RAW or JPEG?

[Polo2847]

do you prefer RAW or JPEG? Do you also post process?

[unknownuser]

For the sake of time and space- JPEG. Even though I've seen the quality difference that RAW gives me. And yes- usually levels and sharpness, if needed.

[Cognizant]

Depends. If uploading to somewhere like here or Facebook, JPEG is the easiest!

[Steve Jobs]

In my day to day life, JPEG. I only shoot RAW when I'm trying to shoot real quality images or if agencies or event officials make a request for RAW. In any case, my current manager is fully against post-processing bar any required leveling/post white-balancing or minor brush tool fixings so I've tried to keep my photographs 99% photography and 1% manipulation.

[logangarcia]

I am all for RAW. My camera saves both RAW and JPEG at the same time, so I figure why not. It's saved me a couple of times with white balance that I still can't figure out how I got wrong. I always like to think of it as better safe than sorry.

[User Deleted]

Nuuuu, I use PNG, but RAW I suppose because JPEG mutilates the quality.

[Cognizant]

I use RAW in some cases, like when I want the quality to shine through. My camera seems to do RAW anyways in Manual mode, which I use 60% of the time.

[Polo2847]

I am all for RAW. My camera saves both RAW and JPEG at the same time, so I figure why not. It's saved me a couple of times with white balance that I still can't figure out how I got wrong. I always like to think of it as better safe than sorry.

What do you mean by "it saved me a couple of times"? I always read about people saying RAW saved them.
Also, if you open up RAW and JPEG side by side, can you immediately tell the difference?

My Photoshop won't seem to open any RAW

[darkwoon]

What do you mean by "it saved me a couple of times"? I always read about people saying RAW saved them.
Because JPeg is a "finished product" - it doesn't hold every bit of information the camera sensor received, and things like white balance is already applied to the picture pixels. If your white balance was not correct, you are screwed, as you cannot change it anymore.
RAW formats include every bit of information the camera had at the time the picture was taken. When viewing such a file on a computer, the raw pixel data as perceived by the sensor is combined on the fly with several parameters like the white balance. It means that if the balance was not chosen properly, you can still change it, preview the result, and "save" your picture.

Making a rough analogy with a film camera, the RAW is your negative, while the JPEG is your final picture on paper.

Unless you have very specific reasons (like being short on space on your last memory card), never ever shot in JPEG mode if your camera offers RAW. Even if you don't plan any post-processing. There are always losses when converting a RAW to JPEG, and you'll always want to do that on a computer where you can control how the conversion is done, rather than on the camera, where your conversion options are *very* limited.

As for cameras that allow a RAW+JPEG shooting mode, it is most of the time not a good idea to use it, because the camera has to encode and store a supplementary file; as a result, the shooting rate drops significantly.

Also, if you open up RAW and JPEG side by side, can you immediately tell the difference?
It depends on the picture, but on high-contrast subjects, or those with fine details or wide uniform areas, yes, you can tell the difference. Most of the time, JPEGs will appear softer than RAWs. Sometimes, compression artifacts can appear. And RAW files usually contain a larger dynamic range (they encode colors in 12 or 14 bits per color channel, while JPEG is limited to 8bit).

My Photoshop won't seem to open any RAW
Did you try opening them in CameraRaw, and convert them into DNG? And in any case, the best tool for photographic post-processing is Lightroom, not Photoshop.

Adobe supplies a very good PDF explaining the main differences between JPEG and RAW formats here (http://wwwimages.adobe.com/www.adobe.com/content/dam/Adobe/en/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf).

[Rayquaza]

JPEG please. The compression of JPEG files are so negligible that we don't notice them. JPEG files are largely compatible with many photo editing and photo viewing software, and save space with a smaller file size. I don't see the point in people using RAW. You can just add many information with PNG files, including transparency, geotagging and photo information. RAW files are massive (in my opinion) and I think they should only be produced on professional SLR cameras. As if an everyday user would really edit RAW files? I don't think so.

[darkwoon]

JPEG please. The compression of JPEG files are so negligible that we don't notice them. JPEG files are largely compatible with many photo editing and photo viewing software, and save space with a smaller file size. I don't see the point in people using RAW.
The point is - or rather, are:
- wider tonal range (8bit vs 11-14, that is between 25 and 40% more);
- better conversion control;
- lossless file;
- editable file (JPeg is, by definition, not an editing file format).

For the most part, those points are irrelevant when taking family shots during a summer barbecue; that's why most point-and-shot cameras don't even offer RAW mode. But for art work? There you want maximum quality and control, something Jpeg simply cannot give you.

You can just add many information with PNG files, including transparency, geotagging and photo information.
But PNG is not JPeg - it is a lossless file format. You can encode your RAW files in 16bit PNG (which is rarely used for such purposes) or in 16bit TIFF (a more common option), but you'll only have minimal space gains over the original RAW. This is something you'd want to do for interoperability with software that don't support the native camera formats (that's what Lightroom does when exporting to some of its external modules), but it would be wasted time for long-term storage.

Note that if it is the portability of the RAW file that is the issue, DNG is a good solution for long-term storage; it aims to be as independent of the camera as possible and is supported by many photo editing softwares. Actually, some cameras are using DNG as their RAW file format. It is not *perfect*, but at least it is a good step in the interoperability direction.

RAW files are massive (in my opinion) and I think they should only be produced on professional SLR cameras. As if an everyday user would really edit RAW files? I don't think so.
True, but apart for a couple exceptions, this is already the case: RAW mode is available in hobbyist/pro gear, not on average point-and-shot cameras.

[Rayquaza]

The point is - or rather, are:
- wider tonal range (8bit vs 11-14, that is between 25 and 40% more);
- better conversion control;
- lossless file;
- editable file (JPeg is, by definition, not an editing file format).

For the most part, those points are irrelevant when taking family shots during a summer barbecue; that's why most point-and-shot cameras don't even offer RAW mode. But for art work? There you want maximum quality and control, something Jpeg simply cannot give you.

But PNG is not JPeg - it is a lossless file format. You can encode your RAW files in 16bit PNG (which is rarely used for such purposes) or in 16bit TIFF (a more common option), but you'll only have minimal space gains over the original RAW. This is something you'd want to do for interoperability with software that don't support the native camera formats (that's what Lightroom does when exporting to some of its external modules), but it would be wasted time for long-term storage.

Note that if it is the portability of the RAW file that is the issue, DNG is a good solution for long-term storage; it aims to be as independent of the camera as possible and is supported by many photo editing softwares. Actually, some cameras are using DNG as their RAW file format. It is not *perfect*, but at least it is a good step in the interoperability direction.


True, but apart for a couple exceptions, this is already the case: RAW mode is available in hobbyist/pro gear, not on average point-and-shot cameras.

Ok, it's not JPeg, it's JPEG, and stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group. Also, RAW isn't meant for editing, it's more for viewing purposes, since it stores the information of a camera capture, and RAW files such as '.CR2' indicates that the photo has not been altered, that's why it needs to be converted into an editable file. Also, I did mention that they SHOULD only have it in SLR cameras, since having RAW available on point and shot cameras would just waste space unnecessarily. My point here was that JPEG was the most compatible, smaller and when editing RAW and JPEG files, the difference is small, yet the file size of the RAW is enormous. Plus, that was my take on the JPEG vs RAW issue, it wasn't up for discussion, I mean, you're telling me stuff I already know. Imagine if JPEG used lossy compression! Now that would be an issue since there would be many blanks. At least with lossless, the JPEG file replicates the original copy from the compressed data.

[darkwoon]

Plus, that was my take on the JPEG vs RAW issue, it wasn't up for discussion, I mean, you're telling me stuff I already know.
Fine, I didn't want to be rude, sorry.

Imagine if JPEG used lossy compression! Now that would be an issue since there would be many blanks. At least with lossless, the JPEG file replicates the original copy from the compressed data.
Just for the record, the JPEG file format data compression algorithm is lossy (in my previous post, it is PNG that I described as lossless) - it destroys details to achieve higher compression ratios (that's what makes it unsuitable as an edition file format). The idea that a lossy picture compression algorithm would create blanks is quite strange.

Granted, lossless JPEG are possible, but rarely used - AFAIK, no digital camera produces that format natively.

[Rayquaza]

Fine, I didn't want to be rude, sorry.


Just for the record, the JPEG file format data compression algorithm is lossy (in my previous post, it is PNG that I described as lossless) - it destroys details to achieve higher compression ratios (that's what makes it unsuitable as an edition file format). The idea that a lossy picture compression algorithm would create blanks is quite strange.

Granted, lossless JPEG are possible, but rarely used - AFAIK, no digital camera produces that format natively.

My bad, I was taught in school that PNG files are not compressed, but after I looked this up on the internet it says otherwise. Also, you weren't being rude, I was a little ticked off at how you seemed to analyze something which I wasn't planning on being an essay. Simply put, JPEG files seem to have more advantages than RAW files, which is why I prefer them.

[TylerMN]

I love RAW, after I found banding in my jpeg images, I went straight to RAW.

[seafowl]

I use RAW because I can do lossless process on it in Lightroom. JPEG is only good if your camera is good or if you can use your camera really well.

[Overcast]

i use JPEG because i try to do minimal manipulation... and because i take so many pics that it would take hours to change every one from RAW to JPEG to share them... if i may, did you check if your camera has the ability to take both at the same time? many dslr have the ability to these days, so you get the best of both worlds! (but it will fill up your memory nearly twice as fast)

[Booker]

Well, both. If times a factor, I shoot in JPEG. But if it's for a project or I have more time for post-processing I shoot in RAW.

[Polo2847]

My RAW pictures come as .CR2. and Photoshop CS5 can't open it up. Is this how RAW files are supposed to be, .CR2?

[Conner Davies]

I just use JPEG because the raw on my old camera is all messed up. So I don't really like using raw

[West Coast Sheriff]

I don't now what RAW is so I have no other choice but JPEG:cool:

[HunterSteele]

JPEG. I used RAW for a while, then the trouble of converting them and keeping the converted files separate from the RAW files became too much work. And the RAW files took up too much space.

[Steve Jobs]

I don't now what RAW is so I have no other choice but JPEG:cool:

RAW is your camera's uncompressed file format. Essentially, it means information from the camera's sensor has been put through very minimal compression in order to fit it in your digital card. Long story short, it means you have a natural and very wide color gamut with which to work with, and for post-processing, more accurate and generally more precise adjustments can be made before it gets converted to a more conventional file format (your jpgs and tiffs) for storage or whatever.

Ermm. Hard to explain, but unless you're working within strict colorspaces of print & publishing or shooting for the media, or you have a genuine interest in this sorta thing, standard jpeg will be more than enough. I mean, don't most of your photos end up on facebook anyway..? :yes::what::what::yes: