RAW vs JPEG

[STi Nut]

hey guys and girls,

i have a D80 and am very active in taking photos, i am out at alot of track days and am soon starting static car photo shoots, i havn't really done much work before on the computer with my pics other then number plate removal but want to start fixing up some of my pics in photoshop. wanting to know if people recommend JPEG or RAW, i currently take the highest setting JPEG but when i take RAW i notice that it is a hell of a lot faster on the Camera in processing and saving....

peoples recommendations and opinions.....

thanks

[P5138]

I use RAW whenever I can. RAW saves the complete data taken by the camera's sensor without any compression into a single file format. That means you get the entire image at the best quality the camera can provide with the trade-off of a larger file size. JPEG, even at the highest settings has to remove some quality to compress the image into the format.

RAW's only real disadvantages to JPEG are the file size and the need to convert to JPEG later on (for online viewing). But it's not too hard to just select everything in Adobe Camera Raw and tell it to save all the files as JPEGs.

Before CS3 I'd have said that RAW also allows you to use Adobe Camera RAW, which I adore for quick edits. But now you can use Camera Raw for JPEGs too.

In short that's: RAW = Awesome, JPEG = OK

[Viper007Bond]

RAW is way superior for the serious photographers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

For the average Joe though, especially one who won't be doing any post-processing to it (like adjusting gamma, etc.) low-compression JPEG is just fine.

[STi Nut]

Originally Posted by Viper007Bond

RAW is way superior for the serious photographers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format

For the average Joe though, especially one who won't be doing any post-processing to it (like adjusting gamma, etc.) low-compression JPEG is just fine.

I am your average Joe, but since a few people have offered money for the photos, i thought i might step it up a bit and start to get more into it and learn how to do post work..

[LeVeL]

I go through my shots in photoshop but I don't think raw is worth it (for me, at my level). If I shoot in raw I will run out of harddrive space pretty quickly lol

[epp_b]

Simple answer: better quality, fewer pictures per memory card, a bit trickier to work with.

[hansvonaxion]

It isn't just size and quality, when you save as a JPEG the image is processed in-camera with the settings at the time you shot and can't be changed later (without further degradation). Things like WB, sharpening, saturation etc (I leave mine all on default and WB on daylight).

Also a RAW image can be output to 16bit, greatly reducing image degradation when processing (check the histogram to see the damage you do to an 8bit image), but if you're worried about disk space 16bit might scare you, an 8MP image at 16bit is almost 50MB. With a RAW file you'd be surprised how much detail you can pull out of blown out highlights, you'll also see less noise when boosting the shadows.

I say it depends on what you're shooting and what you plan on doing with the images.

Shoot JPEG if;
Final use is low quality (like a web gallery)
You have to process dozens or hundreds of shots (track day)
Lighting is constant and from one source
Disk or memory card space is limited and you need to shoot lots (track day)

Shoot RAW if;
Final use is high quality (prints)
You are only going to process a few shots (static car shots)
You have mixed lighting (flouros and flash/daylight)

Also when shooting RAW, it helps to shoot RAW+JPEG so you can quickly look at the JPEGS to eliminate any duds, or zip them up and send them to the client to look at.

Hope that helps.

[STi Nut]

i noticed when shooting in raw the it process the pic alot fast and allows me to take the next shot fast then if it was saving it as a jpeg, only noticeable when taking 20 or more pics in one hit on a track.

i do alot of track work and get about 1000 pics at the end of the day and usually some of the people want them printed....

[Raparperi]

^ I'm sorry, but that's just impossible. According to dpreview.com you can shoot up to 110 shots at 3fps (full speed) when shooting jpeg (large/fine) at which point the camera just stops (it can save the pictures on your memory card so fast it doesn't even fill up the buffer), but when shooting raw the buffer will last for only 6 shots.

[jayhawk]

I found this, it might clear up some confusion.

[hansvonaxion]

Originally Posted by Raparperi

^ I'm sorry, but that's just impossible. According to dpreview.com you can shoot up to 110 shots at 3fps (full speed) when shooting jpeg (large/fine) at which point the camera just stops (it can save the pictures on your memory card so fast it doesn't even fill up the buffer), but when shooting raw the buffer will last for only 6 shots.

I always thought the same. Could there be something in his settings that might change the save time for JPEGS?

[Viper007Bond]

Originally Posted by jayhawk

I found this, it might clear up some confusion.

Too bad you used the wrong extension.

[jayhawk]

Nuh uh! The OP asked which is better: RAW vs JPEG.

[rootrider]

all of the replies in this thread stating something like 'raw is for serious photographers' assume that "serious photographers" have a real world use for that slightly higher IQ, slightly larger DR, or they screw their exposure and white balance up a lot

Most pros who aren't shooting something like products, landscape, portraits, etc. will tend to use jpeg. They do this because they can take more photos at a higher speed and fit more on their card, post processing is generally faster, they have no logical reason to require that extra DR & IQ (it really isn't worth the extra size and time involved to process the shot for a lot of people), and they have enough experience to get the photo right in camera

I rarely, if ever, feel like I could have gotten a better shot if I had used raw over jpeg. My goal is to get the shot right in camera. I like having a higher shooting rate and more photos per card. I like not filling up my harddrives quite so quickly. I like being able to be able to hands on edit a photo and be done in less than a minute most of the time. If I suddenly switched to shooting RAW no one would notice the difference except maybe me.

I assure you that after 78 thousand photos in five years, no one has told me that I should have used RAW

RAW is for people who shoot a low volume, need to worry about the slightly higher IQ and DR, and have more time. Or it's just for new shooters who don't want to bother messing with exposure and white balance just to get the shot perfect. The latter, however, does not equate to "serious photography".