RAW VS JPG

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Fred on August 14, 2009 at 11:02pm

I always carry twenty 4Gbyte CF cards. I have never used all of them but I do not want to run out. Or you could always carry a laptop and download to that after you fill each card.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Staale Sannerud on August 15, 2009 at 3:43pm

Yes, when you convert a RAW to JPG you lose a lot of information. This is by definition; JPG is a "lossy" file format which throws away a lot of information that is deemed unimportant.

In other words: If you export to JPG, you should not edit that JPG any further. Keep editing the RAW instead, the RAW file contains all the available information whereas JPG does not.

That is not to say that a converted RAW exported to JPG is equal to a perfect JPG straight from the camera. If you know what you are doing the converted RAW ought to be better than the in-camera JPG.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fred on August 15, 2009 at 10:58am

This is where you have to be clever with your files.
I work on the original RAW file and save it again as a RAW or Tiff file in a separate folder. That way you never loose the original. When I convert to JPEG, I think you loose a little "wow". I always sharpen the JPEG again and it is always the last thing that is done.

All you have to think about is what software are you going to use and everyone has their own favorite.

One other thing for you to think about is colour. You need to calibrate your monitor and printer, there are several products out there to do this.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Nuss on August 15, 2009 at 1:35pm

You can think of a raw file as an old film negative. It gives you a great deal of latitude to salvage a not-so-good shot into something passable, or even above average, as your editing skills improve. The downside of jpeg is that muliple saves
to the same image degrades clarity. What I do is copy all my raw files to tiff, edit the tiff images (there is no loss of quality),
and after all editing, convert again to jpeg for those I want to email or upload to the internet. You didn't say what kind of camera you use. However, most of the major brands (Nikon, Canon, etc) have their own software that can translate between the common file types. Adobe also has several software packages. The big plus for raw, is that you can change exposure, white balance, saturation, brightness, contrast, etc on an image which would otherwise be a non-keeper. You'll use up a lot more card and disc space, but your percentage of good images will increase dramatically. Good luck!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Staale Sannerud on August 18, 2009 at 5:39am

White balance is one of the killer apps of RAW. With JPG, you are basically toast if your white balance is wildly off, with RAW the as-shot white balance does not matter at all.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on August 29, 2009 at 7:36am

First of all stop thinking about it as "raw vs jpeg". Raw is to jpeg as exposed but undeveloped film is to negs/slides/prints. A raw file is not a specific file format. A raw file is the data collected by the camera sensor in it's least processed form. A raw file is not an image file; it is a data file. All digital cameras shoot raw, even the ones that don't offer access to the raw files as a feature. To be seen/printed as a photograph it must be processed into an image file such as tiff or jpeg. All digital photographs start out as raw, and end up as jpegs, tiffs, psds, etc....

When the camera is set to jpeg, or when using a camera that does not allow access to the raw file, the raw data is processed using software in the camera, and some of the data is altered and discarded. When the camera is set to raw only the in-camera processing software is used to make a thumbnail for the LCD, but as much of the original raw data is preserved as possible. The raw data must still be processed into an image file using processing software.

The big difference is that out-of-the-camera tends to be more sophisticated. The processing software in my Canon DSLRs offers some preset picture styles, and a few simple slider bars. It just doesn't offer me anywhere near the choices and precision control of processing available in Lightroom, Photoshop, GIMP, Capture One, etc... Complexity isn't always a virtue though. Many photographers prefer the simpler, faster in-camera processing software, and learn to make it work for their needs. You also need to be skilled in the operation of the software to realize the advantages. Raw probably won't be better for you if you don't know how to operate the processing software.

Some other advantages to having the raw files are:

You have all the data. Once the in-camera software processes the data into a jpeg it discards the left over data. You can't get it back if you want it for some reason. At any point you can return to the original raw data, and re-process it.

When you are setting the in-camera processing parameters you are processing by prediction, you do not get to look at the image and make adjustments as it's being processed. This is like what we had to do with film. When you process using out-of-camera software you are processing by inspection; you get to use your eyes and mind to assess how the image is turning out, and adjust as necessary. I used and studied the zone system and processing by prediction for 15+ years, and it's my opinion that almost everyone can do a better job processing by inspection rather than prediction.

So it's not "raw vs jpeg". It's Nikon/Canon/Pentax/Oly in-camera processing software vs Adobe/GIMP/Capture One/whatever... out-of-camera processing software.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Randall Sherman on August 29, 2009 at 7:26pm

As often is the case, Matt Needham's answer is focused, to the point and offers valuable insight. I will mention a bit about storage of RAW. In camera it pays to use a fast, large card -- I have 2 SanDisk 32 gig Extreme III's and I have yet to worry about running out of card even on days I made 1,200 shots in the Canon 5D Mark II which averages almost 30 megs per RAW image. To transfer the data, use a modern fast cardreader (I use the Lexar Pro UDMA CF & SD USB 2.0 Reader -- $45 at Adorama) -- it will still require several minutes for a large shoot to transfer so you will have time to take your shower. Don't forget your backup copy. It is best to make it directly from the card using the reader but if worse comes to worse, make it from the primary copy on your working hard drive. The backup copy HAS to be on a different drive and is best if it is not in the same RAID array as the primary copy -- Western Digital makes several nice external drives in the $150+ range that have the advantage of offline and even safety deposit box storage when full.
I am now on the tailend of a 4 month odessy that included 67 days in China and I followed my own advice using 2 Western Digital 500 gig Passport USB drives (about $150 direct or $120 at Costco). I am bringing home 15,000 RAW images with about 50 gigs of free space on each drive. Like others, I also use Adobe LightRoom 2.2 to deal with these images and only rarely do additional work in PhotoShop CS-4. You can follow my trip. The images go first to http://randyhi.smugmug.com and the trip log & maps will go to www.RandyHI.com as quickly as possible after I return to Maui.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Allison Carenza on August 30, 2009 at 3:18pm

Hi Habibi,
Lightroom makes it really easy, you can import the whole batch as raw images, develop them, and then export as TIFF files which is still a lot better than JPEG.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Tisdale on August 31, 2009 at 11:07am

Being that I am just getting back into photography and digital at that I was shooting jpegs. After reading the responses I went out and shot 1st raw and jpeg. I used photoshop CS3 to work in. I didn't have any problems down loading and only seen minute differences between raw vs jpeg. I went out again and shot specifically in raw and It's not that hard to work with. As others mentioned there is a bit of a learning curve and the files are larger. Any adjustments I did do seem to be more noticeable in the raw file.

Give it a try. It's not as hard to work with as you think. Just do what I did at first ... set your camera to show raw and jpeg so it creates two files for your first time just in case there is something you want to keep. Then as you get comfortable switch your camera to raw only.

Stephen.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Deneb Catalan on September 1, 2009 at 10:47pm

With the cost of Cards these days, you could shoot RAW with no problems. Lots of software like Adobe Lightroom is a fantastic option for RAW to JPG conversion. It all comes down to Usage and Quality. Some cameras have a RAW and JPG combo setting that you could take advantage of. Adobe Photoshop has a fantastic RAW Application that takes alot of the guess work out for beginners and detailed features for the Advanced. I always shoot in RAW. It takes alot of the "OMG! The Imaged is too Fracking Dark!" or what have you... So, go for it! Start using RAW at a couple shoots. You'll begin to get used to it. Have fun!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by CameraClicker on September 4, 2009 at 7:46pm

The Canon web page specs for the 50D say:
(1) Large/Fine: Approx. 5.0MB (4752 x 3168 pixels)
(7) RAW: Approx. 20.2MB (4752 x 3168 pixels)

You can shoot RAW + JPG as well:
(8) RAW+Large/Fine: Approx. 20.2+5.0MB (4752 x 3168 pixels

Raw files for your camera take up slightly more than 4 times the space of the JPG. RAW + JPG uses 5 times the space. So it should be fairly easy for you to figure out your card and disk drive requirements based on what you have been doing in the past with JPG files.

Your other body makes smaller files so what you calculate for the 50D should work for it as well.

Most of us use a number of smaller cards instead of a single large card as insurance against loosing an entire shoot and frequently the smaller cards are relatively less expensive than the same space in a large card.

• ▶ Reply