RAW vs jPEG

I recently got the 5D Mark II and am finding in both the video and book instruction I got to help learn the camera that they are advising shooting in Large jpeg rather than RAW. With my old EOS 20 I always shot RAW. Any comments or thoughts on this?

John

0 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Daly on May 15, 2009 at 1:40pm

Jack,

That was my thought but i just wanted to get some input from others. The camera will also shot both RAW and any size jpeg at the same time.

John

Permalink Reply by John Saunders on May 15, 2009 at 11:52pm

I always shoot in RAW as it is the raw data that can be manipulated later without loss of picture quality. When you edit a jpeg and save it degrades the quality. I only use jpegs for getting loads of shots on a card, like at a sports event where I might photograph hundreds of runners.

Permalink Reply by Cordell on May 16, 2009 at 1:34pm

Hi John...I believe you have got to look closely at the context of the author's discussion, I just can't believe any "photography author or video producer" would ever recommend JPEG over RAW, other than the reasons given by both Jack and John. You always lose data with JPEG compression and even more when the file is manipulated in post processing and then saved. I always keep backups of my RAW files and then I can manipulate them as much as I want and in as many ways as I desire without doing any damage to the original "DATA". I will convert them to either "TIFF" or large JPEGS, according to what ever media I am working in, without ever losing my originals shot in "RAW"

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on May 16, 2009 at 2:57pm

I've shot both formats for a long time, and quite honestly, the hype regarding RAW is a little off the deep end. JPEG is a perfectly fine format to shoot anything in, and does not compromise quality (esp. at 22 mp!!!). You could shoot a small JPEG and have it look amazing on the Mk II. Shoot RAW for small, short shoots like portrait sessions. JPEG for everything else.

J

Permalink Reply by Cordell on May 16, 2009 at 5:46pm

Hi Jordan....Whether noticeable or not at first, if you do alot of saving of the same shot, it will deteriorate over time, maybe the average Joe doesn't care, but if one is serious about "editing", and looks at the work closely, the work does suffer with JPEG...no one said it did not "look" good, just that you are limited at just how much you can do with that same file over time. unfortunately, everyone does not work on copies...some on the original...at least RAW will require conversion to another workable format, always leaving the original intact...that is one of the main reasons I prefer it....not to mention the flexibility one has with it

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on May 20, 2009 at 12:12am

True. I was more or less speaking of when editing a photo from its original JPEG, and only once.

What you say is indeed a valid point, though, agreed.

Permalink Reply by Staale Sannerud on May 20, 2009 at 5:56am

If you are a God of photography, who always gets the exposure absolutely dead-on, and always gets the white balance exactly right, JPEG is no doubt a wonderful format to shoot. If not, by all means use RAW.

JPG was designed to be a photo _distribution_ format, not a photo _capture_ format. Big difference. JPG actively throws away lots and lots of data to reduce the file size; data which is deemed irrelevant to the image as it is. Once you start pulling the levers in post-production though, data which was irrelevant when the JPG was made suddenly becomes quite important to have, but you can't, because it was irrelevant and thrown away when the JPG was cooked... and there you are. Stuck.

The only reason I can see for anyone to shoot JPG these days is if you are a sports or wedding photographer more or less machine-gunning your way through a job. Even with modern RAW tools like Lightroom or Aperture, postprocessing many hundreds of shots from a session can be a chore, and does take its time.

Permalink Reply by Steve Berardi on May 28, 2009 at 6:08pm

"JPG was designed to be a photo _distribution_ format, not a photo _capture_ format"

Staale, just wanted to say this is a brilliant fact that deserves more attention!

Steve

Permalink Reply by Sean on May 19, 2009 at 8:29pm

Doesn't the 5dmkii have different sizes of raw? You should be able to shoot at a smaller size in raw....save shooting in 21 mp for the stuff you really need it. Otherwise shoot in the smaller raw levels.

Permalink Reply by Jordan Stead on May 20, 2009 at 12:13am

I'm not entirely sure on the 5D mk II, but I do know that from the 40D on (?) they started including sRAW.

DO NOT USE IT. You need a separate converter, and NO program can open OR view them. I shot a whole family Thanksgiving, and the pictures are virtually unusable.

Permalink Reply by Sean on May 20, 2009 at 4:39pm

He he he... A couple sure fire ways to get me to try something is 1. Tell me not to do it and 2. Tell it can't be done.
The Sraw1 and 2 on my 50D open fine with the software that was provided to me by Canon...Digital Photo Professional. Transfers nicely into photoshop CS3.

Permalink Reply by Sean on June 1, 2009 at 9:33pm

It's should only be smaller in megapixels and not compressed in any way. So the image should be as clean just less pixels.