shooting raw or jpeg


Status
Not open for further replies.

gtan

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
838
0
16
#1
hi all i am new to digital photography. i recently went to a photo exhibition where the displays were shot with a 5 mega pixel olympus using raw mode and the results were positively STUNNING

i am an avid amateur photographer and own a canon 5 D for travel photos and portraitsof my children. from what little i know, raw files take up more space and is more troublesome to handle post shooting

my questions :
1.how do i get the raw images from the camera onto the computer and then onto the CD-RW
2.sounds silly but can i crop raw images like i do jpeg? if so will the results eg sharpness be better
3. apart from the bigger space needed for raw is there any other disadvantage shooting raw when complared to jpeg? [ i dont email my photos at all]
4. what are the advanteages of shooting RAw

thanks
 

Thor

New Member
Jul 21, 2004
30
0
0
#3
To answer your questions! Raw is definitely better because all information is still intact unlike jpeg, the slight compression do lose some information. However it depends very much on how big an enlargement you will need end of the day, 4R to even 8R, just work with jpeg! I shoot jpeg most of the time, even up to 8R the information lost is hardly noticeable.

You need to process RAW files before you can use them, all camera manufacturer usually provides the converter when you purchase the camera. Once processed you can edit, photoshop. You can do everything you do with a jpeg file and more!
 

#4
i find raw much easier to post process then jpeg, also quality is much better at larger print sizes and i mostly print 12R and 8R so its needed, you get raw pictures of the camera and onto a cd the same way you would do with jpeg files, no difference. Yes you can do all the stuff you can do with jpegs and much more such as a more sophistacted white balence and temperature and tint, there are no disadvantages to shooting raw except that they are bigger an that you cannot view them as thumbnails in folders and you usually have to save as an uncompressed jpeg or tiff to print. The advantages are as mentioned above quality wise and post porcessing wise.

Hope this helps
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#5
I usually don't shoot raw unless there is a real need to, if the output is going to be poster print size. I look at digital as another media and if the workflow is faster than film, then why should I give myself more problems? I shoot jpeg most of the time and they will mostly go straight to the lab for printing without any post processing. Therefore to make sure the jpegs come out the way I want, I use a custom curve on my camera.
 

Apr 30, 2004
466
0
0
#6
Thor said:
To answer your questions! Raw is definitely better because all information is still intact unlike jpeg, the slight compression do lose some information. However it depends very much on how big an enlargement you will need end of the day, 4R to even 8R, just work with jpeg! I shoot jpeg most of the time, even up to 8R the information lost is hardly noticeable.

You need to process RAW files before you can use them, all camera manufacturer usually provides the converter when you purchase the camera. Once processed you can edit, photoshop. You can do everything you do with a jpeg file and more!
It is just better image quality even when printed at 8R or smaller with a properly processed raw file than JPEG. The reason is simple - JPEG would be processed in-camera based on what the camera designers think a particular image should be processed. Whereas with RAW you are dealing with actual camera data and its up to the human mind how the image needs to be adjusted.

I always shoot RAW + medium fine JPEG and can honestly tell you that the JPEGs just do not match up to a quickly processed RAW file (usually less than 30 seconds per RAW image). A lot depends on whether you are prepared to acquire a good RAW software to make the RAW workflow efficient. Not to mention white balance, exposure compensation, tone curve, sharpening, noise reduction, etc that can be done much easier inside of the RAW software.
 

theRBK

Senior Member
May 16, 2005
2,048
1
0
#7
If the lighting situation is simple, eg. no ultra high contrast, no faces in shadow that can't be saved by fill flash, subject and background similarly lit, etc, shooting jpgs for holiday shots is good enough... but if lighting situation is complicated, or if you don't want to take a chance on certain once in a lifetime shots, then shoot RAW...so you can have some processing leeway...

if kiasu like me, buy more CF cards, HDD storage device, and shoot everything in RAW... ;)
 

yyD70S

Senior Member
Dec 25, 2005
2,454
0
0
Singapore
#8
Shooting in RAW gives you almost complete control on the post processing. PP is a part of the digital workflow. Accept it. It's not as difficult or as time consuming as one thought it to be. If you are really serious about digital (or even if you are just 51% serious), raw is the way to go provided you have access to the relevant software.

It's the same with film. You either do it yourself (development/print) or you hand it to the lab to do it (and they may or may not do it well).

The thing about PP in digital is that, although the process is not as 'beautiful' as film (color or b&w), it's much easier to control and you can see the results of the steps as it evolves plus the ability to backtrack if one puts in the wrong foot.
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#9
Thor said:
To answer your questions! Raw is definitely better because all information is still intact unlike jpeg, the slight compression do lose some information. However it depends very much on how big an enlargement you will need end of the day, 4R to even 8R, just work with jpeg! I shoot jpeg most of the time, even up to 8R the information lost is hardly noticeable.
If you are talking about compression, TIFF will be sufficient, you dont need RAW.
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#11
michhy said:
If you are talking about compression, TIFF will be sufficient, you dont need RAW.
What about colour depth?
 

lsisaxon

Senior Member
Nov 29, 2004
11,941
0
0
#12
Snoweagle said:
The best is using film. No info lost hehe
Don't be so sure. Different film can give you very different results. So which one is correct? ;)
 

d7t3

New Member
Oct 3, 2002
690
0
0
In the Shepherd's hands
#13
i am an avid amateur photographer and own a canon 5 D for travel photos and portraitsof my children. from what little i know, raw files take up more space and is more troublesome to handle post shooting

my questions :
1.how do i get the raw images from the camera onto the computer and then onto the CD-RW
- about the same way as for jpegs, just treat them as image files

2.sounds silly but can i crop raw images like i do jpeg? if so will the results eg sharpness be better
- yes you can crop, though the cropped version is always output as a new file (TIFF or JPEG). the sharpness could be better if you process the raw to a TIFF for example. no loss due to jpeg compression. but you'll have to apply sharpening yourself.

3. apart from the bigger space needed for raw is there any other disadvantage shooting raw when complared to jpeg? [ i dont email my photos at all]
- for travel and kids, the shooting itself should not be different. raw mostly limits high-speed continuous shooting. i think the time taken to process raw files could be a major disadvantage for your case. photo labs and printers don't accept raw files AFAIK. but if you spend lots of time post-processing jpegs already, it won't add much work. you can batch process raw files, but it almost defeats the purpose.

4. what are the advanteages of shooting RAw
- mainly you can change a wrong WB without degrading the image quality, and you have a 12-bit image (rather than 8-bit) to work with, to retain smoother tonal transitions when making larger editing changes, before final conversion to 8-bit for print. and if you make big prints, you can avoid losing detail to jpeg compression, by outputting to tiff.

you can try capturing simultaneous raw+jpeg. then, after downloading, you can keep the raw files for the important shots and get rid of the less important raw files since you have the jpeg versions already.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#14
lsisaxon said:
Don't be so sure. Different film can give you very different results. So which one is correct? ;)
Slides...u can't go wrong with it but do be extremely careful with the exposures.
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#15
lsisaxon said:
What about colour depth?
Mr Thor whom I quoted was talking about image sizes in printing.
 

michhy

New Member
Oct 21, 2005
780
0
0
#16
lsisaxon said:
Don't be so sure. Different film can give you very different results. So which one is correct? ;)
Even our eyes are not calibrated.
so why be so bitchy about accuracy? ;p
 

Apr 30, 2004
466
0
0
#17
michhy said:
If you are talking about compression, TIFF will be sufficient, you dont need RAW.
I politely disagree. TIFFs are generally much larger than RAW files. I believe the 'spirit' of this discussion is between in-camera JPEGs versus RAW.
 

Apr 30, 2004
466
0
0
#18
michhy said:
Even our eyes are not calibrated.
so why be so bitchy about accuracy? ;p
Because when you do post-processing you want to ensure what you see on the screen is what you get in the printout.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom