RAW vs Jpeg (All in one thread)

RAW allows you to adjust color temp. if you got it wrong in jpeg. There is more data/info to work with in RAW, Jpeg's break down everytime you open and close the files and print etc. Didn't you get Capture NX with your Nikon? I don't use mine because I have Photoshop CS4. I use Adobe Bridge to do my adjustments so when I save it has the NEF file next to the psd.file from photoshop, then I save as a jpeg and change my Adobe 1998 colorspace to sRGB for the web. You can read articles about RAW on the internet and probably here.

Raw is all the ingredients before the mixing and cooking gets done.

Jpeg is some, not all, of the ingredients, and they have already been mixed and cooked.

The reason raw is said to be better is because it is assumed that with some practice you could become a much better cook than the software in the camera.

All the reasons given are correct. I think one other and a very important reason is "highlight recovery". Once it's a jpg, that additional information is gone. You can usually pull in additional detail with highlight recovery when it would just be blown out if you only shot jpg.

Thanks much for your replies!!

Henry Peach wrote: The reason raw is said to be better is because it is assumed that with some practice you could become a much better cook than the software in the camera.

Great analogy! I'll have to remember that one.

Dori wrote: I have read endlessly and can't see why RAW is superior to JPG. I tried RAW with Gimp but all it did was convert the photo to JPG for editing. What am I missing. (Besides the obvious )

For me, jpeg is superior to raw, because I don't shoot raw. In the end, I think it's up to the individual if they find, raw, jpeg or even tiff to be superior to one another.

Jeanie in the lens wrote:

Dori wrote: I have read endlessly and can't see why RAW is superior to JPG. I tried RAW with Gimp but all it did was convert the photo to JPG for editing. What am I missing. (Besides the obvious )

For me, jpeg is superior to raw, because I don't shoot raw. In the end, I think it's up to the individual if they find, raw, jpeg or even tiff to be superior to one another.

That's not finding what is superior. That's finding what you are comfortable using. That is two very different things. RAW is superior, it just may not be what you are comfortable using.

Jeanie in the lens wrote: For me, jpeg is superior to raw, because I don't shoot raw. In the end, I think it's up to the individual if they find, raw, jpeg or even tiff to be superior to one another.

All digital photos start out as raw data. Almost all end up as jpegs for display and printing. There is no Raw vs Jpeg. Both are normal steps in the creation of a digital photograph. What we are discussing here is processing, and it's up to the individual photographer to assess what processing techniques help them get the best results.

Saying that raw is better than jpeg isn't much different than saying the Zone System + print film + darkroom is better than shooting slides + automatic E-6 machine. That may be the photographer's personal preference, but history shows us both are viable workflows.

Dori wrote: I have read endlessly and can't see why RAW is superior to JPG. I tried RAW with Gimp but all it did was convert the photo to JPG for editing. What am I missing. (Besides the obvious )

I see a problem here. It seems gimp isn't giving you the controls you need.

If you use a PC you should get this:
ufraw.sourceforge.net/

It will let you open RAW in gimp (I suppose).

I highly recommend you get Adobe Lightroom. It will give you some nice basic RAW controls without the expense of Photoshop. It's also a good file organiser too.

If your program is just converting it to jpeg to edit, then there's really no point of using RAW unless you're planning on getting PS or Lightroom or Aperture (Mac) at a later date to be able to get the most out of RAW.

Jeanie in the lens wrote: For me, jpeg is superior to raw, because I don't shoot raw. In the end, I think it's up to the individual if they find, raw, jpeg or even tiff to be superior to one another.

I guess you have your reasons for shooting jpeg.

But IMHO you might be doing yourself a disservice. If you find later you want to switch to RAW then all your old files won't have the same flexibility that RAW gives you. You might kick yourself later.

I know this from experience. I took a bunch of pictures at an event for my work (back when I didn't know about/understand why I needed RAW). The pictures are all really warm (they looked ok to me at the time, but I didn't know any better).

Now I want to go back and fix the white balance, but I can't do it effectively because they're all in Jpeg and I don't have any RAW files.

Just food for thought.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I shoot raw 100% of the time - even family snaps, for all the reasons mentioned. But I know there are folks who don't do processing, and still do a good job. In the last 123 years very few photographers took control of their own processing. George Eastman came up with machines to do the developing and printing right after film took off. Except for high school and college photo classes not many amateurs or pros were working in the darkroom. Today there are more photographers taking control of their own processing than ever, but some folks still find it tedious.

Henry Peach wrote: I'm playing the devil's advocate here. I shoot raw 100% of the time - even family snaps, for all the reasons mentioned. But I know there are folks who don't do processing, and still do a good job. In the last 123 years very few photographers took control of their own processing. George Eastman came up with machines to do the developing and printing right after film took off. Except for high school and college photo classes not many amateurs or pros were working in the darkroom. Today there are more photographers taking control of their own processing than ever, but some folks still find it tedious.

All true and I agree. Except to me (and this is JMHO) programs like LR take away most of the troubles with "processing" RAW.

Then again, to get the most out of LR you need to know how to set up the default to look the best when importing RAW files. (Hint, hit ALT/Opinion when in Develop mode and "reset" will change to "Set Default". Allowing you to have that setting dialed in for each newly imported RAW file.



To get the most from RAW you need to understand these things:
1. How to read a Histogram (and a bit about dynamic range).
2. Sharpening (and sharpening masking)
3. Colour correction (white balance)
4. Noise Reduction (and how it interacts with sharpening).

I think that's about it. There's also curves/levels and some other things, but if you understand the 4 things above you're on your way.

I thought the discussion was about whether RAW is superior to jpg or not. Can you get great images by just shooting JPG. Of course you can, but that doesn't mean it's superior. You can get a good image with a disposable camera if you know what you are doing. Does that make it superior to the latest and greatest. I don't think so.

In that case a 16x20 view camera and sheet film is superior to it all. Yet millions of photographers make a different choice.

Henry Peach wrote: In that case a 16x20 view camera and sheet film is superior to it all. Yet millions of photographers make a different choice.

Not hand held in low light it aint