Shooting JPEG files vs RAW Files?

Question

I'm beginning to wonder whether it is worth the effort to shoot in RAW? I can's tell the difference and their are many disadvantages to the whole RAW post production workflow process. Any thoughts?

Answer 1

RAW is for those who are into self flagalation or who don't spend the time getting it right before they press the shutter. While there are lots of folks out there who will argue up and down about the nuances of post processing, I have only one thing to say to that - I value my time and time spent on reconnaisance is never wasted. How many people have had to wait for weeks or months for their wedding photos only to be disappointed when they finally arrive? Almost everyone I speak to about it. Why? Because somebody pooched things.

Personally I'd rather spend my time shooting and perfecting my technique than sit at a computer fixing stuff. It is photography afterall, not computer science.

Answer 2

It depends on your needs, desires and camera. When I shoot with my Minolta A2- I find that I can actually get higher resolution out of the RAW shots. But- that only started when RawShooter Essentials came out last year. Using the Minolta program, there really was no resolution difference.

A fine JPEG should, theoretically, not sacrifice any resolution, and the compression is primarily in color levels. The human eye cannot see the 16M possible combinations of color levels that can be created even by 3 channels at 8-bits/channel (256 levels each). A RAW image will often be 12-bit per channel (depending on the camera). So- what you are typically sacrificing is only very fine differences in color/luminosity levels in the photo that are invisible. If you are not making large changes in color balance and exposure levels/contrast, going RAW will not make much of a difference. If you do start to change things a lot in post processing, you'll have more levels with which to work with if you start with the RAW. Ultimately, this can give you an extra 1/2 stop or so of dynamic range to work with, and your final image can have more latitude. For most small prints and non-professional work, it really won't matter.

The other benefit is that if you shoot in RAW, you don't need to fiddle with white balance and other camera settings while you're taking the photos. The downside is that you need to spend the time in post processing. So - it all depends where in your photo process you have the most time. If you're paying a high price for a model, or you don't have much time to shoot- then processing later makes the most sense. If you're setting up still life- you can balance and meter your jpeg shots during the shoot, take a few at different settings, and not have to spend as much time post processing afterwards.

I shoot 90% JPEG and shoot RAW in situations where I need the extra latitude. But- I'm no pro.

Answer 3

I have 2 solutions, however will prevent from the lengthy one. The useful reply is to shoot RAW. The enhancing is a ways less complicated and way more official. If you shoot JPEG, your caught with enhancing equipment that aren't as robust. It would possibly take longer to manage RAW records, however the vigour you could have with them is conveniently valued at it. If you do not need the time to manage it, that's extra of a assertion approximately you than what's the first-rate procedure. Generally JPEG is the seize great used while the great does not topic i.e. newspaper. If your watching for satisfactory graphics and so forth, you shoot in RAW, do your contact up then keep as JPEG earlier than sending off to the print residence. The best purpose you exchange to JPEG earlier than sending it out is in order that it saves time importing it to the printer. All enhancing is finished earlier than that.

Answer 4

I would go with the fine Jpeg it gets you greatr results without the huge files which you end up converting anyway. If you want to edit the photo and not loose anything I would save the jpeg as a tif. which doesn't degrade after multiple savings like a jpeg would. (a jpeg every time you save it EG you touch it up in photo shop then save as jpeg it will slightly degrade each save. Simply copying the jpeg to lets say a CD won't. A tif. stays the same no matter how many times its saved same with RAW but raw then has to be reconverted to be used by most programs)the following site might help you decide http://www.photoworkshop.com/canon/index.html

Answer 5

It depends.
You have more options in editing a raw image in adjusting exposure and wb.
On the other hand, if your exposure is good, then jpegs are all you will probably need for most applications.
I shoot mostly fine jpegs, with raw when it really matters. (weddings etc)
Most people couldn't tell the difference in the final print.

Answer 6

there are some very interesting and useful webpages for your consideration :

1) http://asia.cnet.com/reviews/digitalcameras
- does the experiment with photos with both formats, interesting read.

2) http://www.nikondigital.org/dps/dps-v-2-7.htm
- another review.