Raw or jpeg dilema advice please

joeteds

joeteds

Suspended / Banned
Messages
279
Name
Joe
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey all hope everyones ok
Right where do I start, Im off to my local bird of prey center at the weekend if the weather is ok and Im stuck in 2 minds about wether to shoot in raw and jpeg.When I went last time I used jpeg and got a few lovely shots but there were alot that could of done with a bit of photoshop so ever since, no matter what I take photos of, Im always driving myself nuts with the thoughts of 'raw or jpeg'.My biggest thing I think is when I shoot in raw and mess about with the colours etc in PS Im always looking at my pics and thinking 'would that of looked better in jpeg with the colours etc decided by the camera rather than my photoshop inexperience messing it up'. Also it takes ages to play with hundreds of pics trying to get them right in raw.
Surely the quality of jpegs are not that far off raw quality?
So what do you guys think ?

ps. I took loads of pics in raw when I visited Scotland not long ago so if I posted a few of them would you look at them and tell me if I messed up the colours etc in PS or if they look ok ?

Thanks all
Joe
 
Why not shoot RAW+JPEG, that way you've got the JPEG and you can see if you can improve on it with the RAW file. That's what I did for a while, until I realised that I could get much better results from a RAW file, so now that's all I shoot.
 
Raw is certainly the best choice, what program are you using to edit lots of your pics, in Lightroom it is easy to batch process lots of images with the same settings.
Also gives you a bigger window for recovery if the exposure is way off

Lightroom is available to download as a trial version
 
Dman said:
Why not shoot RAW+JPEG, that way you've got the JPEG and you can see if you can improve on it with the RAW file. That's what I did for a while, until I realised that I could get much better results from a RAW file, so now that's all I shoot.
Click to expand...

I wasnt sure if I could shoot both, I feel dumb lol. I might give that a go then
cheers buddy
 
sjh2008 said:
Raw is certainly the best choice, what program are you using to edit lots of your pics, in Lightroom it is easy to batch process lots of images with the same settings.
Also gives you a bigger window for recovery if the exposure is way off

Lightroom is available to download as a trial version
Click to expand...

Hello Simon Im lucky to have Photoshop cs4 and bridge but I'll give lightroom a good go to.To be honest I was looking for something not as confusing as PS CS4 as Im not that great on it
 
joeteds said:
I wasnt sure if I could shoot both, I feel dumb lol.
Click to expand...

Don't feel dumb. You may not be able to. It depends on the body, not all of them offer RAW+JPG.
 
Kaouthia said:
Don't feel dumb. You may not be able to. It depends on the body, not all of them offer RAW+JPG.
Click to expand...

Cheers John
Ive checked my camera (D90) and it does offer the jpeg + raw even though it cuts the amount of pics I can take big time.Luckily Ive got a bigger 8gb mem card.
Would anyone mind given opinions on a few of my Scotland pics that I shot in raw and then personalised with the raw editor ?
Just for opinions and C/C really.
 
Kaouthia said:
Don't feel dumb. You may not be able to. It depends on the body, not all of them offer RAW+JPG.
Click to expand...

And even if you can, you may only be able to shoot basic JPEG, so the quality may not be that good anyway. If you're using PS4 on all your RAW files then that may be your problem. If you're not very confident, Lightroom would be superb for you. Download the current beta version of LR3.
 
Dman said:
Why not shoot RAW+JPEG, that way you've got the JPEG and you can see if you can improve on it with the RAW file. That's what I did for a while, until I realised that I could get much better results from a RAW file, so now that's all I shoot.
Click to expand...

I agree, but change your settings on your camera. I have a Canon 40D and because I used to increase the contrast and sharpness in pp I decided to do it in the camera and it save a lot of the post processing. Maybe change the colour settings in your camera if you can and this will also help. If you have the RAW files as well then you can change what you are not happy about on the best pictures.
 
ive not saved off any basic jpeg's yet, but i know my d60 only does raw + basic jpeg.
are they really that bad? I have no idea what the difference between the two and getting the manual out is far harder than asking the pro's :)
 
Joe, being nosey and also from BStoke where is the local Bird of Prey Centre ?
 
turkey said:
ive not saved off any basic jpeg's yet, but i know my d60 only does raw + basic jpeg.
are they really that bad? I have no idea what the difference between the two and getting the manual out is far harder than asking the pro's :)
Click to expand...

I used to have a D60 and wasn't at all impressed with the basic JPEG.
 
Luckily the D90 has Raw + jpeg fine, Ive downloaded lightroom, am I able to change skin clour in lightroom like you can in PS ? As Ive taken some pics of my cousin in raw when it snowed recently but he looks freezing and pale lol.
 
Dman said:
I used to have a D60 and wasn't at all impressed with the basic JPEG.
Click to expand...

just the phrase basic had put me off so far, but my experience tinkering with ps is 0 so i wasnt sure if the benefits would negate user error of which I can be pretty certain of :/

cant complain ***, the d60 is cheap and entry level really so its all part of my learning curve, when i understand it all i wont need raw + fine I hope even *** i will have splashed out for a camera that supports it, such is the nature of any hobby.
 
Right. A RAW is not an image, it is RAW data off the camera's sensor. Nothing has been done to it, not even white balance (although the white balance set in the camera is 'attached' to the image so that pp software can read it - you can still fully edit the WB of a RAW.) It is the purest form of an image, think of it as an undeveloped negative. With the RAW, you take it, you post process it (sharpen, apply white balance, colour balance, tones, brightness, contrast etc) and then output it into an image.

When you shoot a JPEG in camera, all of the above is all automatically done for you. Less than a second after pressing your shutter button, the RAW data is captured off the sensor, white balance applied, sharpening, colour saturation and all the other settings according to the camera profile, and it is then compressed and saved as a JPEG. Try post processing a JPEG, it's hopeless except for the most basic edit. With RAWs you can bring back photos from dead.

I can upload comparisons of an edited RAW and an edited JPEG if you like...
 
joeteds said:
Hello Ryan
Not too local but Im talking about the hawk conservancy in Andover, have you ever been ? its brilliant
Click to expand...

I used to drive a stupid amount of miles so anything closer than an hour and a half is local which all helps :lol:

I didn't even know it existed but used to love Birds of Prey, may take a run down in a week or two when I next get a day off if it's any good would love to hear some feedback :)

Had a quick look at the website and looks like some good opportunities there with over 200 birds and numerous flying dislpays and hands on bits :)

If you get there in the next week or two (my nex day off is not until the 3rd March) let me know how you get on, would be very interested :thumbs::thumbs:

Sorry if I'm jumping on your idea but still learning of places in the area as not really been out and about much and to early in the year for the local farm open days for the young animals and some awesome photo opps...
 
TheNissanMan said:
I used to drive a stupid amount of miles so anything closer than an hour and a half is local which all helps :lol:

I didn't even know it existed but used to love Birds of Prey, may take a run down in a week or two when I next get a day off if it's any good would love to hear some feedback :)

Had a quick look at the website and looks like some good opportunities there with over 200 birds and numerous flying dislpays and hands on bits :)

If you get there in the next week or two (my nex day off is not until the 3rd March) let me know how you get on, would be very interested :thumbs::thumbs:

Sorry if I'm jumping on your idea but still learning of places in the area as not really been out and about much and to early in the year for the local farm open days for the young animals and some awesome photo opps...
Click to expand...

I'd highly recomend it mate its quality, i get there at least 2 times a year. great photo opportunities.
Also Marwell is a good place too and only about 45 mins away
 
trencheel303 said:
Right. A RAW is not an image, it is RAW data off the camera's sensor. Nothing has been done to it, not even white balance (although the white balance set in the camera is 'attached' to the image so that pp software can read it - you can still fully edit the WB of a RAW.) It is the purest form of an image, think of it as an undeveloped negative. With the RAW, you take it, you post process it (sharpen, apply white balance, colour balance, tones, brightness, contrast etc) and then output it into an image.

When you shoot a JPEG in camera, all of the above is all automatically done for you. Less than a second after pressing your shutter button, the RAW data is captured off the sensor, white balance applied, sharpening, colour saturation and all the other settings according to the camera profile, and it is then compressed and saved as a JPEG. Try post processing a JPEG, it's hopeless except for the most basic edit. With RAWs you can bring back photos from dead.

I can upload comparisons of an edited RAW and an edited JPEG if you like...
Click to expand...

:thumbs: definitely agree!!!

And another thing to consider is that a jpeg image degrades everytime you look at it - so the image you view today might not be as good as the image you look at in one years time (especially if you look at it every day).

Hope that makes sense! :)
 
HopefulM said:
:thumbs: definitely agree!!!

And another thing to consider is that a jpeg image degrades everytime you look at it - so the image you view today might not be as good as the image you look at in one years time (especially if you look at it every day).

Hope that makes sense! :)
Click to expand...

Ermmm looking at JPEGs don't degrade them, but editing and resaving them does... :thinking::suspect:
 
It really depends what application you want to use the images for. If you are just collecting the images for your own archives, JPEG is fine, there is nothing wrong with post processing a JPEG as you will get something similar to what has come from the sensor, depending on how you have set up your camera.

RAW is excellent if you need exactly what the sensor is [in effect] seeing. The changes made by the camera are normally non-destructive and applied as an appendix to the file, rather than overwriting the image data collected (ala JPEG). Be aware though, your memory card will soon fill up after shooting raw, you certainly won't have hundreds of photos to go through as your card will fill up very quickly.
 
joeteds said:
Cheers John
Ive checked my camera (D90) and it does offer the jpeg + raw even though it cuts the amount of pics I can take big time.Luckily Ive got a bigger 8gb mem card.
Would anyone mind given opinions on a few of my Scotland pics that I shot in raw and then personalised with the raw editor ?
Just for opinions and C/C really.
Click to expand...

Check to see if there is an option to choose the quality of jpeg you shoot.
If so, set it to the lowest. If you are only using the jpeg to let you know what image the raw file will produce then jpeg quality does not matter. Low quality jpegs are much smaller files than high quality ones.
 
RAW files will have all the setting you have set in camera, in bridge when you look at it if you wait a moment with it in the preview window you will see it change to the settings you had set. it is a starting point for you to work from when in ACR. so you see you have both the JPG settings but with a RAW file
 
Thanks loads for all the advice everyone
I went today and shot in raw.I pretty much realised that raw is a must, ive taken some good pics but some are under exposed so i suppose times like that raw is very valuable.
 
Exactly. I've had pictures that have been underexposed by at least 2 or 3 stops, and I was able to bring them back to the light. i've tried it with JPEGs, and it just doesn't work. The picture turns into a milky, washed out mess :thinking:

I also find working with RAWs far more fun than with JPEGs, because you can be pleasantly pleased with the results.
 
HopefulM said:
:thumbs: definitely agree!!!

And another thing to consider is that a jpeg image degrades everytime you look at it - so the image you view today might not be as good as the image you look at in one years time (especially if you look at it every day).

Hope that makes sense! :)
Click to expand...

Not sure that it does make any sense?

Just 'viewing' a JPEG file won't degrade it, constantly editting and saving will.
 
joeteds said:
Thanks loads for all the advice everyone
I went today and shot in raw.I pretty much realised that raw is a must, ive taken some good pics but some are under exposed so i suppose times like that raw is very valuable.
Click to expand...
try and bring some exp back with say 1, (push it too much and you will get noise)then open in ps and dup layer set the blend to screen, you can then drop the opacity if it is too much
 
Kaouthia said:
I'm not brave enough to rely on JPG. ;)
Click to expand...

Lol!

I've recently switched over to taking RAW images, it definitely gives you more flexibilty and also allows you to rescue underexposed shots. However, it adds another step (processing) to your photagraphy. I actually really enjoy processing, it's a bit like having your own dark room...

You can still apply the settings that would have been applied to your jpegs afterwards, so you've got a good starting point.

I've just finushed reading Andy Rouse's Understanding RAW Photography, it's a great book to start off with. Can also highly recommend Lightroom, simple to use and the latest beta version is available until April.
 
It doesn't add another step, it just shifts it from being a step that's done automatically without any control whatsoever inside your camera, to one that's being done by you on your PC, giving you complete control over the image.

"Rescuing" images really has nothing to do with it for me. I try to not under or overexpose my shots unless that's the particular look I'm trying to achieve in an image. But RAW allows you to post-process the same image a hundred times over to get a hundred completely different looks and feels to the image. It gives you freedoms in your post that JPG simply is in capable of.
 
Kaouthia said:
I try to not under or overexpose my shots unless that's the particular look I'm trying to achieve in an image.
Click to expand...

Fair points John. I also 'try' not to under or overexpose a shot, but the point I was trying to get across is that sometimes you don't get the perfect exposure (at least I don't! I'm human ;) ), simple as that. If it's a one in a huundred shot that may have been caught at the last moment, unexpectedly (I shoot aircraft, wildlife, people etc), then an underexposed imaged can be post processed with far better results in RAW than in jpeg. Like you say, you might want a different effect than that which was captured at the time. RAW gives you the freedom to alter the image to the ^nth degree.
 
edster said:
but the point I was trying to get across is that sometimes you don't get the perfect exposure (at least I don't! I'm human ;) ), simple as that.
Click to expand...
Right.

edster said:
RAW gives you the freedom to alter the image to the ^nth degree.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I think we're both arguing for the same side mate. :)
 
They both have thier own uses.

Jpeg for speed,RAW for better processing ability.

I use both,depends what i`m doing.
 
Whats the best way to print a RAW file ? Im guessing you cant print the RAW file itself, but if you convert it to jpeg wont it lose the information that you've tried so hard to keep ? I was also wondering about TIFF files but the online print site I use doesnt accept them.
 
Convert it into an image and then print it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top