RAW vs Jpeg why?

[neuroanatomist]

I think it's high time I started saving the raw data and you never know...

Welcome to the slippery slope, Paul. I started out shooting JPG only, but after a few months and a few pictures where the white balance was off, etc., I switched to RAW + JPG. I'd go through the JPGs and if there was one that I needed to alter, I'd do that on the RAW file then convert it, deleting the RAW and keeping only the JPG. After a couple of instances where I wanted to go back and modify or print an image, only to find that I didn't have the RAW file anymore, I started saving the RAW files, too. By that point, I was comfortable processing and converting RAW, so it was an easy step to shoot RAW only (and that added a few more frames to the buffer when shooting, although nothing beats JPG-only for that).


Currently, I shoot only in RAW, triage and process images, export as JPG and those go into iPhoto on my internal HDD. The RAW files are backed up on two external HDDs, stored in separate locations, with bimonthly backups to DVD that go in a safe deposit box.

. I should probably get some experience at converting RAW photos before I need that knowledge.

I'd suggest that you start saving the RAW images right now - once you get that experience, you might find yourself looking at some of your current images and wanting to apply your RAW skills to them retroactively...

[Firestarter]

Many people who never tried using RAWs, fear that there is a steep learning curve ahead of them.In fact, RAW processing and converting is not something that requires an enormous learning process and experience.


For "straight" photography, it only takes one or few clicks in ACR, Lightroom or Aperture to get satisfactory results. In your leisure time, you can develop more sophisticated methods. I am sure most of you will never look back and consider using your camera with JPEGs. That's a waste of your fine Canon cameras...


Neuroanatomist hinted in his post above on another issue of great importance for all digital photographers: safety measures and backup. I will add another one: keywording and cataloging. But those are topics for whole new threads...

[tkerr]

Neuroanatomist hinted in his post above on another issue of great importance for all digital photographers: safety measures and backup. I will add another one: keywording and cataloging. But those are topics for whole new threads...
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

This is where software such as PS Lightroom are very useful.
I would also go as far as to recommend getting a separate hard drive to store all your images away from your Primary / Boot drive. External USB Hard Drives are relatively inexpensive nowadays, and you can get some enormous storage in a small package that way.


To touch on editing Raw files then saving as Jpeg and deleting the Raw file. Obviously I don't have to say that is not advisable, however, what if you want to go back to where you were with your edits? Opening up the RAW file again then you're going to have to make those adjustment all over again from scratch. If you didn't make too many then it's not big deal. If on the other hand, you made a lot of adjustments you might not remember what you did, 6 months or a couple years down the road.
If you made those adjustments in PS Lightroom those adjustments as well as the original file will still be there.

If you use Photoshop CS*, then first off you should be using adjustment layers. This way you can save your work as a Photoshop PSD file. Next time you open that image all the original image data will still be there, as well where you left off with your adjustment layers.


Just more advantages of RAW.

[Alan]

This is where software such as PS Lightroom are very useful.
I would also go as far as to recommend getting a separate hard drive to store all your images away from your Primary / Boot drive. External USB Hard Drives are relatively inexpensive nowadays, and you can get some enormous storage in a small package that way.


To touch on editing Raw files then saving as Jpeg and deleting the Raw file. Obviously I don't have to say that is not advisable, however, what if you want to go back to where you were with your edits? Opening up the RAW file again then you're going to have to make those adjustment all over again from scratch. If you didn't make too many then it's not big deal. If on the other hand, you made a lot of adjustments you might not remember what you did, 6 months or a couple years down the road.
If you made those adjustments in PS Lightroom those adjustments as well as the original file will still be there.

If you use Photoshop CS*, then first off you should be using adjustment layers. This way you can save your work as a Photoshop PSD file. Next time you open that image all the original image data will still be there, as well where you left off with your adjustment layers.


Just more advantages of RAW.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

Ditto on the storage of files. I learned a hard lesson with storage of files on the boot drive. Since then, I've only stored image files on separate (duplicate) drives. [Plus, I always have a cloned boot drive, just in case it fails (it has)].


Ditto on deleting RAW files. This is NEVER a good idea. I would delete the worst ones (OOF), but any others?....they are retained, for exactly the reasons you've stated.


Ditto on PS CS*. I don't know how many times I've gone back to an older file, once I've learned a few, new tricks with adjustments in PS, and jazzed up the image even better than before. A simple adjustment like finding the black and white points....whoa, was that an eye opener for me. Since then, adjustment layers, layer masks, editing in other color modes, and all the other goodies that can be done on an opened RAW file....I'll never shoot anything else BUT a RAW file.


tkerr, you are spot on with every point you've made. [Y]

[Trondster]

The two main reasons for shooting RAW are:


- Changing the exposure afterward, recovering highlight and/or shadow detail.


- Changing the white balance without affecting the image quality.


Ponder this badly exposed snapshot, with quite a bad color balance:


(An extremely uninteresting photo, I know, just a badly shot snapshot destined for the garbage bin, but it illustrates the technical points quite well)


Let's start off with the original shot:



[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/7658.IMG_5F00_9654_5F00_1.jpg[/img]
Ewww! Both boring and horribly overexposed, and the colors are off! This kid is yellow!!





Let's pull down the exposure by 1.5 stops in post processing:
[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/5355.IMG_5F00_9654_5F00_2.jpg[/img]
Ah - better. The photo is still boring, but without the blown exposure - the blown out information has been recovered. Let's fix the colors as well:


[img]/resized-image.ashx/__size/550x0/__key/CommunityServer-Discussions-Components-Files/12/5342.IMG_5F00_9654_5F00_3.jpg[/img]
And with a simple click fixing the white balance, the boring, horribly overexposed photo with awful colors has become - just a boring photo.


Now imagine what you can do with a proper picture!





As several others above, I started out shooting JPEG, but after a while I switched to JPEG+RAW. After shooting that for a while, using more and more RAW images, I realised that the JPEGs were just cluttering the hard drive without being used, and switched to shooting RAW only. I have not looked back.


There are other benefits noted above - more color resolution and other advantages, but the main advantages for shooting RAW are Changing the Exposure and Changing the White Balance.

[Firestarter]

Just to add a reinforcement to the above post: to some extent, you can also correct/enhance JPEGs, but RAW files are waaaay more stretchable - simply because they contain at least twice as much information than JPEGs. (16-bit uncompressed versus 8-bit compressed).

[neuroanatomist]

at least twice as much information than JPEGs. (16-bit uncompressed versus 8-bit compressed).

Well, if we're counting bits, the RAW files are 14-bit (recent bodies) or 12-bit (older bodies), not 16-bit. Photoshop treats them as 16-bit because it can only deal with 8 or 16 bits, nothing in between, and likewise the TIFF format only supports 8 or 16 bit files.

[Colin500]

When I first started shoting I shot JPEG...I regret that now because I now wish I could go back and do some work on some.

I can't tell you how many times I have come across this. I have plenty of old shots that I can't do as much with because of their almighty jpeggy-ness Back when I started, I didn't know jpeg was such a "lossy" medium until I came to these forums.


I went RAW around a year or longer ago and will prolly never go back.

We should put up a large warning sign &mdash; starting with JPEG, and shooting RAW only after some months had passed, was probably my largest mistake after getting a DSLR. (The second largest was not to do an AF-MicroAdjust on the day I upgraded to the 5D2.)


Ciao, Colin

[Firestarter]

Well, if we're counting bits, the RAW files are 14-bit (recent bodies) or 12-bit (older bodies), not 16-bit. Photoshop treats them as 16-bit because it can only deal with 8 or 16 bits, nothing in between, and likewise the TIFF format only supports 8 or 16 bit files.

Ha! The moment I clicked the POST button, I knew someone is going to point that out. [] I agree with you, John. I just wanted to use the "mental shortcut" - which is never a good idea. I should have known better. Thanks.

[Daniel Browning]

As long as we're making corrections to corrections, I may as well point out that Photoshop is actually 15-bit, not 16-bit. I have no idea why Photoshop drops the last bit. Perhaps they are storing them up somewhere and will someday harness their power to forge a dark ring in the fires of Mount Doom.