Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

Jpeg or Raw?

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

55% OFF new PortraitPro 12 - use code EPHZROS414.
rjlee
rjlee  6
31 May 2007 - 4:12 PM

Hi all. I am new to photography. I have a Fuji S5600. Not as good as your beasts I am sure, but I am very pleased with it. May I please ask, what benefit, as a hobyist, would I have in shooting RAW? What are the limitations with JPEG? If this a question that requires a long answer, do any of you know a good site that could answer this for me?... Thank you for your time.

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
31 May 2007 - 4:12 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

andytvcams
andytvcams  1110396 forum posts United Kingdom
31 May 2007 - 4:22 PM

Here is a good site

Smile Smile

Last Modified By andytvcams at 31 May 2007 - 4:22 PM
rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
31 May 2007 - 6:47 PM

It's very simple really. Shoot a few images under varying light conditions in RAW and the same images using full size jpegs. Do your processing for both formats and get them printed (I went up to A3). Compare both prints (preferably with a x 5 loupe) - especially look for detail in the shadow areas. If the prints from the processed RAW images are better than the jpegs then stick to RAW. If there is no difference (as in my case) then stick to jpegs.

peterjones
peterjones e2 Member 123785 forum postspeterjones vcard United Kingdom1 Constructive Critique Points
31 May 2007 - 7:23 PM

RAW v JPEG will rumble on far longer than Film v Digital ever did; my thinking is that RAW may indeed give preferable results to JPEG but I suspect the difference as discerned by the human eye is insignificant .
However RAW atm does give a better dynamic range than JPEG and if you muck the exposure/ colour balance up in the camera RAW gives you the chance of retrieving the situation. So for me RAW.

Last Modified By peterjones at 31 May 2007 - 7:24 PM
rossd
rossd  111061 forum posts England
31 May 2007 - 7:41 PM


Quote: RAW v JPEG will rumble on far longer than Film v Digital ever did;

You're quite right of course - end of as far as I'm concerned.

Last Modified By rossd at 31 May 2007 - 7:42 PM
miptog
miptog  83529 forum posts United Kingdom61 Constructive Critique Points
31 May 2007 - 7:48 PM

In context of the specfic question asked; the fundamental limiation of JPG is that it much more difficult to correct exposure.

A lot also depends on both your shooting and workflow technique. As has been said previoulsy shoot both formats, and see which you prefer.

There is no one correct answer, it comes down to personal preference and style at the end.

ghostwalker
2 Jun 2007 - 1:03 AM

My 2 penneth:

If you are wanting to manipulate your images (post-production), especially exposure related manipulations, use RAW.

Fore example, if you are wanting to produce a good HDR (google HDR photo) you can either take 1 Raw format image or 3 JPEG format images to get the same result. And if you are shooting a moving target shooting 3 differently exposed JPEGS is not an option.

But then again unless you are shooting on a high-end canon or nikon (3K upwards) it takes longer for your camera to 'recover' from shooting a RAW image than for a JPEG.

For a master of HDR imagery see the EPZ user paulstefan's gallery. (He shoots raw).

Tooth
Tooth  95772 forum posts Ireland227 Constructive Critique Points
2 Jun 2007 - 2:43 AM

I use a "high end prosumer" and switched to Raw in the new year once I'd cleared my archive. At the start i shot RAW +jpeg - stlll do, but now I only keep the jpegs till I know the raw files are sorted and converted. I haveto say honestly that it was as simple and irreversible for me as the switch from film to digital - thought I might dabble in the two,, but soon realised I'd never go back.

take a short time to adapt to a diferent workflow, and Raw is no problem.

The downside for the record: yes, on a prosumer the write time is a lot longer: I do mainly landscape, but my advice obviously won't hold true for (eg) sports,where you need fast card writing speeds

|Stephen

Chrism8
Chrism8 e2 Member 7729 forum postsChrism8 vcard England13 Constructive Critique Points
2 Jun 2007 - 8:05 AM

I switched to Raw late last year having shot jpegs for 3 years or so.

Mainly after reading many articles in photo mags on the plus points, tried it and noticed a jump in quality of my work.

I again don't keep the original Raw file, but save everything as Tiff's which mean's the original file data is intact.

It's just a matter of a quick conversion to upload to Epz each time which takes seconds and I quite often batch process a weeks uploads in one go.

Chris

Last Modified By Chrism8 at 2 Jun 2007 - 8:06 AM
Coleslaw
Coleslaw e2 Member 813402 forum postsColeslaw vcard Wales28 Constructive Critique Points
2 Jun 2007 - 8:12 AM


Quote: I again don't keep the original Raw file, but save everything as Tiff's which mean's the original file data is intact.

what?
why?

Last Modified By Coleslaw at 2 Jun 2007 - 8:12 AM
dcash29
dcash29  81870 forum posts England
2 Jun 2007 - 8:20 AM

Try using RAw with your Fuji, maybe the picture processing time by the camera might diswade you from shoooting RAw?

If you find that the time is unacceptable and you decide to stay with Jpg, then try reducing the contrast setting of the camera to keep better highlights.

Last Modified By dcash29 at 2 Jun 2007 - 8:21 AM
funkymaggot
3 Jun 2007 - 5:53 PM

It depends what I am shooting wether I use JPEG or RAW. If it is a landscape shot or something I want more control over, I use RAW, anything else I use JPEG's. It is best to always try to get the pic right straight from the camera but RAW gives you more control over exposure, incase there was a particular reason you couldn't in camera.

I guess it is just personal preference as to what people shoot. The only thing to bear in mind is, you can fit a hell of a lot more JPEG's on a memory card than you can RAW's, so this is a decider for some people.

Mick.

ChrisNikon
11 Jun 2007 - 5:32 PM

I changed to RAW at the begining of this year and I dont think I shall go back to shooting JPEGs. I down load the RWA files, rename, batch convert to JPEG then sort the images I want to do a manual conversion on. I achive all the RAW files - you never know when you might want to go back to one!

Chris

www.newsarum.co.uk

miptog
miptog  83529 forum posts United Kingdom61 Constructive Critique Points
11 Jun 2007 - 6:02 PM

Have recently started using RAW, and process in CS2 RAW. I normally have to tweak exposure using the compensation slider. The rest can be done within PS.

The downside is that the files are large, and take longer to upload from card. I also need to process files before I can preview them in the same as I can jpegs.

For any image that I want the utlimate control of I would shoot RAW, for anuthing else JPG would be fine. Mike

dark_lord
dark_lord Critique Team 101390 forum postsdark_lord vcard England95 Constructive Critique Points
11 Jun 2007 - 6:13 PM


Quote: again don't keep the original Raw file

Oooh nooooo....

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.