Raw vs JPEG

[mrs.cos]

Article originally posted via SLR Lounge in 2010, but Lifehacker picked it up today.

 

http://lifehacker.com/5907434/which-format-is-best--when-you-should-shoot-photos-in-jpeg-and-when-you-should-use-camera-raw

 

Which Format Is Best? When You Should Shoot Photos in JPEG and When You Should Use Camera RAW

 

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/17lie9bp5aq56jpg/original.jpg

All DSLRs, and even many point-and-shoots nowadays, can shoot in RAW format, meaning you can save your images as a completely unprocessed file that offers the potential for a higher-quality photo. The downside is that RAW files take up a lot of space and require extra work to process in post. So when should you use this format or when should you stick to space-saving JPEGs? SLR Lounge performed several tests to come to a (mostly) definitive conclusion.

 

As you can see from the image comparison above, the JPEG is naturally a nicer-looking image. This is because the camera makes a few processing choices for you, such as heightened contrast and level adjustments. While this works well in the example, it might not be your ideal look in every situation—especially when your lighting isn't ideal. RAW doesn't do the work for you, but gives you the room to adjust in post. This means more time but, ultimately, the opportunity to get the best quality out of your images. These are the basic upsides and downsides for shooting RAW and shooting JPEG, but what situations call for which formats? Here's what SLR Lounge discovered in their tests.

 

When to Shoot JPEG

• When you need to display images immediately
  
• Shooting for lower-quality uses, like the web
  
• You have a restricted amount of space on your memory card(s)
  
• Rapid-succession shooting
  

 

When to Shoot RAW

• Professional shooting, journalistic shooting
  
• When you need additional range and tonal detail
  

 

 

While RAW is ultimately better, most of the time your situations won't call for it and JPEG files will be sufficient. Of course, if you enjoy taking the time to process your photos individually you may as well shoot in RAW. A lot of the time, it comes down to a personal decision. If you can't make up your mind and want to figure out what works best, use the JPEG+RAW setting on your camera (assuming it has this—most do these days) to capture both and see what you realistically use. So long as you have a memory card with a large enough capacity (or enough backup cards), you can get away with capturing both on a regular basis. Personally, I opt for JPEG in the high majority of circumstances, even when shooting with my good camera, as most of the photos I take are for the web or for my own, personal use. I'd even use JPEG more often when photographing an event professionally because it was faster. Ultimately good lighting and composition are going to make your photos better than a few changes you can make in post. That said, for portraits and other instances where you can take your time, RAW is kind of a no-brainer. For me, it ultimately comes down to a decision of time. How about you?

 

For a great visual comparison of all the differences between the two formats, as capture by a Canon 5D Mark II with a 50mm f/1.4 lens, check out the full post over at SLR Lounge.

[TTQ B4U]

I shoot both side by side most of the time but end up going with the RAW shots most of the time. Mainly because even given all the options on my DSLR's I don't typically prefer the processing of in camera JPEGS. Even the above example is a bit off for what it is.

 

Some of the big advantages of RAW are typically greater dynamic range and the capabilities that the RAW processing software can pull out vs in camera ability. Details, especially in terms of noise can be easily seen. Exposure, especially when in mixed lighting environments is also a benefiting factor.

[M0nk3y]

I shoot both side by side most of the time but end up going with the RAW shots most of the time. Mainly because even given all the options on my DSLR's I don't typically prefer the processing of in camera JPEGS. Even the above example is a bit off for what it is.

 

Some of the big advantages of RAW are typically greater dynamic range and the capabilities that the RAW processing software can pull out vs in camera ability. Details, especially in terms of noise can be easily seen. Exposure, especially when in mixed lighting environments is also a benefiting factor.

 

^WHS

 

I only shoot raw

[Littleguy]

I save in both formats although I have no idea how to edit the RAW's, lol.

[mrs.cos]

Editing raw in photoshop is terrible IMHO.

 

I didn't fully understand how valuable raw is until I got Lightroom and started watching videos on YouTube.

 

However, I did know that raw was valuable and have been shooting raw/jpeg since 2010 when i switches to Nikon and little while still on canon. I have gone back and edited photos from the recently an am glad did both while i didn't know what I was doing.

 

I no longer shoot jpg at all. RAW only.

[TTQ B4U]

Editing raw in photoshop is terrible IMHO.

 

I use Bridge inside Photoshop. Tons of control. Never used Lightroom myself.

[justinwebb]

any good tutorials for editing in RAW always wanted to learn

[Tractor]

You don't really appreciate what a RAW file can do until you start taking astro photos and try processing a JPEG vs RAW files. The type of processes required to get detail out of the image really finds the limit of a JPEG fast and a RAW can be taken way beyond them.