[Cloudy Wizzard]

I'm wondering if most people here use the RAW format or the JPEG format when shooting their images.

from what I've been reading the RAW's are better since you can manually fix stuff without quality loss (unlike with JPEG) but the downside is that you will need to convert your images to TIFF or JPEG later.

so are you using RAW for "professional" work and JPEG for personal (when you don't want to do a lot of post-processing or when you just don't care about perfect quality ?).

The reason I ask is because my brother owns a Canon EOS 350D and he NEVER shoots in RAW format (only JPEG) and I don't understand it since you buy a fairly expensive reflex camera (was around 800 Euro when he bought it a year orso ago) but you don't use that quality/power since you save all images in a lossy (lower quality) format ?

[mopar_man]

I didn't think I was going to bother with RAW when I first got my camera but after using it and seeing all the adjustments I can make, I love it. It takes a bit of time to convert but I think that pays for itself in having better images. I even use it for snapshots that I don't really care much about. The only downside about my newfound love for RAW files is needing a larger hard drive.

[jfdavis58]

Both!

There is nothing wrong with a well prepared JPEG; certainly nothing assumable as amateurish. And no assurance of professionalism in RAW.

I want all my work to look good regardless of destination--I don't show what fails. There is no downside to making it look good.

Both formats, like the lenses, the flashes and the camera are just tools; as such a monocled monkey with a hammer and chisel on stone would do if it expresses my particular vision the way I desire. Once you understand this concept, the question becomes moot.

I'm wondering if most people here use the RAW format or the JPEG format when shooting their images.

from what I've been reading the RAW's are better since you can manually fix stuff without quality loss (unlike with JPEG) but the downside is that you will need to convert your images to TIFF or JPEG later.

so are you using RAW for "professional" work and JPEG for personal (when you don't want to do a lot of post-processing or when you just don't care about perfect quality ?).

The reason I ask is because my brother owns a Canon EOS 350D and he NEVER shoots in RAW format (only JPEG) and I don't understand it since you buy a fairly expensive reflex camera (was around 800 Euro when he bought it a year orso ago) but you don't use that quality/power since you save all images in a lossy (lower quality) format ?

[Dave Lee]

I have been using raw for about two months now, and just yesterday switched my camera back to jpeg. I'm just not seeing the difference in quality in my images that others claim. I find that being careful to get proper exposure, and taking a few extra shots when I have a difficult shot is easier for me.

Raw just takes more disk space and is slower.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) I don't understand it since you buy a fairly expensive reflex camera (snip) but you don't use that quality/power since you save all images in a lossy (lower quality) format ?

Since most cameras, even the most expensive ones, have JPEG as the default mode, the disadvantages are clearly not as bad as some might suggest. With the low compression rates often chosen by camera manufacturers and the single save, the loses are very minimal, with the impact on images undetectable. At the same time, JPEG offers manufacturers (and users) the opportunity to do additional in-camera image adjustments. Finally, JPEG is compatible with the widest range of computer-based image editing software, meaning that RAW file is likely going to be converted into JPEG at some point anyway. In my own case, I find myself using JPEG more and more often, with RAW now selected mostly when I believe there might be a problem with the image that could be easier fixed with RAW conversion tools.

stewart

[little laker]

I first started shooting in JPG, but when I switched to Manual shooting I used RAW so I could fix more mistakes

Now that I'm good enough shooting in full manual I'm back to shooting JPG's, and only use RAW when it's a difficult shot

[aabram]

RAW is not magic bullet which will give you automatically superior image quality. You have to process it to get the best out of it. It's like manual gearbox - you can make the engine do things it wouldn't do with automatic gearbox and squeeze some extra power out of it. But the driver has to know how to make it work. There is no correlation between expensiveness of the camera and shooting RAW. It's just that people who have professional equipment are more likely to try to squeeze every little bit out of their images.

If you find that you usually tweak your photos, shoot RAW. If you don't tweak or tweak rarely, shoot JPEG. But shooting RAW and converting to JPG with default converter settings is pointless in my opinion. RAW conversion vs straight JPG doesn't necessarily have quality difference.

However, as soon as you tweak your JPG-shot photos and re-save, image quality will degrade as JPG lossy compression will get progressively worse with each save. It may or may not be significant for people.

I personally shoot RAW always. I like to keep my originals in lossless format.

[Cloudy Wizzard]

Thanks for the replies people.

one of the comments reminded me of something most people I know do when they buy a camera.

They brag about their new 12 Megapixel camera (or whatever was the top model when they bought it) but they set the image "size" to the lowest setting to save space on their memory card.

or in other words, they HAVE a 12Mpix camera but they shoot only in 3Mpix or even less because they can now make 500 pictures instead of 45 in highest resolution setting.

I really don't understand why they "need" a 12Mpix camera when they only shoot in the lowest resolution anyways.

I personally always shoot in highest resolution (so with the Pentax it would be the highest JPEG quality or RAW).

I'm also planning on at least learning howto shoot manually (been reading some resources on the 3 basic settings, ISO, Shutter time and Aperture (Diafragma in Dutch) but it's not that easy to fully understand it and then some sites even claim you need to memorize the different shutter and aperture settings (stops)

[PDL]

First – a little history on the issue – RAW vs JPEG has been a hot subject over time here:
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-processing-software/8673-switching-m...oftware-3.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/11196-pentax-k...e-quality.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/9488-raw-vs-jpeg-debate.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/9540-jpeg-vs-raw-some-pictures.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/everything-else/7223-ok-i-shot-weekend-raw-now-what.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/post-processing-software/7110-ist-ds-raw-jpg.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/7086-help-raw.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-dslr-discussion/6058-shooting-raw-...tter-fact.html

Some of us are highly opinionated and – dare I say it – come off as being elitist in our views on the use of RAW and other subjects noted here. That said – for me digital imaging is about capturing information, RAW formats provide the maximum information available from the sensor – give the constraints of the support systems (the camera and its electronics). I do understand that since I use Lightroom for most of my preliminary processing these days, that the original image is not “copied over” when I make changes or save thereby minimizing information loss. Even before I used Lightroom – I always used an OS/filesystem copy of the original JPEG. (I also copied the unprocessed or out of the camera JPEG’s to DVD before doing anything that could be seen as altering the images)

I simply see RAW imaging as a lateral move from film. In the old days – we could always go back to the negative and start over without losing data. With RAW you can always go back to the beginning and start with the original data. My digital workflow is very similar in my thought and physical processes I used when shooting film. (I shot slides the majority of the time – so I did not have to go off and run a print off – I just looked at the slide – sort a mechanical photo browser)

If JPEG works for you – then go for it. If RAW works for you – then go for it. I prefer to have a digital format that provides the maximum information available. Is RAW going to provide “better” images – in looking that the c*ap I have been putting out over the last few months – no. But on those potential good ones, can I go in and push the parameters a little farther – yes.

If left on automatic everything – a modern digital camera will produce acceptable images about 95% of the time (meaning no extensive post processing is necessary). I like to think I work in that last 5% - or I push myself to be in that last 5%, where the auto everything setting will just not suffice. That last 5% is the hard part, where subject, exposure, timing, focus, depth of field and the quality of the light come into play. Unfortunately, I have not been anywhere near the upper 75% lately.

PDL – the elitist

[ChrisA]

Just out of curiosity (and forgive a certain reluctance to go through all those RAW vs JPEG threads ), has anyone published even a single photo taken in RAW+ mode (so that the two files really are the same photo), and demonstrated a superior image obtainable from the RAW file, that was not available from the corresponding JPEG?

[stewart_photo]

The closest to any direct comparison is this thread ("JPEG vs. RAW - some pictures"). It shows images saved in JPEG format by the camera and RAW images converted to JPEG later during post processing. The differences are extremely subtle. In my opinion, the decision to use in-camera JPEG or RAW is more a matter of preference than anything else. Neither is that much better than the other and neither is particularly wrong.

stewart

[jfdavis58]

This is the crux of the problem: people don't realize that they cannot see a RAW file image! It's not an image. It's a pattern of red,green and blue luminance values. The RAW converter--in the camera, on the PC where ever--converts the pattern into some form of RGB file; JPEG is one such file. In the RAW file only half the values are green, 1/4 are red and 1/4 are blue. So...

If you do all the right exposure things: suitable white balance (doesn't need to be custom or a preset--you could simply set a color temp), select an aperture and shutter speed to maximize the use of the available luminance range, compose and focus with some meaning and accuracy then snap the shutter from a solid platform...

Then all that information is used in the RAW converter to create the great RGB file. It will be the 'default' info used by the camera, the PC or my monocled monkey. You could override such information in the PC for instance; but as a first cut the in-camera JPEG should very nearly match the Photoshop or Lightroom or Pentax Photo Laboratory output down to the individual pixel.

In point of fact if you botch all the settings the in-camera JPEG will still match the first cut from those programs if they use the camera settings (as found stored in the EXIF). And all the JPEGS will be equally bad!

The main point is that you still cannot see the RAW file image directly; you are always viewing some constructed/interpolated RGB version of the RAW data typically a JPEG. So you cannot compare RAW to JPEG! You might, through ignorance be comparing a JPEG with bad conversion settings to one with corrected settings.

Just out of curiosity (and forgive a certain reluctance to go through all those RAW vs JPEG threads ), has anyone published even a single photo taken in RAW+ mode (so that the two files really are the same photo), and demonstrated a superior image obtainable from the RAW file, that was not available from the corresponding JPEG?

[ChrisA]

The closest to that is this thread ("JPEG vs. RAW - some pictures"). It shows images saved in JPEG format by the camera and RAW images converted to JPEG later during post processing. The differences are extremely subtle. In my opinion, the decision to use in-camera JPEG or RAW is more a matter of preference than anything else. Neither is that much better than the other and neither is particularly wrong.

stewart

Thanks for this.

I was particularly interested in SteveB's post regarding shots with high contrast.

If I understood the post correctly, the highlights were a lot more recoverable from the RAW file than from the camera-generated JPEG.

Which makes the answer to my question "yes, it has been demonstrated", but feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood it.

Thanks again.

[ChrisA]

This is the crux of the problem: people don't realize that they cannot see a RAW file image!

This is most certainly not the crux of the problem. I'd be surprised if you could find anyone taking part in the discussion who was unaware of this.

It's not an image. It's a pattern of red,green and blue luminance values. The RAW converter--in the camera, on the PC where ever--converts the pattern into some form of RGB file; JPEG is one such file. In the RAW file only half the values are green, 1/4 are red and 1/4 are blue. So...

If you do all the right exposure things: suitable white balance (doesn't need to be custom or a preset--you could simply set a color temp), select an aperture and shutter speed to maximize the use of the available luminance range, compose and focus with some meaning and accuracy then snap the shutter from a solid platform...

Then all that information is used in the RAW converter to create the great RGB file. It will be the 'default' info used by the camera, the PC or my monocled monkey. You could override such information in the PC for instance; but as a first cut the in-camera JPEG should very nearly match the Photoshop or Lightroom or Pentax Photo Laboratory output down to the individual pixel.

Yes, we know this.

In point of fact if you botch all the settings the in-camera JPEG will still match the first cut from those programs if they use the camera settings (as found stored in the EXIF). And all the JPEGS will be equally bad!

And this.

The point is whether, if, as you say, you botch the settings, you can recover detail from the RAW file that cannot be recovered from the JPEG.

Another point that I haven't seen covered anywhere is the fact that the computer in your PC is a lot more powerful, with a lot more space to put program code, than the computer and memory respectively in the camera.

So all other things being equal, I'd hope that the computer could do a better job of the RAW - JPEG conversion than the camera.

So I don't think it's a given that a JPEG obtained by Silkypix or whatever, even at the default settings, will be the same as the JPEG generated by the camera.

[stewart_photo]

(snip) If left on automatic everything – a modern digital camera will produce acceptable images about 95% of the time (meaning no extensive post processing is necessary). (snip)

That seems a bit of an exaggeration. I've never found it that easy to produce acceptable images. Of course, I don't remember ever leaving a camera on "automatic everything." Most of my images are real work, requiring familiarity with camera and accessory (lens, flash, etc) controls, photography skills (light, exposure, DoF, composure, etc), and considerable adjustments to all, to produce acceptable images.

(snip) Is RAW going to provide “better” images – in looking that the c*ap I have been putting out over the last few months – no. But on those potential good ones, can I go in and push the parameters a little farther – yes. (snip) I like to think I work in that last 5% - or I push myself to be in that last 5%, where the auto everything setting will just not suffice. (snip)

You seem to be suggesting here that JPEG is the finish product while RAW offers more - the ability to edit or adjust afterwards. Of course, as you know, both JPEG and RAW files can be adjusted afterwards. With any decent image editing program, every adjustment possible with RAW can be accomplished with JPEG images (white balance, contrast, saturation, etc).

stewart