RAW or JPG???


Status
Not open for further replies.

justshot

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2005
724
0
16
49
#1
Hi everyone,

I have a doubt here and hope you could assist. :)

Would there be a difference between shooting in JPG compared to shooting in RAW and convert to JPG?

Does the conversion software makes a difference?

Thanks in advance.

PS: If there is already a thread here on this subject, please send me a link. Thanks again :embrass:
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#3
if can try to shoot raw cause it contains a wealth of raw sensor information per capture.
it gives me more lee way to process my pictures. I never shoot jpg alone.

Either way there is no right or wrong

you can have a read at this for more information

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Cheers
Ryan
 

May 5, 2007
151
0
0
33
Kembangan
#4
If use RAW, use what software to open the files? Don't know if my D40 can shot RAW or not.
 

Squid

New Member
Jun 10, 2004
1,467
0
0
#5
If use RAW, use what software to open the files? Don't know if my D40 can shot RAW or not.
Usually, NEF (which is Nikon's RAW file format) will be processed by Nikon CaptureNX or Adobe Camera RAW (or ACR). Nikon D40 camera supports both NEF file format and JPEG file format.
 

deckard

New Member
Oct 13, 2006
1,241
0
0
#6
use raw only when you are dealing with weddings.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#7
i shoot raw for everything :p

Ryan
 

user111

Senior Member
Jul 27, 2004
4,702
0
36
#8
i shoot jpeg for everything ;p :bsmilie:
 

zac08

Senior Member
Feb 21, 2005
11,755
0
0
East
#9
RAW... definitely much better in my case of shooting nature and macros...
 

lizzy

New Member
Dec 26, 2004
241
0
0
#10
i used to shoot raw, but now going back to jpeg to improve my shooting technique instead of relying on post processing too much :bsmilie:
 

night86mare

Deregistered
Aug 25, 2006
25,541
0
0
www.pbase.com
#11
Differs from camera to camera - some cameras have aggressive JPG compression tactics, so even your best quality JPG is going to have serious compression artefacting, etc.

If anything, you can choose to save RAW as TIFF - leading to lossless in the end. RAW also gives you a lot more room with regards to "saving" an image if you don't notice the problems inherent in it when you get home and look on the screen, e.g. WB, exposure. Now, this is not to say that you cannot do it with JPG, but adjusting a JPG picture in PS compared to tweaking it in RAW makes a world of difference, since the JPG picture is already compressed once you start out.
 

Squid

New Member
Jun 10, 2004
1,467
0
0
#12
For Nikon DSLR's RAW, you have the option to mask out (or remove) effect from dust particle on CCD when processing RAW files with Nikon Capture or Nikon CaptureNX.
 

justshot

Senior Member
Oct 7, 2005
724
0
16
49
#13
Thanks everyone for your feedbacks.

What if, the exposure is correct. Would there be a difference between shooting directly in JPG and converting from RAW to JPG?
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#15
If you can afford the space and time, shoot RAW. In time to come, the processing capability of PC-based software will exceed that on your camera (assuming you don't upgrade your camera body of course). If you still had the RAW file you took 2-3 years ago, you can process it into a JPEG with the newest PC software you've got.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#17
A Raw file is like a digital negative. the jpg the processed file by the camera. the jpg serves as a preview for me , my editing is done on raw, and processed into a jpg for printing / previewing, and saved on a dvd along the psd and the original raw. the first jpg is invariably discarded. i have a friend who does hard core UW photography who goes to the further extent of saving a tiff format.

Jpg is a compression format and is lossy ( loss information ). It has its own curve formula to compute color. Everytime you amend a jpg, the quality goes downstream as a new formula starts to compute the color.

You might say that the diff in quality loss when editing jpg vs raw might be molecular if minimal. i got enough SD cards to support my habit. maybe i am just anal then but at the expense of tedious time consuming processing, i still love the resultant flexibility of raw

Ryan
 

#18
I just shoot jpeg for now becasue I like to filter shots before editing on the computer. I shoot alot of exposures for just one thing so, I don't want to slowly open them with PS then delete. I have only shot RAW for IR pics since Canon's dSLRs are rather IR-insensitive due to the hot-mirror filter. RAW would give me more room to reduce the noise, equalise the exposure, dabble with the colours etc... for those 100-200sec long IR exposures. Otherwise, general shooting I just shoot jpeg for convenience. Its a personal preference.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom