Newbie Question jpeg vs raw

mblanc · 01-05-2011, 10:08 AM

Hi,

I am moving to digital (actually I am anxiously waiting for new K-X to be delivered

) after 25+ years of film (more like 35 if you count the Instamatic I got for my 8th birthday) .

Anyway - I understand that raw allows more control of the final image than jpg, but I was wondering how may folks out there shoot raw vs jpg, and I am also interested to know peoples thoughts on whether the benefits outweigh the added time spent converting formats. Thanks

KxBlaze · 01-05-2011, 10:15 AM

For the first month or 2 of my new Kx (had for about 9-10 months now) I shot jpeg but then went 100% to RAW once I learned how to best use PhotoShop. I think the benefits greatly outweigh the added time spent PPing. Actually I think that PPing is not "added" time but should be automatically considered as a normal part of the photo process just like the dark room for film. My general rule of thumb is to try and take the best pic possible but that is not always the case so I PP either a tiny bit or a lot depending on how my original came out.

**One thing I will admit, PhotoShop takes up A LOT of time. I can spend anywhere from 1min to an ongoing process of a few days on one photo. Some might find that excessive and will prefer to shoot jpeg.

eddie1960 · 01-05-2011, 10:19 AM

go to this thread, I think at some point or another it will answer all questions. the simple answer though is raw is your negative, it allows much more detailed enhancement without image quality loss caused by compression (jpeg is a lossy compressed format)
I shoot everything Raw and have revisited shots over time as my skills in post improved and gotten better results from shots that weren't perfect out of the camera.
If you always nail it in camera and never mis exposure you wanted (most scenes can be exposed any number of ways) then shooting straight to jpeg is fine.

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/126208-raw-just-me-di...along-way.html

eddie1960 · 01-05-2011, 10:20 AM

also there are simpler solutions than photoshop. 85% + of my post is now done in lightroom 3.3
it's far faster and more intuitive for basic post work

Blue · 01-05-2011, 10:31 AM

jpeg is a compact format and supports 8 bits per color channel. Plus, there is some potential degradation each time you save the file so it is good to have an "original" jpeg that NEVER gets re-saved.

Raw (dng) and Tiff formats contain far more data about the image and can handle more 12, or 14 bit color channels though they may be saved as 16-bit.

**blackcloudbrew** · 01-05-2011, 10:46 AM

I've seen several polls on this forum about this question raw vs. jpeg. Basically raw is where it's at and that is that. There are reasons why one chooses to shot in jpeg - action shots are a good example but generally shoot in raw. This will allow you the most flexibility with your images. That said, start with jpeg first to learn to use your camera. This simplifies things at first but then move to raw to really get more out of it.

A really good and fun video on this can be found here:

http://www.whibalhost.com/products

/DVD/

It might seem a little hoaky but this guy knows what he's talking about.

SpecialK · 01-05-2011, 11:24 AM

Yeah, see the existing thread mentioned above. Don't need another one going.

You can also look in the software/processing forum as people talk about the subject as well.

Blue · 01-05-2011, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by SpecialK

Yeah, see the existing thread mentioned above. Don't need another one going.

You can also look in the software/processing forum as people talk about the subject as well.

Except that that thread was started with the intention of "low mouthing" raw shooting.

eddie1960 · 01-05-2011, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Except that that thread was started with the intention of "low mouthing" raw shooting.

True but that didn't last long so it ends as a good argument for RAW

TaoMaas · 01-05-2011, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Blue

Except that that thread was started with the intention of "low mouthing" raw shooting.

Not really. It was started as a complaint about an attitude towards raw...not raw, in general.

Blue · 01-05-2011, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by TaoMaas

Not really. It was started as a complaint about an attitude towards raw...not raw, in general.

It was not a thread started with the intention of comparing jpeg to raw nor was it specifically geared to a beginner. The initial post was loaded with sarcasm which is fine, because I got the drift of it. But it still isn't a good thread in the since it delineates the pros and cons of raw vs. jpeg vs. tiff nor does it address the various proprietary version of raw files which every manufacturer has one including Adobe and other software companies.

eddie1960 · 01-05-2011, 01:34 PM

true, there are some other threads that actually get into it quite well this is a common newbie question, there really should be a thread with a sticky for this

**Rondec** · 01-05-2011, 03:24 PM

I think that RAW is definitely where it is at. I would say most of the time I just use the presets that are already in photoshop, but there are times when I want to bring up shadowed areas, or change color tint/ white balance and find it an awful lot easier with RAW. Add the benefit that if I alter it in one photo, I can easily click on multiple photos and make it the same in them and it saves considerable time (I use photoshop elements).

deltoidjohn · 01-05-2011, 03:50 PM

I used to use only jpeg as I am still only getting my feet wet with digital photography, but after the first time I used RAW, I will never go back. I was blown away by how much more room you have to play around in post.

The only time I still use jpeg is when shooting sequences.

SpecialK · 01-05-2011, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by mblanc

I am also interested to know peoples thoughts on whether the benefits outweigh the added time spent converting formats. Thanks

I missed this first time around.

It takes only a few clicks to "extract a jpg" in a batch using the Pentax software (select the images, click the command, designate a location ). It will give you the jpg that is embedded in the PEF file, and does a whole card in less than a minute. I do this all the time to compare near-dupes (using a different viewer than Pentax however).

If you choose to actually convert the files, it is the same clicks (different command) and it may take several minutes depending on quantity and the power of your computer - probably as long as a bathroom break and finding something on TV (good luck there). You can go back and tweak the ones that could use it.

This is not really time-consuming.

01-05-2011, 10:08 AM	#1
mblanc Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 555	Newbie Question jpeg vs raw Hi, I am moving to digital (actually I am anxiously waiting for new K-X to be delivered ) after 25+ years of film (more like 35 if you count the Instamatic I got for my 8th birthday) . Anyway - I understand that raw allows more control of the final image than jpg, but I was wondering how may folks out there shoot raw vs jpg, and I am also interested to know peoples thoughts on whether the benefits outweigh the added time spent converting formats. Thanks

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x jpeg vs raw high iso question	barondla	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	08-12-2010 02:39 PM
newbie with RAW question?	leolyd	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	24	05-19-2010 04:20 AM
Hello, a question regarding RAW vs. JPEG	Nanthiel	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	11	12-25-2008 06:00 AM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality	laissezfaire	Pentax DSLR Discussion	58	12-10-2008 02:42 PM
newbie question re RAW	kleung	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	44	09-08-2008 12:04 AM

01-05-2011, 10:15 AM	#2
KxBlaze Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,602	For the first month or 2 of my new Kx (had for about 9-10 months now) I shot jpeg but then went 100% to RAW once I learned how to best use PhotoShop. I think the benefits greatly outweigh the added time spent PPing. Actually I think that PPing is not "added" time but should be automatically considered as a normal part of the photo process just like the dark room for film. My general rule of thumb is to try and take the best pic possible but that is not always the case so I PP either a tiny bit or a lot depending on how my original came out. **One thing I will admit, PhotoShop takes up A LOT of time. I can spend anywhere from 1min to an ongoing process of a few days on one photo. Some might find that excessive and will prefer to shoot jpeg.

01-05-2011, 10:19 AM	#3
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	go to this thread, I think at some point or another it will answer all questions. the simple answer though is raw is your negative, it allows much more detailed enhancement without image quality loss caused by compression (jpeg is a lossy compressed format) I shoot everything Raw and have revisited shots over time as my skills in post improved and gotten better results from shots that weren't perfect out of the camera. If you always nail it in camera and never mis exposure you wanted (most scenes can be exposed any number of ways) then shooting straight to jpeg is fine. https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-photography/126208-raw-just-me-di...along-way.html

01-05-2011, 10:20 AM	#4
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	also there are simpler solutions than photoshop. 85% + of my post is now done in lightroom 3.3 it's far faster and more intuitive for basic post work

01-05-2011, 10:31 AM	#5
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	jpeg is a compact format and supports 8 bits per color channel. Plus, there is some potential degradation each time you save the file so it is good to have an "original" jpeg that NEVER gets re-saved. Raw (dng) and Tiff formats contain far more data about the image and can handle more 12, or 14 bit color channels though they may be saved as 16-bit.

01-05-2011, 10:46 AM	#6
blackcloudbrew Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Cotati, California USA Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,460	I've seen several polls on this forum about this question raw vs. jpeg. Basically raw is where it's at and that is that. There are reasons why one chooses to shot in jpeg - action shots are a good example but generally shoot in raw. This will allow you the most flexibility with your images. That said, start with jpeg first to learn to use your camera. This simplifies things at first but then move to raw to really get more out of it. A really good and fun video on this can be found here: http://www.whibalhost.com/products /DVD/ It might seem a little hoaky but this guy knows what he's talking about.

01-05-2011, 11:24 AM	#7
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Yeah, see the existing thread mentioned above. Don't need another one going. You can also look in the software/processing forum as people talk about the subject as well.

01-05-2011, 11:38 AM	#8
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by SpecialK Yeah, see the existing thread mentioned above. Don't need another one going. You can also look in the software/processing forum as people talk about the subject as well. Except that that thread was started with the intention of "low mouthing" raw shooting.

01-05-2011, 11:43 AM	#9
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	Originally posted by Blue Except that that thread was started with the intention of "low mouthing" raw shooting. True but that didn't last long so it ends as a good argument for RAW

01-05-2011, 11:49 AM	#10
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574	Originally posted by Blue Except that that thread was started with the intention of "low mouthing" raw shooting. Not really. It was started as a complaint about an attitude towards raw...not raw, in general.

01-05-2011, 01:31 PM	#11
Blue Moderator Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Florida Hill Country Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,377	Originally posted by TaoMaas Not really. It was started as a complaint about an attitude towards raw...not raw, in general. It was not a thread started with the intention of comparing jpeg to raw nor was it specifically geared to a beginner. The initial post was loaded with sarcasm which is fine, because I got the drift of it. But it still isn't a good thread in the since it delineates the pros and cons of raw vs. jpeg vs. tiff nor does it address the various proprietary version of raw files which every manufacturer has one including Adobe and other software companies.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-05-2011, 01:34 PM	#12
eddie1960 Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 13,666	true, there are some other threads that actually get into it quite well this is a common newbie question, there really should be a thread with a sticky for this

01-05-2011, 03:24 PM	#13
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	I think that RAW is definitely where it is at. I would say most of the time I just use the presets that are already in photoshop, but there are times when I want to bring up shadowed areas, or change color tint/ white balance and find it an awful lot easier with RAW. Add the benefit that if I alter it in one photo, I can easily click on multiple photos and make it the same in them and it saves considerable time (I use photoshop elements).

01-05-2011, 03:50 PM	#14
deltoidjohn Forum Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Gold Coast, QLD Posts: 88	I used to use only jpeg as I am still only getting my feet wet with digital photography, but after the first time I used RAW, I will never go back. I was blown away by how much more room you have to play around in post. The only time I still use jpeg is when shooting sequences.

01-05-2011, 07:49 PM	#15
SpecialK Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: So California Photos: Gallery Posts: 16,480	Originally posted by mblanc I am also interested to know peoples thoughts on whether the benefits outweigh the added time spent converting formats. Thanks I missed this first time around. It takes only a few clicks to "extract a jpg" in a batch using the Pentax software (select the images, click the command, designate a location ). It will give you the jpg that is embedded in the PEF file, and does a whole card in less than a minute. I do this all the time to compare near-dupes (using a different viewer than Pentax however). If you choose to actually convert the files, it is the same clicks (different command) and it may take several minutes depending on quantity and the power of your computer - probably as long as a bathroom break and finding something on TV (good luck there). You can go back and tweak the ones that could use it. This is not really time-consuming.