RAW or JPEG?

[Coconut]

I am just learning about my Nikon D70....wow! so much to learn!!! but I love it! I went to a meet up group class and learned about ISO/Shutter speed/F-stop and metering....Yikes! Then went to a Sunset class....and now I had to learn about white balance....still trying to figure it all out, but with practice, I know I will eventually get it!

If you have any advice for me....I would appreciate it!!!!

I have read about RAW vs. JPEG.....but not sure which way to go. Help please!!!

I would love your input!!!!

Thank you,
Leslie

[gpsmikey]

There is no "one size fits all" - there are advantages to RAW and advantages to jpg. Raw has the advantage that you can fiddle with the white balance (among other things) after the shoot since the image itself is not corrected in RAW - only the camera settings are recorded as part of the RAW file (unfortunately, only the Nikon software can handle those embedded settings). RAW also has a greater dynamic range than the jpg does (you can recover more shadow and highlight detail typically). On the other hand, everything these days can handle jpg files and for most of your shooting, you will find jpg (large/fine) works just fine (that is what I normally shoot both my D70s and D300s at - jpg Large/Fine). You might want to consider joining the Nikonians forums ( http://www.nikonians.org ). Generally a good bunch there and lots of good info on all sorts of aspects of Nikon cameras, lenses etc (and they don't all agree on raw vs jpg either ! ). It is one of those things you need to spend some time looking at the pros and cons of both sides since there are features in both formats worth knowing about.

mikey

[DickK]

Just my $.02 but if you're in doubt, then shoot JPG except to experiment. That is not meant to be a put-down, just that unless you've really got a reason and you know why you're doing otherwise, I'd shoot JPG. Conversely, I'd also suggest you go out and shoot some pictures both ways, then see if the extra processing for RAW gets in the way or is helpful--for me 99% of the time it's just in the way. But then there's that once-in-awhile when it's helpful.
Dick

[kabeeo]

I shot in RAW for a while when I first got my camera mostly because I never could before and because I was enamored with the editing capabilities, which are phenomenal. Over time, however, it became kind of a pain in the neck because Producer does not support RAW and then I HAD to edit any picture that I wanted to use in a show through the RAW editor and it just became too much. As Mikey said you can't really go wrong with jpeg Large. And every now and then you can snap off a few RAW's just for the heck of it if you want.

[VernonRobinson]

Why not both? I realize that this is a discussion about Nikon cameras, but I shoot both in my Canon 10D and 30D. In this way, if everything is spot on, then I keep the jpeg. If I need to make an adjustment, then I have the raw. A 4 gig card is pretty cheap these days and will hold a few hundred 6 - 8 Meg Raw/Jpeg shots. Just an idea.

Regards,
-Vernon

[Coconut]

Thank you all for your input. I guess I should shoot both and find out what works best for me..... but JPEG is sounding pretty good!

I shot some studio pics in RAW tonight, now I can find out what the process is!

Vernon, I am not sure if my camera will shoot Raw/JPEG? at the same time? I will have to check that out;

[rcsteimer]

Hi,

As Vernon mentioned, shoot both for a while.

I had a D70 for three years and have now stepped up to a D90.There is a setting that allows your D70 to save each picture twice, one JPG, and the other one RAW(NEF in Nikon terms) Of coarse this means bigger memory cards and a little more time to save each image.

I use Photoshop Elements to work with the RAW(NEF) files, it allows you adjust many aspects of the image. It's amazing how you can rescue a poorly exposed picture and make it respectable.

The BIG negative with shooting RAW(NEF) is that you have to touch(edit) each picture before you can use it.

After a couple months, you'll be better equipped to make a choice.

[VernonRobinson]

One other reason I shoot both is that the Raw Converters keep getting better. They are able to extract more, control noise, contrast, etc. So as long as you have the RAW file, you could go back and improve that shot that you liked, but it is not quite right. I think of the RAW file as your Digital Negative. When I shot film, I would never think of throwing away the negative. Why would you do that here? Just my rationale. Yes it increases storage, but storage is getting cheaper everyday.

HTH,
-Vernon

[boakwood]

Hi,

The biggest reason to shoot on Raw format is that it allows the greatest flexibility in processing the photo once you get back to the PC. The Raw file is essentially a copy of all of the information that was produced by your camera's sensor without the losses associated with compression (it's why the file is so large). This allows several advantages over the JPG format, such as:

1) The ability to change key camera settings "after the fact" without introducing significant noise. These include White Balance, Exposure, Saturation, Hue, etc. You can do this with a JPG file, but you will be editing and saving a file that has already been compressed which will result in increased noise.

2) The ability to crop in a photo (e.g. digitally zoom) with less noise introduction and improved clarity. This is often important with wildlife photography (e.g. birds) when you don't have an expensive zoom lens.

3) If you want to develop multiple exposures of a single photo to be blended together in a program like Photoshop it will be much easier with a Raw file.

There are however, some instances where JPG makes more sense. These include:

1) Sports / Action Photography - JPG files are much smaller so your camera will be able to quickly copy them to your memory card. This will allow you to shoot a larger number of photography before your camera's memory buffer fills up and you have to wait for the camera to catch up. Also, the file size is much smaller -- this will be a big help when you discover you took several hundred photos using your camera's burst mode (4 to 7 frames a second is not uncommon with newer DSLRS).

2) Sharing with others - If you are taking photographs for other people who are not into photography, shoot in Raw as you can just copy the files to a memory stick / CD without having to process them. As others have mentioned, every program works with JPG files. Even if they have a RAW converter program, it may not support a newer camera as they have to keep up with the updates.

As a general rule, I always shoot in RAW unless one of the two issues above applies. I personally like the flexibility that this file format provides.

If you decide to shoot in Raw long term, I would look into some improved software that makes editing the files much easier. I personally use Adobe's Lightroom product, but I understand that Photoshop Elements will work as well.

Hope this helps.

Brian

[debngar]

I shot in RAW for a while when I first got my camera mostly because I never could before and because I was enamored with the editing capabilities, which are phenomenal. Over time, however, it became kind of a pain in the neck because Producer does not support RAW and then I HAD to edit any picture that I wanted to use in a show through the RAW editor and it just became too much. As Mikey said you can't really go wrong with jpeg Large. And every now and then you can snap off a few RAW's just for the heck of it if you want.

Producer DOES support RAW files.

See here in the supporting documentation on the Photodex site: (scroll down to the photo/image format list)
http://www.photodex.com/support/resourc ... s/producer

Also read the note Photodex posted regarding RAW below that list of file formats.

Using Lightroom and importing RAW images into LR as an Adobe dng files, Producer can use those too. The post processing is embedded in the DNG file and will follow the file as long as LR is properly set to update the DNG previews and metadata in LR. But I noticed that if a dng file is dragged into a slide show in ProShow, on the layer, it says it's a jpg. Weird.

Since ALL RAW files need some amount of processing to look their best, I wouldn't use them in a show unless they've been processed. I apply my post processing to them after downloading them from the flash card into LR as dng files. But I prefer to export the images I want to use in a show as full size jpgs in a separate folder with all the processing intact because they are smaller. The finished image is still very good quality.

If shooting in a very low light situation, it's better to shoot in RAW than JPG hands down. There is no way to get the details out of a JPG for that image as compared to one shot in RAW. Also there will be a lot more noise in the JPG image that you won't have as much of in RAW. It's quite noticeable once you know what to look for.

[MikeD]

I have had a Nikon D200 for about 4 years and the system I’ve settled on is to save both a medium quality JPEG and RAW. A 16 GB card has room for several hundred images so I’m not pressed for memory space. I find the JPEGs are much easier to browse though and work just fine for snapshot sized prints. However, for images that need some exposure tweaking or when I want to make large prints I have all the RAW data available.

I use a program called DxO for raw conversion. It apparently outperforms both Photoshop and Nikon‘s own Capture NX in being able to recover details in less than ideal conditions. This is probably overkill but it also has specific optical corrections for each lens and camera body you use. But what I really like is that it’s default automatic adjustments result in images that rarely need further work.

[x372sailor]

You can use the RAW + JPEG route or just the RAW route and use "Preview Extractor" to get the JPEGs out of the RAW file. If you are not "into" PP, best to do the former. Once I started using RAW processing, I never went back to JPEGs except after PP.

[alcain]

It is just a personal preference, based on what your needs and expectations are. But for me, Jpg is the way I go.

I shoot weddings and portraits (a lot of outdoor portraits) and when I do, I shoot hundreds of images. A typical wedding might have 500 to 600 images taken. A typical senior portrait might have 200 to 300 if it is a beautiful day outside and everything is working without a hitch.

If I were to shoot in RAW (I used to do so), the amount of time I had to spend on PP was unprofitable and cumbersome. The amount of storage space was an issue as well.

I use Large/fine for all of my "people" work. Portraits are perfectly acceptable as a jpg candidates because we are photographing the "soul" and the "personality". Jpg's are perfect for this. We do not need to count skin pores and eyebrow hairs, although correct focus is always important.

I used to do product photography in the old film days. I was also a Jewelry store photographer who shot pieces for advertising and insurance reasons. If I were to do this kind of work again (heaven forbid), I would most definitely shoot in RAW to capture as much information as possible. But for portraiture, all that minute detail isn't necessary or even desirable. Heck, I know of photographers who shoot in RAW only to take that huge, detailed image, and run it through filters and skin tone smoothers in a portrait. Just a waste of resources and time in my humble opinion.

My rule - focus on the eyes, let everything just fall into place...


~al

[Codebreaker]

Leaving aside the potential technical differences in terms of bit depth, tonal range etc. The most fundamental difference in my opinion is one of interpretation of how the image is processed.

JPEGs direct from the camera are processed in accordance with the camera designers interpretation of the raw sensor data along with the settings you use.

RAW images from the camera are processed externally in the Computer and the initial rendering is dependent on the program used, but it gives you the ability to put your own interpretation on the rendering without having the processing steps 'baked' into the image like a JPEG, which may prove hard to undo or correct.

My own preference is to shoot RAW exclusively and the fact that I need to spend some time in front of the screen post processing images is not a burden with an efficient workflow using, in my case, Lightroom.

A good understanding of how to use the camera correctly also minimises the work.

In the end its personal preference.

Colin

[tomdavis]

It all boils down to each his own. The above comments are very good. Not enough time or room to go into complete detail on JPEG or RAW here. I am retired (on permanent vacation) and can shoot in either mode with my Nikon D70 and take all the time in the world to process my work. I suggest you shoot in both modes to get the experience and read your manual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tom