Raw or Jpeg


Status
Not open for further replies.

ohok1973

New Member
Jan 20, 2010
158
0
0
#1
Hi Guys,

Just started shooting so I ajm not sure which to save in.

What are the advantages in shooting in Raw or Jpeg?

Someone told me Jpeg gives vibrant to the pictures and another told me Raw allows more editing? Confused...

TIA
 

Oct 26, 2009
459
2
18
Red Dot Island
#2
I can not tell the technical differences, but I know RAW allow you to do more work on Photoshop or other editing software, even the software come with the camera. I took a round shots in RAW. At the end of the day my wife wants me to quickly cut a CD for her relative to bring away, thats where i got stuck. RAW format, when I cut and copy to CD still in RAW format. Not everyone can read the RAW format. I do not have a direct conversion method, I need to save the RAW picture one by one into JPG then cut to CD. Have not enjoy the benefit of having RAW, but counter the problem in the save and go JPG problem.

Any one has quick conversion method? Or have I use the RAW+JPG method wrongly. It was on Olympus E-P1.
 

jopwork

New Member
Feb 24, 2009
33
0
0
Bukit Batok, Singapore
#4
Hi Guys,

Just started shooting so I ajm not sure which to save in.

What are the advantages in shooting in Raw or Jpeg?

Someone told me Jpeg gives vibrant to the pictures and another told me Raw allows more editing? Confused...

TIA
JPG looks vibrant and sharp because that is exactly what the camera does to the image -- it processes it, sharpens it, adjusts the saturation, etc -- based on your settings.

RAW is the unaltered, unprocesed light recorded by the camera's sensor. You would have to perform your own sharpening and adjustments to make it look better.

There are a lot of advantages to using either.

JPG files looks good out of the camera. JPG files are smaller. You can fit a lot more JPGs in your memory card so you can shoot more. It can be written quickly to the memory card.

On the other hand, RAW files contains all the data so you can perform adjustments without losing details. RAW files contains more data in the highlights and shadows so you can adjust your exposure during post-processing; for example, darken skies, brighten faces. You can also perform selective sharpening - just sharpen the eyes or faces, jewelry, while keeping the rest as is.
 

Foxshade

New Member
Jun 26, 2009
849
3
0
46
In cat's stomach
#5
I can not tell the technical differences, but I know RAW allow you to do more work on Photoshop or other editing software, even the software come with the camera.
I second that.
RAW basically is a non processed data. Just to illustrate this meaning, take dng (Adobe RAW) it stands for: Digital Negative. That's why it gives you the flexibilities to modify the white balance, and certain picture controls, make it more vivid, vibrant, etc...

The downside is the size of the file. It is significantly larger than jpg. Jpg files are already processed and compressed. Thus some some "uneeded" info is gone. That's why you can't change the white balance, picture controls, etc... anymore.

For me, I use RAW almost all the time. I am not a pro, I might set my White Balance wrongly, slightly over/under exposed, etc. RAW files give me a 2nd chance to correct those mistakes.

However, I would shoot in jpg when I need to do some continuous shooting (burst). Example: with D90 (sorry I am still newbie, not that familiar with other cameras) the buffer can only take 7 frames before it has to pause for a while to write the image down to the SD card, but the buffer can take 25 jpg (fine) files before it has to pause to write to SD card (100 shots for JPG standard).

I hope this clear the doubts.
 

ohok1973

New Member
Jan 20, 2010
158
0
0
#6
thank you all for kind advice.

reason i don goggle is because i knwos hands on from previous usages is always better than reading dead books, theory is not always right.

well at least now i know that theres such a thingas google! thanks you all!
 

Edwin Francis

Senior Member
Mar 24, 2006
883
3
18
www.sgwriter.com
#7
I second that.
The downside is the size of the file. It is significantly larger than jpg. Jpg files are already processed and compressed. Thus some some "uneeded" info is gone. That's why you can't change the white balance, picture controls, etc... anymore.
Yes you can. True, you have less headroom to play with, so your range of adjustments is more limited, but you can adjust WB, saturation, sharpness etc of JPEGs.
Learn to get it right, or at least close, when shooting, unless you enjoy spending time post-processing (it bores me to death).

Ohok1973, Google is a search engine, not like Wikipedia. It's not 'theory only'. You'll find discussions like this one, more learned opinions, and utter nonsense. Up to you to make sense of it all.
Also, use the search function in CS and you'll find plenty of user discussions right here. That should help you decide.
 

CamInit

New Member
Nov 3, 2009
756
0
0
#8
What I understand is that what you can get from the camera's JPEG engine, it's possible to also get processing from RAW (at least in DPP for Canon users). I can't always the get the correct exposure and after seeing how it can be "saved" using RAW, as well as tweaking white balance, I intend to shoot RAW. Unless it's unimportant things like directional signs, maps, etc... goes to JPEG otherwise it's RAW. After that tweak the particular few pics that I like and all the rest batch process to JPEG via DPP.

One question though, which I haven't try to test out: During batch processing, does DPP convert to JPEG according to picture style setting of each shot? So I can set style 1 for this RAW, style 3 for that RAW and they will be converted to JPEG accordingly during batch processing (presumably from EXIF settings).
 

Octarine

Moderator
Staff member
Jan 3, 2008
12,518
31
48
Pasir Ris
#9
One question though, which I haven't try to test out: During batch processing, does DPP convert to JPEG according to picture style setting of each shot? So I can set style 1 for this RAW, style 3 for that RAW and they will be converted to JPEG accordingly during batch processing (presumably from EXIF settings).
If not .. what would be the entire point of processing? But if you just apply standard styles you might as well shoot jpg straight from cam. RAW gives you more possibilities than just applying predefined standard picture styles. Have a look at different RAW converters: Adobe Lightroom, Phase One, DxO .. Much more possibilities and for Adobe LR you can define, edit and download your own Development Presets. Have a look at Acrobat Exchange.
 

CamInit

New Member
Nov 3, 2009
756
0
0
#10
If not .. what would be the entire point of processing? But if you just apply standard styles you might as well shoot jpg straight from cam. RAW gives you more possibilities than just applying predefined standard picture styles. Have a look at different RAW converters: Adobe Lightroom, Phase One, DxO .. Much more possibilities and for Adobe LR you can define, edit and download your own Development Presets. Have a look at Acrobat Exchange.
Well, it's better to confirm (even if the question sounds obvious or foolish) than to remain unsure or ignorant. :)

In-camera styles remains the default for me, practically zero PP time. DPP for the few pics I like. Had Lightroom but no time to explore yet.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom