Raw vs jpeg

M

Moab Man

Senior Member
If you have a program to open and edit RAW files you can do more with them and if you have the skills end up with a better picture in the end. Otherwise, just use Fine jpeg.
 
D

Don Kuykendall_RIP

RIP :(
Moab Man is exactly correct. If you have the program and skill you can get a better photo out of the RAW file. If you are still unsure then shoot RAW plus JPEG Fine and save both files. I only shot JPEG for a long time but finally got into RAW processing and then went back to some of the old photos I had shot and processed the RAW files and was able to get some great photos out of shots I had skipped as being not good enough just using the JPEG files.
 
P

P.B. Floyd

Senior Member
Don Kuykendall said:
Moab Man is exactly correct. If you have the program and skill you can get a better photo out of the RAW file. If you are still unsure then shoot RAW plus JPEG Fine and save both files. I only shot JPEG for a long time but finally got into RAW processing and then went back to some of the old photos I had shot and processed the RAW files and was able to get some great photos out of shots I had skipped as being not good enough just using the JPEG files.
Click to expand...

This is all true, but let's not forget that whatever you do with your RAW (.NEF) file, you still have to output/save it as a .jpg .jpeg .psd .png .tiff .gif, etc., etc.
 
Last edited:
Horoscope Fish

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
In my opinion the thing you're giving up by shooting JPG is flexibility. The camera is not the same as a human eye/brain combination and so often I found I was getting JPG shots that were accurately reflecting what I remember seeing *only* as long as shooting conditions were pretty much ideal. The further away from an ideal scene I moved (e.g. high contrast) the more readily, and significantly, the shots begin to degrade. And while JPG's can to a degree be fixed in 'post, to me that was (is) a bit like scraping the black off a piece of burnt toast: it's an improvement but it's still not the same as if the toast had not been burnt in the first place. The weakness of a JPG really rears its ugly head when I want to do hard, HARD crop. Enlarge for printing to 8 x 10" and hellooooo artifacting.

Shooting RAW allows me to take a blown shot and correct it, if not to perfection certainly very, very close to it probably 99% of the time. I have to do something truly bone-headed to take a shot in RAW that I just can't salvage. Then there are considerations like working with a RAW file is non-destructive because I always have the original file to work with since the edits are saved in a sidecar file, and of course the resultant image file, but not the RAW file itself. If you're shooing JPG and happy with the results I guess it's hard to make a really strong case for shooting RAW; it does take more effort and more time to tweak shots taken in RAW but but then I also tend to only focus on, and keep, those shots that I think are really outstanding to begin with instead or hoarding hundreds of mediocre shots as I did when I shot JPG.

......
 
R

reverb

Senior Member
I started saving pictures as both RAW and JPEG Fine a few weeks ago, and just starting to work with the editing of them. Sometimes the JPEG is as good as I'd want, but no real downside to taking the RAW as well. Only issue I see is memory, but so long as you're downloading from the SD card regularly (I do my at least every day, often after each shoot), there shouldn't be a problem.
 
Roy1961

Roy1961

Senior Member
Contributor
i was shooting jpeg up until a few months ago, i was happy with what i was getting, also i was learning my camera and how to shoot in Manual mode, made the switch and am now learning how to use the free Nikon View NX program i got with the camera before i buy LR or Elements?? Not as difficult as i thought, just takes a lot of playing around to see what each of the sliders do, dont be afraid to try it, you can always go back if its not for you, but once you rescue that bad shot.............
 
Top