Normal , fine and RAW ?

A

Alex96

Suspended / Banned
Messages
5
Name
Alex
Edit My Images
No
Hi there forum :)

So i am new to DSLR'S and i currently have a Nikon d3300 DSLR which i bought a couple of months ago as i have always been into photography but never had a DSLR so now i have one and i am really loving it had some cracking pictures and people even offering me money for a couple of them :O and all is going well in my venture

BUT i see there is different image quality modes Normal which i have been using , fine and RAW and i know absolutely nothing about this haha from the eye as a guess it seems normal is lowest quality image capture then fine then raw but i am probably sooooo wrong lol .

Could somebody please help me and explain in detail what they are and when to use each one and if normal means lowest , fine medium and raw highest image quality

Thank you :)
 
Well you've guessed the quality differences correctly.

So, the advice:

Unless you've got a good reason to... Never shoot in anything other than the best quality. And that'd mean only shooting at a lower quality when you're in a real hurry to deliver a small file (never for most people).

So the tricky bit, large fine JPEG vs RAW. Most serious photographers shoot RAW, it's not a rule and it's your choice, but if you're serious about your results, you actually throw away a lot of data when you choose a JPEG, RAW will let you alter WB at the computer and also gives some flexibility for manipulating the shadows and highlights.

There's thousands of hours of reading on the web, not to mention hundreds of threads on this site.
 
The difference between normal and fine is quite simply the amount of compression used when the camera creates the JPEG.
Normal will have a higher compression than fine and as a result can cause block like artifacts appearing in fine detail areas.

RAW is the best format in that there is no compression at all but the RAW file needs to be processed (this can be done in camera (on some models) or in post processing software like lightroom or photoshop etc.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thats the thing guys I'm a total dummy when it comes to photo editing etc ..

And my photos will look a lot better in RAW then in NORMAL mode ? if so i will always use RAW
Also there is also a RAW + FINE mode which seems higher
Phil V said:
Well you've guessed the quality differences correctly.

So, the advice:

Unless you've got a good reason to... Never shoot in anything other than the best quality. And that'd mean only shooting at a lower quality when you're in a real hurry to deliver a small file (never for most people).

So the tricky bit, large fine JPEG vs RAW. Most serious photographers shoot RAW, it's not a rule and it's your choice, but if you're serious about your results, you actually throw away a lot of data when you choose a JPEG, RAW will let you alter WB at the computer and also gives some flexibility for manipulating the shadows and highlights.

There's thousands of hours of reading on the web, not to mention hundreds of threads on this site.
Click to expand...

stupar said:
The difference between normal and fine is quite simply the amount of compression used when the camera creates the JPEG.
Normal will have a higher compression than fine and as a result can cause block like artifacts appearing in fine detail areas.

RAW is the best format in that there is no compression at all but the RAW file needs to be processed (this can be done in camera (on some models) or in post processing software like lightroom or photoshop etc.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
RAW has the highest potential quality but it requires you to develop an effective repertoire of post processing skills (and/or catalogue of presets) as a RAW image straight from the camera will look a bit dull and uninteresting compared to the same photo taken in JPG setting.

In JPG setting the camera applies its own preset to the RAW image, saves the JPG and throws away the RAW file. Try putting it in JPG + RAW mode so you get both files so you can see the difference. You'll find a greater ability to recover errors from RAW, and maintaining a higher image quality.

JPG has its place. I do a lot of event photography and we always shoot in JPG for speed. Shooting RAW would be unthinkable.
 
Alex96 said:
Thats the thing guys I'm a total dummy when it comes to photo editing etc ..

And my photos will look a lot better in RAW then in NORMAL mode ? if so i will always use RAW
Click to expand...


Well here's the rub, no they probably won't UNLESS you post process them in a program such as Lightroom or that which comes with the camera and to get good results you need to know what you are doing.

Just google raw vs jpg for lots and lots of reading...
 
I shoot large JPEG plus RAW. This gives me quick access to easily view a quality JPEG and if I have the need and time I can PP the RAW file
 
Yes my camera also have a RAW+JPEG FINE option ? what is this
 
It saves both jpg and raw, you can use the jpgs if they look good or process the raw if you want to change the look.

Seriously though, Google raw vs jpg as it will explain better than anyone here can without spending 20 minutes writing an essay.
 
I'm also a relative newcomer to the scene and was shooting merrily away in JPEG but kept hearing that RAW was the way to go so I switched and was very disappointed with the results until it was pointed out to me that the RAW file was very much "unprocessed"

The best film analogy I was given was to think of a JPEG as a print from a negative and RAW as the actual negative that needed processing before it was the finished article.

My results improved 100% overnight.
 
When most start out they use jpeg. When they get good at it they go over to raw. When they get REALLY good they know when to go back to jpeg.
That doesn't sound as slick as I'd hoped. :)
Anyway, the main reason to use less than "Fine" is to get more pics on your card (at the expense of quality) and memory is so cheap these days that it's not really worth the compromise.
 
andrewc said:
RAW has the highest potential quality but it requires you to develop an effective repertoire of post processing skills (and/or catalogue of presets) as a RAW image straight from the camera will look a bit dull and uninteresting compared to the same photo taken in JPG setting.
Click to expand...

This is often stated and not really true. Lightroom has camera calibration presets which do a very good job of mimicking a camera's own image styles. Just set your default import settings to use the appropriate preset and the raw file as displayed in LR will look largely identical to the jpeg. Then if you want to manipulate further you can, and you'll be working with the best quality starting point available.

This video shows how limited jpegs are compared to raw files - though WB is just one reason for shooting raw:

 
I had this same question a few weeks back and have since then started shooting in raw and doing a lot more post production and the results are so much better I would definitely recommend giving it a try even if it's something you don't really have a interest in you might be pleasantly surprised. Thanks to the awesome people on this forum you will find no end of information. Happy snapping :)
 
RAW + JPEG will use up quite a lot of your memory card quite unnecessarily.

With your camera you will usually get software which will enable you to batch process RAW files to JPEG (at least with Canon you do) and still preserve the RAW files so using the 2 types is quite unnecessary.
 
Graham W said:
When most start out they use jpeg. When they get good at it they go over to raw. When they get REALLY good they know when to go back to jpeg.
That doesn't sound as slick as I'd hoped. :)
Anyway, the main reason to use less than "Fine" is to get more pics on your card (at the expense of quality) and memory is so cheap these days that it's not really worth the compromise.
Click to expand...
When you're really proficient at processing your raws, the better results you get (far better).

So why would you then want to go back to JPEG?
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
When you're really proficient at processing your raws, the better results you get (far better).

So why would you then want to go back to JPEG?
Click to expand...

If I were to play devil's advocate then I could turn that on it's head.. when you get really proficient at lighting then you don't need to process at all. You may not like his stuff but Damian McGillicuddy knows what he's doing and often uses the in-camera 'art' filters and jpegs.

petersmart said:
RAW + JPEG will use up quite a lot of your memory card quite unnecessarily.

With your camera you will usually get software which will enable you to batch process RAW files to JPEG (at least with Canon you do) and still preserve the RAW files so using the 2 types is quite unnecessary.
Click to expand...

I often shoot raw + JPEG - the jpegs are handy for downloading to an iPad for a quick look.
 
juggler said:
If I were to play devil's advocate then I could turn that on it's head.. when you get really proficient at lighting then you don't need to process at all. You may not like his stuff but Damian McGillicuddy knows what he's doing and often uses the in-camera 'art' filters and jpegs.



I often shoot raw + JPEG - the jpegs are handy for downloading to an iPad for a quick look.
Click to expand...
I guess it depends what you're shooting.

As a landscape photographer you have to make the best with what you've got lighting wise ;)

If you're shooting in a controlled environment where you have lighting control, the need to shoot raw diminishes.
 
RAW+JPEG may take up more of your memory card but it is a great way to start dabbling in RAW whilst still having the JPEG images so you don't have anything to lose trying it out. It gives you a chance to try out processing RAW files, there are free trials for the likes of Lightroom or you could try out the Nikon software that came with your camera. I swapped from JPEG to RAW after about a year, since I've not gone back to JPEGs as I don't need the quickness or small file sizes.

Basically the JPEG output from the camera is the camera deciding on the processing, with RAW you process the image and can make changes you want to make the image in your eyes. It gives more freedom especially with things like White Balance.
 
Graham W said:
I can think of a couple of reasons, can't you?
The point I'm making is that the more you understand the subject the better able you are to make a reasoned decision.
Click to expand...
Only if what I'm shooting needs instant consumption, ie, if I was a news photographer, or for whatever reason you're not in a position to do any post work.

If you're simply trying to get the best possible image under as much control as possible and you have time to post process (which by now you're very good at, better than your camera) it makes no sense to switch back to JPEG.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top