PDA

View Full Version : JPG vs RAW


ae86_16v
04-11-2006, 02:35 PM
Which do you guys prefer? And of course why?

Fleischmann
04-11-2006, 02:51 PM
I always take pics in JPEG, the file type is very universal and can be read by every graphic editor. For very high quality shots I use TIF.

sameerrao
04-11-2006, 02:51 PM
Till I got the D50 last week, I didnt have the ability to do raw. I guess I'll do JPEG for some time till I get a proper handle on the camera.

With RAW, you need to process it on the computer, correct?

TNT
04-11-2006, 02:52 PM
well from a computer stand point .PNG saves space but has the same quality of a .jpg

DeMoN
04-11-2006, 03:46 PM
^ not exactly. It all depends in the amount of colors. If the picture has little colors, then GIF is the best, if the pic has plenty of colors, JPG and for an extremelly big amount of colors, PNG is like GIF, but with more colors than 256. GIF has only one thing better than PNG which is, it supports animatino.

They all have different algorithms on how to paint a picture so thats why each is good at it's own.

dutchmasterflex
04-11-2006, 03:46 PM
I've been shooting in JPEG cause I have quite the trigger happy finger..(taking a lot of shitty shots) and because I only have one 1gb SD card.

If I had a bigger card I'd probably shoot in RAW, but then again its more time consuming to edit them on the computer too.

The ideal way to shoot raws IMO is if you're really setting up the shot. If you have the time, take a couple test shots in jpeg and once you've got the nicest settings, switch it over to RAW.

c0wb0y007
04-11-2006, 05:04 PM
I used to shoot in jpeg but after having read a few looong boooring but interesting articles and after having had a discussion with a fellow photographer I discided not to shoot in jpeg anymore. A RAW-file is much better than a jpeg cause it contains much more detail ... much more detail in general ... when it comes to colors, sharpness etc ... .

I wouldn't say that a RAW-file is harder to work with in photoshop, it's just a matter what your are used to. When it comes to sharpen the image or adjusting the color balance and fixing levels -> RAW is the name of the game !!!

And I'm not talking about turning a shitty photograph into a masterpiece :) I'm talking about improving a very good picture even more. A shitty picture should get deleted immediately :D That is how I work.

RAW-format is much more versatile than jpeg, I experienced it myself last Saterday ... .

If this file format gives me better pictures than it gives me better prints as well so when you snap a nice picture you want to end up with a high-quality print as well.

You can still choose whether you prefer to shoot single RAWs or that you want to combine RAWs with jpegs with most of the DSLR on the market today.
With the D2x you can combine RAWs with jpeg(fine) best of both worlds of course :P

When you are shooting RAW, I suggest a 512mb card is the absolute minimum. 1 & 2 Gig cards are nice, but I will go for a 4 or even a 8 gig card in the future.

If anyone of you wants to read an interesting article about this matter, then "the big squeeze" in the NikonPro magazine is good for starters.
Or go to google and type "jpeg vs raw" :P 8) :D


No matter what ... just enjoy photography :wink:


Cheers

DeMoN
04-11-2006, 10:34 PM
my dsc-t1 doesnt shoot raw lol.

ae86_16v
04-11-2006, 11:54 PM
With RAW, you need to process it on the computer, correct?

Well it is just more versatile so you could do (process) more with the picture w/o destroying it.

You don't have to process it. . .

nthfinity
04-12-2006, 01:54 AM
well, for now... i've been shooting in jpg; but when it comes time for the costom shoots, and such... raw will be the name of the game. my experience editing raw vs. jpg is basically the same... only my computer is old and slow... so it does take longer to edit the CR2 files :?

saadie
04-12-2006, 03:19 AM
jpg for me ...

TT
04-12-2006, 05:06 AM
jpg.. raw is just to heavy and I shoot too many pics (and don't want to carry 10 GB of memory ;)).

MartijnGizmo
04-12-2006, 05:41 AM
I always shoot RAW. It gives me more dynamic reach and lets me adjust the whitebalance on my computer (lossless!). Why would I let my camera calculate a JPG, when my computer can do it better? :)

Darkel
04-12-2006, 12:52 PM
Interesting, I never used RAW so far but I think I'm gonna give it a try next time :) My CF being fast enough it's no real problem.

dutchmasterflex
04-12-2006, 01:59 PM
Bottom line, if you want the highest quality, RAW is the way to go. If you want to do quick multiple action shots, JPEG will be faster to write to the card allowing more frames per second.

jakaracman
04-12-2006, 03:22 PM
Our photographers all use jpg even for A3 pics in mag (2 page spread). Raw just isnt neccessary if you dont have a really high output quality as well. If you take your pics to average (or even above average) photo studio to make prints out of them, in 99% of cases raw has no advantage as they just cant (or don't know how or do not want for a normal money) print the pics in high enough quality.
I'd say raw only for really rare studio shots (imaguine shooting playmates for Playboy) or for high-end big format prints.

No.1
04-12-2006, 03:59 PM
^^^

Is the ability to change the white balance in RAW not a feature that makes it worth using, though?

Given the chance, i'd probably go for RAW and give myself plenty of time to edit in PS - the finaly few degrees of control it offers will be worth it IMO.

but for me - JPG all the way on my Ixus 400 :P

jakaracman
04-15-2006, 06:26 PM
Basically, as there pracitcally isn't a thing that you cant fix in PS it's just not worth thr bother (or so they say) ...

Zot09
04-15-2006, 09:54 PM
I actually shoot in both jpg and raw depending on what i'm shooting. If i'm out with friends, and just taking random pictures, I shoot in jpg to conserve space on my 2gb CF card. But if i'm out trying to shoot something of importance, then it's deffinitly RAW.

nthfinity
04-15-2006, 11:57 PM
since i have not been shooting in raw to see if i like it or not; this is what i've found...

1. fixing the color balance of the photos is much quicker, and easier; with less graining of the pixels.
2. its faster to fix it, and requires fewer clicks, hot keys, and calculation time.
3. the final product (be it jpg or other) looks much better; cleaner, and more brilliant.

i can definately see the difference adobe RGB is making; and the dull look of it for online variants of jpg images (as already stated, Windows pc's lack the ability to interpret such color formats correctly, and look dull; and less saturated) so i think i'll leave that setting for my special photography projects.

only when i need the room for 400+ pictures will i be using jpg again :) its just that much easier! (+better)

Viper5703
06-15-2006, 12:55 PM
I would shoot in RAW if I had that option. However, my Nikon 4600 cant write RAW, so Im out of luck there. So I'm stuck with JPG.

fsandys
06-15-2006, 02:07 PM
If you have the option and the required memory! then RAW every time, or even TIFF if you have that option.

Fleischmann
06-15-2006, 02:18 PM
I've been using raw for quite some time (had to download a special plug in for PS CS2, my Olympus C7070 saves in a format called ORF-Olympus Raw File) and yes editing is soooooo much easier. The PS editing functions are awesome. The only problem is, of course, at 7Mpixels a 512MB clip lasts for around 50 photos. And the time it takes to save is also irritating, some times when I spot a car I have to wait a while between multiple shots:( That's why for everyday use JPEG is still no1.

SDK2003
06-16-2006, 02:29 PM
It depends what you are shooting.

Sport, racing, quick snaps etc then shoot in JPEG
I shoot weddings in RAW+Small JPEG. The JPEGs go as proof photos and the RAW images are used for the selected final images.

996GT2
06-16-2006, 02:55 PM
What`s the difference between RAW and TIFF?

Fleischmann
06-16-2006, 04:33 PM
From what I know Tiff is just a standard uncompressed picture, where data is saved pixel by pixel. RAW however is slightly different, it also has no loss in quality AND within the file is inserted info about the contrast, saturation etc. of the picture which makes it easy to edit. It isn't a picture until it is processed further.

Damn, this is hard to explain. Let me put it this way, Tiff is basically a RAW which is saved with the default camera settings and cannot be undone.

ae86_16v
06-17-2006, 03:38 PM
^ Correct, TIFF is uncompressed and standardized. Where as RAW often is still compressed to an extent and often proprietary to the manufacturer. But RAW compression there isn't a lost in quality like JPG compression.

For my 6MP D50, RAW is 5mb to 6mb for the largest file. Tiff will probably be around 30mb per file.

DeMoN
06-17-2006, 05:51 PM
so pics taken in RAW are smaller than TIFF?

nthfinity
06-17-2006, 05:58 PM
so pics taken in RAW are smaller than TIFF?

photos i take in *.CR2 (canon raw file) are about 7 mb

to convert the same file from *.cr2 into Tiff, it turns into a 20 mb file or so; and actually isn't as workable

Fleischmann
06-18-2006, 03:11 AM
The RAW's taken with my 7,1 Mpixel take up about 10MB's, Tiff's are more than double that.