raw or jpeg

garethf

garethf

Suspended / Banned
Messages
109
Name
gareth fox
Edit My Images
No
Hi guys just wanted to ask which format would be best for a beginner to get his dslr to. Would it be raw or jpeg and is there must difference in the two

Thanks
Gareth
 
In one sense there is nothing between them, both shots come from the smae basic information captured by the sensor, the difference is that with a RAW shot you have better opportunities to tweak exposure, white balance etc in post processing that is already done by the camera when it produces a jpeg. I would go for RAW, it's a simple enough matter to do a bulk convert to JPEG if you need that format quickly, reserving the fiddling for those 'special' shots.
 
Hi, for me I would say to go to straight for RAW as you can get used to how much freedom and usage you get from it. Using jpeg I found it was very difficult to correct post shoot.
Hope this bit of advice helps
Lee
 
I use RAW when I know I want to best out of my shots, the PP possibilities are AMAZING with RAW.

JPEG however, i'll only use for fun shots, or days out with friends as I'd rather just have the camera do all the work and stick them up on Facebook etc without having to tweak each image.
 
Why not just take in both?

You can then decide if you want to do the processing or let the camera do it for you
 
JPEG, can't be bothered with RAW, at the club we did a quick test, and edited a number of shots blown up to A3+, a few "guessed" the correct outcome.
 
There are some articles on raw here:http://ronbigelow.com/articles/articles.htm
they are at the bottom of the page.
As others have said it depends on what, and how much, processing you want to do.
One approach would to be to shoot in raw with the camera set as you want it, i.e. sharpening, WB etc etc and then open in View NX2. This will read all the camera data and apply it, if it looks good then you do not have to do anything else, if you want to do some editing then you can change any of the settings to suit.
 
This has been argued - quite vociferously - lots of times, and there's no correct answer. You'll develop your own opinion, once you gain a bit of experience and find out what works for you.

Seriously though, if you're a novice I'd shoot raw + JPEG, with whatever settings you want. The defaults should do for a start anyway. You can edit JPEGs, but raw gives you more flexibility, particularly for adjusting exposure and white balance. Just play with the images in post processing and see what suits you.
 
If HD space and memory cards are not problems then I would do both until you gravitate towards a way of working that suits you. :shrug:

I'm doing that with my new Canon S95 at the moment till I see what suits me and the camera.
 
I tend to shoot raw, as I enjoy post processing.

Also in raw, if you have a potentially fantastic shot, but you buggered up slightly on the exposure (like I do sometimes, still learning!) you still stand a chance of salvaging the shot into something presentable using photoshop.
 
Shoot raw, is the digital equivalent to a film negative.
 
Another vote for shoot both Raw and jpeg. When you have more experience with both formats you can make a decision on which suits you best but as a beginner you should experiment a bit with both for a while.
 
When I first started (not all that long ago) I shot both for a short while before deciding on RAW. Storage media is so cheap these days that the larger file sizes are not serious problem and I just like that extra level of versatility offered from the RAW files. One thing to watch is that the shots you take in RAW have a slight tendency to look a little flat before post processing, as long as you expect this you won't be disheartened by it.
 
I'm still undecided myself about this (especially as I am new to DSLR). I understand raw now having read about it on various sites but for me at this present time I have my own theory......

I purchased a DSLR to become a photographer. I want to able to understand the camera to it's full potential and capture that shot having set it up in the correct manner. If I had wanted my picture to be better from the outset why would I bother using software to change it all!

I know pictures can be made to look extremely nice by adjusting them from a raw file but that to me almost defeats the object of having all the settings in place on a very expensive DSLR in the first place. The only reason (at this present time) I would use raw is if I wanted the picture to look completely different to how it was took initially, which in concept is HDR.

Maybe I will change my mind over time and completely go against everything I'm saying here but until I can afford photoshop or even get to grips with the software that came with the camera I will be sticking with jpeg for now.

I keep trying to think of a different way of looking at it but my mind escapes me. The only thing that springs to mind is when you order a Big Mac and it arrives looking nothing like the picture did! Still it taste great so again I'm digging a bigger hole!
 
oblivion said:
I purchased a DSLR to become a photographer. I want to able to understand the camera to it's full potential and capture that shot having set it up in the correct manner. If I had wanted my picture to be better from the outset why would I bother using software to change it all!
Click to expand...

People seem to have the idea that shooting in RAW in some way stops you from trying to get things correct at capture. :bang:

If you shoot Jpeg and it looks right, crop it, sharpen and print. If you shoot RAW and it looks right, crop it, sharpen, save as a Jpeg and print. Loads more work there with RAW. :bonk:

But whatever works for ya. :D
 
I think you miss the point, a RAW is rather like the 'negative' from the film days. You have to 'develop' the negative into a usable image. Same with a RAW file. You have all the computing power of your image editing software rather than a small and messy darkroom at your disposal.

Shoot JPEG and you let the camera take over the 'developing' of your image. Rather like sending your film to Boots to be developed and printed.

Which would I rather do - guess?
 
RAW especially to start with I think, keeps all the data and after you shoot you can see which settings you used and play with them.
 
RAW is what i would choose. Used both and i like that RAW files can be changed quite a bit.
 
Photodiva said:
I think you miss the point, a RAW is rather like the 'negative' from the film days. You have to 'develop' the negative into a usable image. Same with a RAW file.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Funny thing is, I started off shooting RAW for this reason but as I become more confident with the camera I shoot more JPG.
 
sledger said:
Exactly.

Funny thing is, I started off shooting RAW for this reason but as I become more confident with the camera I shoot more JPG.
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree. It depends on what you're shooting and how confident you are with your settings. I used to use RAW to shoot my footie matches, but I've started to use JPEG again for reasons of speed. OTOH if I'm trying landscapes/sunsets I'll shoot RAW for more latitude as there won't be that many shots to process. Its about knowing your camera and not just letting IT determine your picture.
 
I like to shoot RAW now, then i do not have to worry about things like white balance, plus i always have the RAW file to practice with in photoshop.:)
 
I shoot in Raw it's much better to edit in photoshop than compress jpeg IMO

In Jpeg
1.Less control over the way the final image appears
2.Compressed files lose some image data
3.Harder to correct mistakes of color and exposure

In Raw
1.No image data is lost
2.Provide you with plenty of flexibility when deciding how the final image looks
3.Allow you to correct mistakes made at the time of exposure
 
Last edited:
thanks guys lots of different comments there, to me it sounds like its more of a choice in taste to which one people use.

What im thinking is that while i havent got a software to run with yet im going to just practise with both formats and then set which one i like best.

Which now brings me to my next question, that is what software would i be best to get without having to spend mega £s on. Ive been thinking photoshop elements 9 is that any good for a beginner
 
garethf said:
thanks guys lots of different comments there, to me it sounds like its more of a choice in taste to which one people use.

What im thinking is that while i havent got a software to run with yet im going to just practise with both formats and then set which one i like best.

Which now brings me to my next question, that is what software would i be best to get without having to spend mega £s on. Ive been thinking photoshop elements 9 is that any good for a beginner
Click to expand...

Very good choice. It can do just about everything you might want to do, and it's easier to use than the very expensive CS5. Quite a lot of people never see any reason to move on to the full version.

You can download a 30 day free trial of most of the Adobe products from their website. See how you get on?
 
View NX2 is a free download from Nikon. https://nikoneurope-en.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/50408
It will read all the raw data and apply it to your photos, if you like the in camera settings then you can just save the file as a NEF, TIFF or JPEG or print it, if not you can change WB Sharpening etc.

It uses the same algorithms as Capture NX2 but does not have all the extra adjustments so it is more efficient and therefore faster.

It has
Exp comp
WB
Picture Control
Sharpness
Contrast
Brightness
Highlight Protection
Shadow Protection
D Lighting
Colour booster
Crop
Straighten
Auto Red Eye
Axial CA
Auto Lateral CA

You can also edit metadata, batch process etc.

Capture NX2 has all the above plus Control Points, Selection Tools, Heal tool etc etc
 
garethf said:
thanks guys lots of different comments there, to me it sounds like its more of a choice in taste to which one people use.

What im thinking is that while i havent got a software to run with yet im going to just practise with both formats and then set which one i like best.

Which now brings me to my next question, that is what software would i be best to get without having to spend mega £s on. Ive been thinking photoshop elements 9 is that any good for a beginner
Click to expand...

I am afraid things run a little deeper than that.
For a start, jpg is encoded in 8bit whilst RAW is (depending on your camera) 12-14bit.

RAW affords you incredible latitude. It allows for production of countless versions of the same image, not to mention on the fly White balance, exposure, colour and other image corrections with no loss of quality.

To put it bluntly, unless you need the speed afforded by shooting jpg (and we are talking ability for your camera to keep shooting in large bursts) RAW is simply too good to pass. After all, you wouldn't throw away your film negatives with a... Meh! , who needs negatives, my prints are good enough for me!.
Still, your choice mate.
 
Last edited:
I Use JPEG if i'm at events --- I do alot of rallying so it's more beneficial to use JPEG for me as i don't need to spend hours post processing, plus my buffer lasts longer.

I used RAW if i'm doing other things , ie, Potraits, Landscapes etc.

I find myself using JPEG most of the time ( sometimes even for portraits ) - i try to get it right in the camera rather than having to correct my errors later on when i could be playing call of duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top