RAW or JPEG?

[andygolfer]

so who uses RAW and who uses JPEG, this discussion appears again and again. I used to but decided the combination of disk space and the slow buffering meaning that a sequence of shots would come to a halt at that vital moment eventually put me off. I only use it nowadays when it's a single pic which I want to edit about a lot. So from that you will deduce that I generally fall in the JPEG camp. There are plenty of posts to disagree with me so, here is a photo that i took this morning as an experiment, one was the RAW version and the other the JPEG, all I have done is cropped them to the same size but made no adjustment to the sharpness, contrast, brightness etc i.e once cropped they are exactly as taken, SO - can you tell which is which? Is one better enough for it to be noticeable? I'll do it as a poll as well and see what percentage get it right! (for this poll you can change your mind after you have voted and do a re-vote if you wish)

Comment and discuss it as well if you wish, when is RAW really necessary

version 1:
1505 i by sickbag_andy, on Flickr

version 2:
1505 ii by sickbag_andy, on Flickr

[Caravelle 10R]

I'll have a stab that image one is raw. Contrast and colour saturation is slightly stronger.

In answer to Raw or JPEG, it has to be Raw, the control that you have of the original image is in a completely different league. Many moons ago I used to develop film and print in the darkroom. Shooting JPEG is like shooting the final print, while RAW is the start of the process to the final image, the digital negative. I have used Canon's Digital Photo Professional software but find Adobe's Lightroom streets ahead. I would argue that unless you are into heavy photo manipulation that Lightroom does everything a digital photographer requires without the need for Photoshop. Why shoot RAW? The information held in a RAW file with the right processing allows a much greater dynamic range to be achieved in the final image. Colour temperature can be easily adjusted, exposure tweeked, contrast adjusted, sharpness increased or decreased, digital noise extracted, highlights toned down, shadows lifted. To attempt this with a JPEG the information is not totally captured, plus the inherent problem with JPEG;s that the image degrades every time it is saved.
Mine is a thumbs up for RAW. Below image shot in RAW and processed in Lightroom 4.
20150418-IMG_1010 by [url=https://www.flickr.com/people/57494618@N03/]karl_skerstins[/url

[Wallie]

Hi all,
My point of view in this matter. I always shoot in RAW + JPG low resolution.
A RAW picture contains all information. Even when its not visible at the first moment, its really there.
Following this, a RAW picture always needs a "developingprocess", a JPG file is processed ( more or less ) in the camera the moment it is stored on the memorycard and some information is already lost and impossible to recover.
Now, why shooting in RAW + jpg ?
I use the jpg files ( low resolution ) for a quick view on my computer to select. The files are not that big and loading is much faster instead of the RAWfiles. ( 3Mb jpg <> +25Mb raw /picture )
Now, you have to make the decision yourself by answering some questions.
Is my camera quick enough ? Do I have enough space on my memorycard ? Am I going to spend lots of time afterwards ?
Keep always in mind that you loose 100% of the shots you don't have.....

[andygolfer]

It's the amount of disk space that it uses and the problem that even with a high speed card my 600D soon lags behind and then I miss that vital shot while it catches up. most of the time I'm only looking at pics to post on here.
So I stick to JPEG and only now go to RAW if it is something exceptional where I believe I will want to play around with a lot of editing etc. The other times are if it's a subject that I might want to make a large image of or it is something distant where the extra info on a RAW image will make it more useable if it is heavily cropped.

I was interested at your (Wallie's) use of RAW + JPEG low res, hadn't thought of that - does that make much difference to the camera processing/buffering as that is the biggest pain for me. If I could get over that then maybe I would put up with the file sizes filling my memory cards, I have plenty now so am unlikely to run out while 'in the field'.

re my 2 images, the RAW was of course converted to a JPEG to allow me to upload it and I don't know what detail was lost in that process but if the conversion affected it then that rather negates the need to use RAW solely on a quality basis

thanks for the responses so far.

[Rugbyref]

I have cast my vote, based upon the detail in the main undercarriage.
My Nikon D80 and D50 are set to RAW+JPEG, while my wife's D3000 is set to JPEG fine. In my case this is mainly from having been 'volunteered by my wife to take wedding photos for her friend's 2 daughters, when I want as much detail as possible, and don't need to shoot multiple frames at a time.
Good topic - I look forward to seeing what others think and say.
Nice pic of the 777 by the way!

Phil

[scarba]

If you are just starting out with a new digital slr it is difficult enough mastering all the controls without having to learn about Photoshop or Lightroom too!

[talldan76]

I have a 600d as well Andy, and the lag in terms of writing to the card, and the number of frames etc does have an effect when shooting in RAW, however not enough for me to not use it.

That said, for the last 12 months I have been shooting only in RAW, and then working on them in Lightroom or Photoshop.

The main reasons are that the RAW is the digital equivalent of the film negative, and you are able to manipulate the image so much before "developing" the final image. Shooting in RAW has also enabled me to pull back images to a usable state, that if they had been in JPeg off the camera would have gone straight into the recycle bin. With the cost of 16gb, 32gb and larger SD Cards coming down all the time, there is no longer the excessive cost implications of getting the larger cards.

Lastly, using RAW has I think made my images better. Not just from the limited post production I do on them, but because the limit in terms of the writing x number of frames makes you think more about the subject and the picture you are taking...

Dan

[Caravelle 10R]

Agree with Dan's comments. I don't shoot with the camera on multiple auto exposure. Perhaps because of the days of film when you had to make every shot count. My experience with multiple exposures with DSLR's when shooting steam trains taught me that it was better to use skill, frame the shot and expose at the moment required to produce the image you are looking for. Okay doesn't always work but still find I am happier than letting the camera off doing its own thing and getting the shot before and the one after what would have been the ideal composition. That isn't to say I don't shoot multiple but its always on single shot while shifting the composition of the image. At the end of the day its what you are happy with but the advantages of RAW are definitely worth the effort. Take a look at the Cessna above at full size on flickr, I am not a lightroom expert and I am sure it could probably be improved on but I would challenge anyone to get a similar result at 100% from a camera JPEG.

[andygolfer]

thanks for the input so far everybody, some very interesting learning points.

anybody else want to have a vote before I reveal which is the RAW image?

[DeltaCharlieKilo]

Interesting thread to read through.

I have used the RAW only setting for some time now for the reasons outlined by several posters above. However, I did switch back to using just jpeg fine as a trial on the last trip to the local.

Andy, regarding your two images in first post. I think Image 1 is the jpeg version. Reason I say that it is because jpegs are processed in the camera, I would expect the image to be crisper than the RAW version which has had no changes applied at the time it was taken, relying on post-processing to improve its appearance. To me, Image 2 does not appear as sharp as the first.

[andygolfer]

thanks for that feedback Laurie and interested in your reasoning re which is RAW as a friend of mine who isn't a member on here(I keep trying to get him to sign up but he's more military minded) gave the same explanation.

I can confirm that image 1 is the JPEG and the second was the RAW so 3 of you got it right. I had to save the RAW as JPEG for uploading so not sure how that affected it but that would be necessary anyway so it does illustrate the difference (if any) between an uploaded JPEG original and RAW original.

I was surprised in the very small difference and has convinced me that for the average photo in good daylight I will stick to JPEG mainly because of the camera lag which ensues from RAW - I tried a few again on Sunday at Stow Maries and it is surprising how quickly my 600D lags. In future it will be JPEG now except where I expect to do a lot of post-processing and probably more in landscape type pics.

Thanks for all those who have commented to date and please continue the feedback (and any other JPEG/RAW comparisons that you have).
It would be particularly interesting if anyone has a JPEG and RAW pair which they have post processed significantly to show both the as taken (as I did) and the final results to illustrate how much more is possible with a RAW image. Depending on the subject I would expect to see more differences in a RAW then.

andy

[mach one]

I am a bit late to the party but i am here now

I think both of your test shots are great and both look good to me

I often shoot in jpeg so you can get more on a card and you dont eat up space on your hard drive, if you want to or need to do a lot of work in photoshop and lightroom then it has got to be raw to give the maximum file information to start with, if you are happy with a quick crop and one click fix for levels and the like then jpeg is ok

so if you want acceptable photos to keep and post on the forums then use jpeg and if you want to upload photos to certain web sites, enter competitions, or potentially sell your photos then it has got to be RAW

I have never been a big fan of photoshop and would not pay out for the full photoshop cs package but i do use a version of elements that came free with a sony viao laptop, i could never spend two hours per picture tweaking them in photoshop like some do, I consider photography as a hobby and take pictures for my pleasure and occasionally to share with forum members I don't want to make money from my pictures so most of the time jpeg is good enough for me

[radiostationx]

Hi,
I too am very late to the party but I found it interesting to read what others do jpeg & raw shooting.

I tried small jpeg + raw with my nikon & pentax cameras but found most software clunky and slow until I discovered Fastone Image Viewer.

http://www.faststone.org/FSViewerDetail.htm

Loads raw files very quickly indeed, navigation is easy and best of all its free to home users.

I normally scan through my raw files quickly using FIV then open my selections in cs6 for edit.

I do not use jpeg much, I prefer to save as 1200pix wide .png format for my kind of stuff.
The downside with png is you lose exif data but i prefer a better photo /end result over having the shooting data attached.

Regards,
Mike

https://www.flickr.com/photos/45436646@N08/