I leave for dinner.
You'd be amazed what you can do to a .jpeg. If you **** up the exposure by a couple of stops...well, then a RAW file helps. Of course, you're also not a very good photographer if you do that on a regular basis.
Funny, I wonder what Lightroom uses for a processing algorithm that's different from other programs? You shoot Nikon as well; my Nikon RAW files thumbnail significantly faster than JPGs.
When I say significantly, I mean 2-3x as fast. Both in Capture NX and my IrfanView thumbnailer (it's even more evident in the IrfanView thumbnail program) - it's literally almost instantaneous, vs a JPG that has a pause before each one appears.
I agree that JPGs give you more latitude than people give 'em credit for.
When I say significantly, I mean 2-3x as fast. Both in Capture NX and my IrfanView thumbnailer (it's even more evident in the IrfanView thumbnail program) - it's literally almost instantaneous, vs a JPG that has a pause before each one appears.
I agree that JPGs give you more latitude than people give 'em credit for.
Actually, I meant the whole import process, sorry.
RAW files take longer to import because they are bigger, that's all.
RAW files take longer to import because they are bigger, that's all.
Ahh, gotcha 