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 Matt Needham on May 20, 2009 at 6:27am

"...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."

I assume that they don't want a beginner to tackle learning to use the camera and raw processing at the same time. Since you already use and understand raw processing it shouldn't be a problem for you. The reason they advise jpeg is so that their help lines aren't overwhelmed with calls from noobs buying fancy new gear saying "I was told raw is better than jpeg, but my raw files look dull compares to my jpegs. What's wrong with my camera?!?!"

There is no raw vs. jpeg. Raw and jpeg are 2 different steps in the process of creating a digital photo file. A raw file is a data file. It is the information off the sensor in the least processed form available. All digital cameras shoot raw, even the ones that don't offer access to the raw file, such as many point-n-shoots. Raw files are not image files; they cannot be viewed as is. To be displayed as a photograph the raw file must be converted into an image file such as a tiff or jpeg. When a camera is set to jpeg the raw file is processed by in-camera software. When a camera is set to raw the file remains unprocessed, and out-of-the-camera processing software must be used to turn the raw file into an image file.

So it's not raw vs. jpeg. It's the manufacturer's in-camera processing software vs. Adobe or Capture One or whatever. I shoot Canon DSLRs and use Adobe software. My in-camera processing options are pretty much limited to a few slider bars and effects choices: contrast, sharpness, saturation, BW, sepia, etc... Camera Raw and Photoshop allow me many more processing options, and much greater precision and control. Not every photographer or project requires those options and control. Many photographers get excellent results using the in-camera processing, and as long as it gets the job done there is nothing wrong with using the in-camera software. It's just a choice of tools.

An additional advantage of out-of-camera processing is that it's processing by inspection, meaning I get to look at the photo with my eyeballs, and fiddle until it looks like I want. In-camera processing is processing by prediction; meaning I must make many processing decisions at the time of the exposure, and I don't get to see the effects with my eyeballs before the processing is done. I had my own darkroom and did all of my own BW film processing so I know all about processing by prediction, but processing by inspection is definitely a big advantage for me. My eyes and mind are much, much better at visual assessment unconsciously than my conscious mind's ability to previsualize and make a plan (I still use previsualization too). Of course jpegs can be processed again, but if I'm going to spend the time processing the photo I want to have as much of the original data as I can get.

Permalink Reply by John Daly on May 20, 2009 at 7:40am

Excellent Matt.

I think this has been a great discussion and needed by many. Everyone seems to confirm my thoughts about shooting in Raw most of the time for your professional work and jpeg for casual, ie family photos.

I think it would benefit many if we had this same kind of discussion about Adobe Photoshop vs Apple Aperature.

Permalink Reply by Matt Needham on May 21, 2009 at 11:33am

I shoot raw for everything. The only time I ever fill cards is when shooting weddings, so file size isn't an issue for me. The default processing in most digital cameras seems to be a Velvia influenced flavor, and I never really cared for it. My taste is a little milder on the contrast and color snap. I also think that in-camera sharpening has a lot to do with the bad rap digital gets. Most of the time when someone is griping about the "look of digital" they are talking about crude, over-sharpening, and blown highlights.

My casual snaps get batch processed from Bridge. I can run them all through my standard processing in Camera Raw, then they open in Photoshop for sharpening, and then they are saved as jpegs: full size for prints or reduced size for the web. It just takes a few clicks, and the computer handles the rest. I suppose it does take more time than just shooting jpegs, but only a few minutes, and I've always got the raw file if I want it.

I wasn't a big fan of compact digital cameras, but then I installed CHDK on my wife's cheap Powershot. CHDK allows access to the raw file in Canon cameras that don't normally have that feature. When I was able to apply my own sharpening I liked it better. I bought myself a G7, which I got for cheap because G7s don't shoot raw, and I installed CHDK, and I'm really enjoying it. The ability to control the sharpening is enough reason to shoot raw for me.

I believe that in the future we will be able to install aftermarket software in our cameras just as we can today with hardware accessories (lenses, flashes, etc...). We will be able to run our favorite Adobe Camera Raw/Lightroom pre-sets in the DSLR. Or maybe all of our electronic gizmos will automatically remain in contact with our home base computer. As the exposures are made the files are cell phoned back to my computer, where Adobe automatically applies my standard processing, and they are finished before I get home. The concept of in-camera will have less meaning, because it's really in-computer, and why does it matter where the computer is physically located?

Permalink Reply by John Daly on June 1, 2009 at 10:31am

Excellent point about future software. Having the RAW data intact will be vital.

Permalink Reply by Steve Berardi on May 28, 2009 at 6:18pm

Another thing to remember when choosing JPEG or RAW is the number of photos you can shoot in a burst.

For example, with your Canon 5D Mark II shooting in JPEG mode, you can shoot 78 photos in a row before the camera needs to pause for a little bit and write to the memory card.

If you're shooting in RAW though, you can only shoot 13 photos in a row before the camera needs to pause and write to the memory card.

Why is this important? Well, when photographing wildlife or any kind of moving/uncontrollable subject, you might want to shoot lots of photos one right after another to ensure you get a good sharp photo. Inserting a pause for every 13 shots versus a pause for every 78 shots can make quite a difference in the number of photos you end up with.

Steve

Permalink Reply by John Daly on June 1, 2009 at 10:34am

So those kind of situations you would want to shoot in JPEG, but the highest quality. Everything else in RAW.

Permalink Reply by John Daly on June 1, 2009 at 10:37am

I am leaving in a week for Iceland, Sardinia and Tuscany, a month trip. I am taking my MacBookPro to download my images and have fun working with them. But I am also taking a Flash stick to download to also. And lots of cards. On a trip like this you want to have lots of backups. I will be shooting RAW at least 90% of the time.

Permalink Reply by Ashish Peter Gomes on June 9, 2009 at 8:47am

above all i think RAW is best ever! so Size doesn't matter best or worst evry photographer should use RAW format.

Permalink Reply by Mark on June 9, 2009 at 10:30am

I shoot every thing in raw simply because it is easier to set a custom white balance than go in and adjust the white balance in post processing. One can not set a custom white balance shooting JPEG that I know of. At least that is the way it is with my Rebel XT.

Permalink Reply by CJ Julian on June 28, 2009 at 4:26pm

I always shoot both. Large JPEG AND RAW. I like the option of both because you can print straight from your flash card with the JPEG, but if you want to do any editing you are better off using the RAW files and then save them as JPEG to print. (I'm a newby to photography and shoot with a Canon 30D). How do you like the 5D?

Permalink Reply by Richard Crowe on June 29, 2009 at 8:43am

I would always shoot RAW with any camera. I like the control I have using RAW and the extra file size is of no consequence since CF prices are really low.. Even shooting in the burst mode; the buffer of my 40D allows me sufficient numbers of shots at 6.5 FPS to satisfy my needs.

I have NEVER printed directly from my CF card without a bit of PP and do not expect to do it in the future. With batch processing, it is easy to convert large numbers of RAW images to JPEG with a click of the mouse.

I must regress. I have shot individual images of a group of about a hundred items for a friend to post on eBay. I did shoot these in JPEG small since I was downloading the images directly to his computer via a flash card reader and saving them on his "my pictures" section. I knew that he would have no interest or capability to post process the images and I wanted to make it as easy as possible for me.

I ALMOST REGRETTED MY CHOICE OF FORMATS because, since I always shoot RAW, I was not in the habit of checking the format in which I was shooting. I shot several images of another subject before I realized (by seeing how many images I had left on my CF card) that I was shooting in JPEG small rather than RAW as I supposed I was.

That is one thing that I like about the xxD series cameras over the xxxD series - the LCD panel on the camera's top. I can check my shooting parameters by just looking down at the camera top.

Permalink Reply by william wasp on June 29, 2009 at 9:08am