Raw? JPEG?

[hopefull]

Hi, I am a total novice with a Canon 550D and an interest in macro.
I have never used any software to adjust my photos, (because I don't know how) and I have always used jpeg. I would appreciate any responses / help /advice re using raw. I have only heard of it never used it or even tried to - advantages? disadvantages? Or should I stick to jpeg and the software that came with the camera, whilst I am still learning manual settings and before I purchase Photoshop or similar to use with my Macbook computer?
Hope that is not too many questions, it is just what I am currently wondering.

thanks :)

[old dog]

Our last trip was to Tassie and I only shot RAW images. It takes a slight bit more work on the computer but well worth it. There is so much more you can do with raw as it keeps all the info the sensor sees. Much better recovery if you blow out the highlights etc. I only wish that I could have another play with all the favorite images from other trips (all in jpeg). Why don`t you shoot in jpeg and raw at the same time then you have the best of both worlds. Set your camera up to capture the jpeg `s (saturation, sharpening, etc) then you can view them and select which ones you really like and then process the same from the raw image......too easy. Have fun. All I can say is that raw is the best way by far and I`m sure the vast majority on here will agree.

[hopefull]

Oh, didn't know I could shoot in raw & jpeg at the same time! I really need to go back to the camera manual to see how. Definitely high on my things to learn & do list.
Thanks for taking the time and effort to reply to such a beginner question.

[old dog]

well, I`m assuming that your camera, which is a great DSLR BTW, should do this. You will need a good editing program to process the raw images. I use Adobe photoshop CS5. I start in Adobe camera raw and do the initial adjustments there before opening up in CS5. Oftentimes you can do pretty well everything in Camera raw and fine tuning, layers, masking etc in CS5 to finish off. I`m on L plates here but learning slowly. As I said earlier, once you get into shooting raw and seeing the many advantages when processing, you wont go back to jpeg. Cheers.....

[Mat]

I only shoot RAW but JPG has got it's place. For example in sporting shoots where high speed burst at a fast shutter speed is needed to capture the action then the JPG smaller file size means faster saves to the card and allow the camera's internal buffer to clear faster giving you more frames per second. But with this you do need to think more about the type of image you want (vibrant, B&W, contrast white balance, etc). I mainly shoot landscape so the fast throughput is not a priority to me so RAW would be best suited. This allows me to less critical on the White Balance and Vibrance etc... and allow me to consentrate more on exposure, composition and looking out for different angles. As Graeme said Raw allows you to adjust the settings after the shoot and recover more detail out of blown out highlights and shadows. Another thing RAW aloows you to do is at a later date you decide that an image could look nicer with a different White Balance (warmer or cooler) along with outher changes you can do this without losing the detail of the original image. With a JPG every time you save the image it does lose detail.

There are a lot more reasons why other people pick one over the other but it comes down to what you are going to do with the image. But do try the Raw + JPG.

[Mat]

The first time you open up a RAW image you might think that it is flat in colour and contrast. This is normal and where your creative processing starts.

[Kieran]

Hi Hopefull,
I have the same camera and learning as you are. I got a CD with mine "Digital Photo Professional" This is a canon program that I assumed all new Canon's came supplied with. After you download using EOS utility "on the same CD from memory" the editing program lets you adjust things in raw as well as jpeg. I have been using it for a while now to see what all the adjustments do. It is much more limited than Photoshop but there is enough to keep you busy for a while in any case, before you purchase a much more powerful and complex program. You can save RAW & Jpeg in the 550D. And then in Digital photo Professional you set the preferences to see one or the other format or both I think. I always shoot raw even though I am useless at editing but my thoughts on this are that I have ever learnt anything that I didn't try. There are also plenty of things that I never learnt but did try, but thats any story.
If you didn't get the CD with your camera it may be on Canon's website. Worth a try at least

Cheers Kieran

[Seabee]

Agree with all of the above, when I first did RAW I got so frustrated that I just went back to Jpeg! I so dearly wish I had continued with both, but it is what it is!!
Even if you don't process them now or can't quite grasp it, continue with RAW+Jpeg because believe me in time you will be glad to go back and see the changes in your processing!! Storage is cheap enough these days to afford this luxury of hoarding lol!
I now do it this way for everything but 'action' related shooting where I just use jpegs.

Good luck with your journey and plenty of people on here to ease the frustration and lessen the learning curve.

[hopefull]

To all who have replied -thanks for increasing my understanding.
Does shooting in raw mean that a lot of time is spent processing them? Currently I just download them to the computer and decide if the image is OK or to be trashed.
Do you use raw for all/most photos or only those you want to adjust to a achieve a specific style?
I have so many questions wonder if I will ever really understand and fully utilise even the basics of photography? :confused013

[Darey]

Hi Hopefull,
Don't worry too much that you have been shooting in Jpeg only, because if you get Adobe Photoshop (Elements or CS5 etc.) you can use a little trick to open your Jpeg files and process them similar to Raw files.
Instead of using the "Open File" command use the "Open File As" command and in the drop down panel select "Raw" and select the Jpeg file you want to open. You will then be able to do the "Raw" adjustments before hitting the "Open Image" command (or whatever is used) and moving the file into the Photoshop editing panel.

As said above shoot in both Raw and Jpeg until you get your image editing software and get comfortable using it.

[ameerat42]

To all who have replied -thanks for increasing my understanding.
Does shooting in raw mean that a lot of time is spent processing them? Currently I just download them to the computer and decide if the image is OK or to be trashed.
Do you use raw for all/most photos or only those you want to adjust to a achieve a specific style?
I have so many questions wonder if I will ever really understand and fully utilise even the basics of photography? :confused013

To me, you just spend the "necessary" amount of time. How you approach raw processing will change over time as you learn more.
The main Q is: why do you use raw?
My main answer is: because of the wealth of information it contains and what it can allow you to do.
A simple for instance is to recover a fairly well exposed image from a shot that would have been lost in jpeg mode.
Don't worry about the heap of Qs all at once. Try it a bit, see what you learn, and go from there.


Hi Hopefull,
Don't worry too much that you have been shooting in Jpeg only, because if you get Adobe Photoshop (Elements or CS5 etc.) you can use a little trick to open your Jpeg files and process them similar to Raw files.
Instead of using the "Open File" command use the "Open File As" command and in the drop down panel select "Raw" and select the Jpeg file you want to open. You will then be able to do the "Raw" adjustments before hitting the "Open Image" command (or whatever is used) and moving the file into the Photoshop editing panel.

As said above shoot in both Raw and Jpeg until you get your image editing software and get comfortable using it.

Darey. I'm not dismissing your advice, but although you can open a jpeg as raw the exercise would have limited value, as you do not have all the raw info to manipulate.
In effect, it would be rather like just familiarising yourself wit the raw processor.

I would suggest shoot in raw+jpeg, and use the jpeg as a guide to process your raw image.

Am to both.

[fillum]

For me it's simple, if I'm going to do any post-processing on the computer I will shoot raw. There are a few extra sliders but doesn't really add much to time to the workflow (you can even just accept the defaults if you like).

Best way is to give it a go. Most software is available to be downloaded for a free trial if you don't already have any...


Cheers.

[pixy]

Hopefull,
Most beginners start in auto mode on their cameras using JPEG.

When they feel comfortable and experiment they will try the semi-auto programs, aperture-priority, shutter-priority,etc, or stay at the sane level and enjoy the snaps as they are.

You will obtain more detail in Raw,but as already been mentioned you can use both,storage is cheap,but when you take that magic moment and the photo is black on your screen,

you don't have to cry because Raw can give you a usable photo.

Photoshop is the benchmark in editing programs,but there are other free programs which work quite well.

Jack

[hopefull]

All the info is so helpful thanks. I have had trouble downloading gimp etc to my macbook os 10.7.3, have recently received info from Canon re upgrade to the software that came with the 550D to suit my computer but have not had a chance to play with it yet. Seriously considering getting Photoshop (Dept Ed discount).
Jack - You sound like you know me "...black on your screen, you don't have to cry because..."
To all - thanks again, very nice of you to take the time to reply to such novice questions. :)

[Darey]

Originally posted by ameerat42:
Darey. I'm not dismissing your advice, but although you can open a jpeg as raw the exercise would have limited value, as you do not have all the raw info to manipulate.
In effect, it would be rather like just familiarising yourself wit the raw processor.

Ameerat42,
I somewhat agree but even though JPEG and TIFF photos won't have all of the advantages of RAW photos, at least you'll have all of the intuitive controls Camera Raw brings to the table.

[Mark L]

....
Does shooting in raw mean that a lot of time is spent processing them? .....

You get used to what you use. So you know I only use D.P.P.. Originally I'd spent some time on an image, but that was just learning what could be done with the photo. Now in D.P.P. using RAW it is unusual to spend more than a minute (at most, usually a lot less) on an image.
If you can get that discount on Photoshop, it's probably worth doing for the future. D.P.P. has taught me the value of RAW (and the basics of what can be done), but I'm getting to the stage of wanting more (layers, selective sharpening...).

[RMPhoto]

Just to add my 2c worth. I shoot RAW + JPEG - 90% of the time. The one gift that RAW gives you is that you can always go back to the original capture - none of your changes destroy the original RAW file. Especially as someone who is learning both in Photography and in Post-Processing, the ability to go back an re-visit an image is a big advantage. As I have got better in using Adobe Camera Raw and Lightroom I am finding I can go back to old Wedding Shoots and Fashion Shoots and previously "so-So" images I can rework and make some good things out of.

The one thing is that RAW eats up memory, so have some good storage systems in place, also you will start building a workflow that works for you, the thing is to get rid of the RAW files for the dodgy shots (eg. Blurry, Out of Focus, Cut-Off Heads) - there is really no point keeping them in RAW they just eat up your HDD.

Sometimes though there are occasions where I need the speed of JPEG, #1 is shots I don't really care much about, happy snaps and the such. Also some sports and action really lends itself to the speed of JPEG. I am shooting with the D300s at the moment which has Dual Memory Card slots so I just slap the RAW to one card and the JPEG to the other, this also gives me some redundancy in protecting images incase one card should (touch wood, turn around twice and spit) ever fail.

EDIT > Re: Editing time - basically my whole RAW Workflow is conducted in Adobe Bridge, I go through the RAW files in Preview Mode, giving them a star rating. I put all my Rejects into a folder called "Rejects" and then once I am down with the top shots that I wanna play with, I will select them all and open in Adobe Camera Raw, apply some basic settings to all images: Lens Profile / Sharpening / Clarity. Then once I have the images to a point I am happy with I just click "Save Images" and batch them all out as JPEGS.

Something handy with ACR is that I will save the Settings as a "preset" this allows me to re-apply the same settings again in the future. Which means I can often process a whole wedding of 1,000 images in a couple of hours, because I will generally apply the same preset to most images and then just work on maybe only a small % - thus speeding up my timelines. I recently processed a wedding shoot in little over 4 hours work (spread over a few nights because sadly I have a boring day job!). So RAW doesn't add too much time to my processing.

Cheers and best of Luck with it all

Ross...

[guggle]

You might want to consider using Adobe Photoshop Lightroom (or Lightroom for short). While Photoshop is a powerful image editor, it is a very complex piece of software. Lightroom is far simpler to learn and use and is designed specifically for editing photos. It is also far cheaper - as I type this, I see it for US$149.00 on the Adobe website. You can do away with the software your camera came with as Lightroom will import directly from the camera. If you decide to take RAW + JPEG, it will manage both of them for you. Good Luck!

Michael.

[Solo1]

Hopeful, welcome to the world of not knowing, I've been photographing for more years than I care to say and I'm still undecided about RAW or jpg.
I shoot mostly jpg and edit in lightroom and photoshop. I only shoot RAW if I know I'm going to do a lot of editing including white balance. from your perspective forget RAW at this stage and concentrate on your photography, the slight difference in editing RAW is not a benefit to you at this time, you will know when you need it.
Buy a good editing program like photoshop elements or CS5 and lightroom, There is no doubt that lightroom 4 is the best IMHO, but you need elements for cloning bits in or out, look at the pricing for education versions they are full versions at a fraction of the price, but you need to be a student ,teacher, or a parent of a student.
Without a good editing program you will not advance in your photography skills, so you need to spend many hours learning, there are bags of tutorials for both programs and some very good books, I have Scott Kelby's book on Lightroom 3 its really a great learning tool.
Good luck

[Ionica]

" I see it for US$149.00 on the Adobe website"
It can be bought on - line from a company in Sydney ( student/teacher discount) for $105, and may be collected from the business premises, or delivered. It is in Ultimo,so easy to get to. I'm not sure if I can give details, so if you are interested you can pm me for the details.

[Wynny]

I am still fairly new to photography and have been shooting in RAW for about 6 months now. As I have become better with the post processing I have gone back and reprocessed some of my photos from earlier in that period with great effect.

However if you are going to shoot RAW I suggest you do some instructional reading around the program you use or you can waste a lot of time with trial and error in the processing (like I did).

[AdventureLife]

Hi, I have the 550D too, and always use RAW + jpeg. Best of both worlds. For all your normal snaps you have it already jpeg, and for any that's particularly good, you've got the option to do some good editing. I bought a book on Photoshop Elements and that gives great examples of how they use the Adobe raw to spice up images. As everyone says, great for bring back highlights.
Having said that, since I discovered HDR, i've barely used photoshop at all. I've got Photomatix and its fantastic. Ideally you should take 3 bracketed photos, but I never can be bothered. Photomatix is suprisingly good at generating pseudo-HDR's from a single shot (note, HAS to be in RAW, jpeg HDR's are completey terrible). There's a batch processing function in it. All I do is put in some presets, and ahve 4 versions of the program running differnt presets and jsut batch the whole folder. I then have 4 different versions of each photo, and then its a quick easy task to select the best.

In summary, I shoot everything in RAW + jpeg so its easy enough to use the jpgs to sort out the bad photos and delete. I then run the RAW's through Photomatix under a few settings, then select the best.

[arnica]

I mainly shoot in RAW, however for time-lapse compilations, i tend to use hi qual jpg

[Tommo224]

I have a Canon 550D, I shot a whole Europe trip in JPG before I knew what RAW was, but I wish I had known earlier!!

RAW is fantastic, as you can tune things the way you like to without worrying about destroying quality (to a further extent than JPG). You'll always have the original available (as the programs don't save over the raw file, but tend to write a file with the adjustments in it.).

I use Adobe Lightroom, by far the best photo editing program I've used!

Photoshop is fantastic, but I like the way Lightroom is set up and handles the files.


I recently bought a Sony NEX-5N and forgot to set it to RAW, went out for a day of shooting. I was still able to make photos the way I like to, but some were too dark and too light (getting used to the light meter) and I couldn't recover them :( lost photos :(

[patrickv]

RAW all the way for me.

I have made myself a pretty straightforward workflow.
1/ take photos, raw only
2/ put memory card in reader, view directly with exifpro, delete all that's uninteresting, rate what is
3/ copy what's left on hard disk array in a dated directory
4/ import in lightroom with "add" (not copy)
5/ format memory card and put it in the "can be used" box
6/ process 4 and 5 stars stuff, export it to wherever needed and print/email/upload
7/ every couple of weeks, go see what wasn't deleted right away but wasn't rated high either - delete about half, process/export the rest

Basically, except if it's for immediate use such as a shoot for someone else than me, I only process about once a week, I just do a memory card dump the same day. If don't know how to process, just skip this part and export directly with some preset. You'll be able to reprocess them later as you learn.

Hope it helps. I find it's a very painless process, and because of how big the files are it forces me to be more selective, which is a good thing.

Cheers

[hopefull]

Thanks to all for the very helpful advice but now I have another questions! I have the software that came with the camera but am contemplating purchasing Photoshop or similar. Do all those types of programs work for JPEG & RAW or are they specifically for one or the other?
Thanks :)

[ameerat42]

Pshop will work for most raws. You need to get the latest Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) plug-in. I just did a few Canon raws with it and the "trial" version of CS6.

[jupiter618]

I made this file for people still wondering why shooting raw is better. I've just applied different levels of jpeg compression to the three panels.

http://www.users.on.net/%7Ejrstonor/jpeg-raw.jpg

http://www.users.on.net/%7Ejrstonor/raw-jpeg-close.jpg

[ameerat42]

Hmm! I'm out in space about it, though. (Gosh, I must be thick! Or is it the ether out here that's slowing me down.)

I think you will have to explain it all, even starting with "...why...raw is better..."
Am.

[jupiter618]

I don't want to repeat what other people have said too much, but I'll try to put it a different way. A raw file will record the information your cameras sensor records in its entirety. When you choose jpeg, after the image is captured your cameras software breaks the image up into blocks of pixels, 8 pixels by 8 pixels (64 pixels) and records a short hand annotation for the colour in that block. If, for example a shadow consists of a smooth and gradual gradient from black to grey or whatever, the software will look at the gradient of colour within each 8 x 8 block and it will probably decide that it's close enough to the same colour (average colour) in that block and colour it all one shade, and so on for the next block, and the next etc. Therefor what you've actually got is a series of sharp steps in shade rather than a steady gradient across the shadow. Now if you view this as is, at 100% zoom you'll probably think it looks ok. However, if you attempt to lighten that shadow you'll very quickly see these steps/jumps/blocks which jpeg compression created, because you're increasing the contrast between them. The camera captured a nice smooth gradient, but your jpeg engine threw out that information in order to create a smaller file. The thinking is, noone will notice that information is missing. Start editing or pixel peeping and you will notice.

[ameerat42]

Apologies, Jupiter. I didn't mean you to go into this depth for me alone. I just meant that your post as it stood seemed to lack a bit of explanation.
It may still do so, I don't know. I know you're trying to be helpful...
Am.

[jupiter618]

No worries ameerat. I know you don't need the explanation, it's just that I felt the actually mechanics of what's going on in jpeg compression was missing from the above thread, and an actual visual image showing it is worth a thousand words, isn't that what they say? It might just help the penny drop for someone who is still unsure what the fuss is about with raw vs. jpeg.

[hopefull]

Thanks again to all. It sounds rather complicated to adjust the images, or is it a case (like most computer programs) that after spending time learning it, it all seems easy? And having a good artistic eye really helps!

[ameerat42]

According to the specs, the 550D comes with DPP as the raw editor. Install it, try it, and see. Next post you can show some results, however modest.
Am.

[Mark L]

^ as mentioned in post #16. :p:)
BTW all Canon DSLRs come with DPP.
Although not a new question, it's been a good thread hopefull and contributors. Thanks.

[mikec]

A good analogy I was told at Uni goes something like this;

"Consider a raw image a box of fresh fruit and vegetables, they are the raw ingredients that allow you to make many many things.

Consider a JPEG as an instant cup of soup sachet, you can only make one thing with it, soup."

Think about that, it'll make sense.

Also I'd recommend looking at Lightroom also, if you're on Mac there is also Aperture which is very similar. You can get 30 day trials of both to try them out before investing. Aperture didn't integrate with Photoshop as well as Lightroom but that could have gotten better since. Lightroom is a great for the price and would highly recommend it to anyone.

[Tommo224]

A good analogy I was told at Uni goes something like this;

"Consider a raw image a box of fresh fruit and vegetables, they are the raw ingredients that allow you to make many many things.

Consider a JPEG as an instant cup of soup sachet, you can only make one thing with it, soup."

Also I'd recommend looking at Lightroom also, if you're on Mac there is also Aperture which is very similar. You can get 30 day trials of both to try them out before investing. Aperture didn't integrate with Photoshop as well as Lightroom but that could have gotten better since. Lightroom is a great for the price and would highly recommend it to anyone.

I use the same analogy to friends who ask me about RAW too haha..



I use Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 4 with a VSCO plug in exclusively with my photos.

Except, I keep all my photos instead of deleting ones I don't use. Memory is cheap now, I don't mind stock piling it all. I use separate catalogs to group them all together.

I only use Photoshop if I need to do some heavy editing, which is almost never. Only to do a collage or website stuff. Watermarks, spot removal tool, clone tool, crop, graduated filters, etc all work just fine from Lightroom!


You can use Lightroom to edit any JPG file and RAW file, the amount of depth you can go with this program is just awesome.


I used to use Photoshop to edit all my photos, I did for years. But once I discovered Lightroom I started using it exclusively. The file handling is excellent! It also has preset export settings which can create albums and galleries for you.

Now I only use Photoshop at work for work stuff haha.. It's a work tool for me now, not a fun tool.

[hopefull]

Thanks to all who took the time and effort to assist me, and any others who have been reading along. I am hoping to have some time to play with the software, I will post my beginner efforts and hope that you will continue to help me. :):):)

[ExclusiveAV]

This has been a great thread, ive learnt heaps!

[arthurking83]

I say this often and most people .. :rolleyes: at the repetitiveness of it.

Unless you really need to shoot raw and JPG for some reason, it's a redundant method of capture.
In some instances there may be a need to do so, as you may want instant(as in right there on the spot!!) need for a jpg for editorial purposes.. deadlines and suchlike.

if this hobby is simply for your own pleasure, raw + jpg is onlny eating up your reserves of memory. While it's cheap, you still should have some semblance of respect for it.

From a raw you can always get a similarly created jpg file, with a quick batch process using your favourite raw converter software.
if this is a PITA in terms of workflow, then fear not as even tho you may only shoot in raw mode, you still have a high quality jpg file within your raw file.
it's a trivial matter to extract this file using a specific program to do so, if you instantly need a jpg file for some reason back at home on the PC.

There are a few programs that can extract this jpg file from within the raw file, and I like IJFR (http://rawworkflow.squarespace.com/instant-jpeg-from-raw-utility/).
What this program does(very quickly) is to extract the jpg file from your raw images. This jpg file is the exact same file you will get from an 'untainted' conversion straight from the camera.. ie. it'll be rendered as if you shot JPG directly on the camera.
Extracting hundreds of jpgs from all your raw images takes a minute or so, so the time to receive your jpg files shouldn't be an issue.

Memory is cheap, but don't waste it!

[hopefull]

Thanks Arthurking83, Appreciate your input. Yes photography is a hobby for my own pleasure - well currently it is fun and sooooo frustrating trying to put into practice all that I have read. Most of my images don't turn out how I thought they would! But I have learnt so much through my errors!
Thanks again to all :)

[rodw]

I made this file for people still wondering why shooting raw is better. I've just applied different levels of jpeg compression to the three panels.

http://www.users.on.net/%7Ejrstonor/jpeg-raw.jpg

http://www.users.on.net/%7Ejrstonor/raw-jpeg-close.jpg

This does not prove anything except that the file you created is way outside of what JPEG is designed to be used for. It is a known fact in the printing industry that files with large areas of the same colour, like screen dumps should never be Handled as JPEG. Files like this should be handled as TIFF with LZW lossless compression. JPEG was designed To deal with compression of more random patterns of colour as you expect to find in photographs.

I'm not going to buy into the RAW v's JPEG discussion as I am still grappling with that myself. Part of me says that as we move forward in technology, that the need for RAW diminishes as the algorithims for processing become more sophisticated and the technology can generally do better than I can but I keep,a foot in both camps.

[Epoc]

I shoot RAW and jpg. Mainly as I like to preview my shots on my iPad before doing the PP thing on my computer. iPads are great for in the field previews. You cannot import RAWs on an iPad.

[jupiter618]

I just don't understand why you'd choose to throw out image data, unless it was to conserve memory. Jpeg contains less information than a raw file, therefor it's poorer quality. That's the end of the discussion, right?

[William]

Yep !! No probs with me , RAW Rules :th3:

[arthurking83]

..... Jpeg contains less information than a raw file, therefor it's poorer quality. That's the end of the discussion, right?

Not exactly!
So to answer the question, .. "end of discussion, right?" .. the answer is definitely: no!

There are uses for shooting jpg(see above) and another situation that immediately springs to mind, is say one of the 'photojournalist', which encompasses many offshoot genres.

The photo journalist that immediately comes to mind, is say a sports shooter who covers news items in sport.
They need to meet deadlines, and those deadlines can be as short as a few minutes ago!!!

Shoot jpg, transfer files directly from camera to a device with the ability to upload to the news desk, and the moment the image is shot, the news editorial staff have the images they need to get the paper to press a few minutes or seconds after the right shot is uploaded.

Doing this in the raw format is creating another step in the process, that requires some time to process. If the deadline was yesterday, doing it all in raw can be the difference between meeting a deadline or not.

For the majority of folks RAW is best, but again, even if you print, a jpg file will give you the same quality print in 99% of print instances.

Only if the print needs to be of an exceptionally high standard in terms of image quality(as opposed to artistic quality!!) is where you will find a difference between having shot raw or jpg.

So even a slightly badly captured jpg image can still be printed to a standard that 99% of the population is happy with.
if this was not the case, then 99.999% of camera sales would never have happened, and will not ever happen .. and everyone would be using high end DSLRs with higher end lenses.

If you need to push the processing of the image to any major extent or want to print extremely large print sizes, may there be differences between having shot raw of jpg.
Reason is the tiff format, not really the raw file itself.
You can't actually print raw files directly (that I know of) even if your software has you believe that you can.
I use Nikon's CaptureNX2, and even tho I can print the raw file I'm currently working on, there is still an intermediary stage where CNX2 creates a temporary tiff file to send to the printer to have printed.

So it's the tiff file that will contain this extra data that jpg files end up losing.

Similar situation exist for just pure processing ability too tho.
push processing a raw file will always give you a higher quality final file, than you will achieve using the same push processing on a jpg file.

I see raw as 'an insurance policy' and that's about it!
it allows me to extract higher quality from the file if I ever need it, and possibly achieve a higher quality printable file, if the request to do so ever reaches me.

Otherwise, my use of the raw file format is basically wasted(in that in close to 200K images, I've only ever printed one large image).

Also, that I'm aware of, I thought the iPad has a few apps that allow for viewing raw files. :confused013
I'm sure I've found a few to do this on Android now.

[Maezyra]

I resisted RAW for a long time, but then I gave it a try. I was using PSE8 at that point and found that shooting in RAW actually improved my editing time. ACR was so easy to use, choose the best results from this drop down box, move this slider, move that slider until I was happy with the results. I wondered why I didn't make the shift earlier. I then upgraded my camera to a Nikon D7000 and suddenly, my RAW files didn't work anymore as ACR on PSE8 didn't support the D7000 NEF files (Nikon's RAW files). In order to keep working on my RAW files, I had to download a DNG convertor, which converted my NEF files to a DNG (Adobe's RAW format) file. This meant I had two very large files (NEF and RAW) for every photo, as well as a fine JPEG (as I like to shoot in FINE JPEG + RAW for days where I want to upload before I can be bothered PPing them), which gobbled up the memory, on my card, on my computer, everywhere. I then upgraded to CS5 as my skill increased and I was able to resume using the NEF without the DNGs.

I love RAW for the flexibility it gives me. This is perfect for people who don't get it right in the camera every time, because there is the chance to rectify this, as the cost of increased memory consumption. I love JPEG as I don't have to make any conversions if I don't want to edit the photo, but want to use it straight away - It's just there, ready to go. It is important to remember that a RAW files is NOT a picture file - It is effectively a data file, containing (LOTS of) information ABOUT a photo. If you want to use it as a picture (say to print it or to post it online), you have to convert it to another file type (JPEG, TIFF, etc). I now only keep a copy of my RAW files (once I have finished editing an album) on a very large external hard drive and then keep the JPEGs on my computer. That's my experience, if it helps at all.


Something handy with ACR is that I will save the Settings as a "preset" this allows me to re-apply the same settings again in the future. Which means I can often process a whole wedding of 1,000 images in a couple of hours, because I will generally apply the same preset to most images and then just work on maybe only a small % - thus speeding up my timelines. I recently processed a wedding shoot in little over 4 hours work (spread over a few nights because sadly I have a boring day job!). So RAW doesn't add too much time to my processing.

I did not know that... That could be very handy!! I'll have to check that out! Thanks, RMPhoto!!

[Epicaricacy]

Raw.

That's what I think ....

because I prefer it for my post processing

[jupiter618]

I shot hundreds of jpegs on my recent trip to the gold coast hinterland, because i looked at the size of my mem ory cards and the rate at which they were filling up and realised I was going to run out of space. The jpegs are fine for printing, but I'm more limited in what I can do with them creatively than I am with the raws. Never mind, it was the right decision. Jpegs or no photos at all, I choose jpegs - no brainer.

[Mark L]

^ buy more memory cards!

[gordoj035]

Just read all the threads, thanks all, I am also a novice and our local photography groups challenge for July is black & white and I am about to try this using RAW for the first time.

[Snpsht]

Yes, thanks to all those who posted such excellent informed info and debate on this thread - it definitely provides food for thought and yes, I'm going to try shooting in both for a while and compare the results!

[Brigitte]

Let me begin by saying that I only took up photography and Photoshop just before I retired a few years ago. All I can say is take the plunge with regards to Photoshop especially if you can get a discount. It is not an easy road but every time I master something new I get a buzz. Mind you there is also a lot of frustration. There is plenty of information that is excellent on the internet. I began using jpg but got a decent SLR a while ago and now only work in RAW. I think it is actually easier then working with jpgs especially since my photographic skills are still at the novice level and my photos at times need a little more tweaking. Personally I find it a great hobby that challenges me at every step but when it all comes together wow!

[Just Taken]

only just started using RAW for my main shots and creative/fun photo's

but i mainly shoot Jpeg for the space saving for it

[kidazzle]

I use a Nikon and have recently purchased the Capture NX 2 software to do further editing. Any thoughts on the best software combinations for working with RAW images which are called NEF in Capture NX2? Would I be better getting Photoshop Elements (easier to use) or Photoshop CS6 to compliment the work I do with Capture. I've also heard that The Efex Pro software from Nikon is quite good for HDR work. I'm just wondering where best to start?

[I @ M]

I use a Nikon and have recently purchased the Capture NX 2 software to do further editing. Any thoughts on the best software combinations for working with RAW images which are called NEF in Capture NX2? Would I be better getting Photoshop Elements (easier to use) or Photoshop CS6 to compliment the work I do with Capture. I've also heard that The Efex Pro software from Nikon is quite good for HDR work. I'm just wondering where best to start?

Sorry to answer your question with a question but --

What do you wish to do with your images post camera?

If you want to develop the raw ( NEF ) files to a point where you can print them with varying levels of enhancement then I personally don't see the need for any other software. The Colour Efex Pro filters from Nik software was originally developed jointly between Nik and Nikon and the plug in range for Capture NX2 has some very handy filters.

If you are after images with much more elaborate manipulations applied then the Adobe range is very much the preferred weapon of choice for such tasks and also can incorporate the Nik software filters including a few that are unavailable for Capture NX2.

I only use Capture NX2 for image editing in conjunction with Neat Image for noise removal ( gets less and less use as cameras get better ) and firmly beleive that Capture NX2 has been designed from the start to manage images to the point of print and not so much for web presentation or with massive levels of manipulation.

Everybody has different needs and to choose software for your use will depend very much on what you want to do with your images.

[arthurking83]

..... Would I be better getting Photoshop Elements (easier to use) or Photoshop CS6 to compliment the work I do with Capture. I've also heard that The Efex Pro software from Nikon is quite good for HDR work. I'm just wondering where best to start?

I'd say just to begin with, stick with the one editor.
Capture NX2 doesn't do HDR, and it's not really supposed too, as it's a simple photo editor, not an 'image editor'(or graphics manipulation software)!!

What I have done for HDR is to start off developing the raw files in CNX2, make sure I have the correct raw files set WB to the same level for each HDR(or panorama too if you needed too) tweak a bit here and there, but not too much .. don't over use sharpening either!!
Something to note with Nikon NEFs when using Nikon software: your cameras settings are used in rendering the file.
So if you have any sharpening set in camera, Nikon software(both CaptureNX2 and ViewNX2) will use that sharpness setting.
This can be a good thing, but is usually a bad thing on the resultant image, especially if more processing is to come of it.
In the Develop section of CNX2, there is the Picture Control adjustment section. If you expand it, you will see the options to adjust the various parameters in there. I zero everything out.
For sharpness, USM and or High Pass works out better using CNX2 than in camera sharpening... and also better than ViewXN2's sharpness settings.
The ultimate quality of the image is slightly better using USM or high pass from within CNX2 than from sharpness set in either camera, or ViewNX2.

From that finished point in CNX2, I save the image as (uncompressed) TIFF file, and then use those saved TIFFs for any HDR or panorama I may do.

Note tho, I haven't done HDR for a long time(not a really big fan), but I do try a pano every now and then.

For HDR, I use Photomatix .. :th3: ... and for panos I use PTGui.

[kidazzle]

Thanks for all of this. I obviously have a lot to learn. I would like to try some panoramas and some HDR but I think I'll just have to learn how to use Capture Software properly first. I find it interesting that you take all of the develop settings back to 0. I might try this next time I'm doing some editing. Once again thanks.

[arthurking83]

..... I would like to try some panoramas and some HDR but I think I'll just have to learn how to use Capture Software properly first. I find it interesting that you take all of the develop settings back to 0. I might try this next time I'm doing some editing. Once again thanks.

Without getting too far off the original topic!
Yep all camera settings zeroed out(in camera!!) That is, I have all settings for all Picture Controls set to zero.

Because you shoot in raw(NEF), you can set all the Picture Controls for each image later on, on the PC via Nikon's software(either CaptureNX2 or ViewNX2 .. I use both).
The camera is not a particularly smart device, and is a lot less smart than a properly written PC program.

The real problem is with all in camera sharpening, if there is any amount of non detailed sections within the image(eg, defocus blur, or lot so of featureless blue sky), the camera just sharpens it all up.
In doing this, in induces a level of graininess that simply isn't there otherwise.
USM and high pass(from using CaptureNX2) doesn't cause this, and if it did produce any graininess on parts of the image, you can selectively remove it.

FWIW: I only use ViewNX2 and CaptureNX2 on my images.. only using Photomatix and PTGui for stitching and HDR. All shots are captured as NEF(raw) files.

[Alpacamike]

Raw is the only way to go as long as all the camera manufactures use the same raw file system. I store all my photos in RAW and edit copies and then convert to jpeg for web and printing.
Alpacamike

[danny]

Hi,
I have always shot jpeg.... BUT then I finally decided to start shooting in raw after so much advice here on AP. The result is ,it is great. You have so much more control. Images that were ok become keepers. Also iPhoto on your macbook will store them the same as your jpeg. So you can view them in the same way as you always have. But if you want to edit then you open them in photoshop or similar.

Cheers

[Ganzer]

my vote is for raw, but i do used jpeg here and there.
i dont think i could fill my 2 menory cards in a day, there is 16 gig between them.