For visual learners, this should make the RAW versus JPG discussion clearer.
Original source: Why you should take photos in RAW | Pixiq
Original source: Why you should take photos in RAW | Pixiq
GRAPHIC: Why you should shoot in RAW
- Thread starter Eduard
- Start date
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
How-ever, you should keep an overcoat handy just in case someone objects to you shooting in RAW.
Be prepared and mindful of the children!
Be prepared and mindful of the children!
My personal opinion about shooting RAW: if you're making money with your pictures, such as a portrait photographer, wedding photographer, food, architecture, etc.,....anything along those lines, then yes, absolutely shoot RAW. For anything else....honestly.....it's just not necessary. Do your own experiment; mount your camera on a tripod. Take one shot in RAW, take another shot in jpg. See if you can see a difference. Straight out of the camera....no post processing. I'm betting you can't tell.
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
No post editing. RAW file was loaded into Lightroom, no adjustments made, then converted to JPG.
Image quality set on RAW and JPG fine on my D90 so both were shot at the same time and camera saved two files, shot in auto mode (just so everything was auto for this experiment)
I see a difference. Today's 365 was a RAW file. I found post processing took a little longer, but I was happier with the end result.
Last edited:
AxeMan - Rick S.
Senior Member
OK, I get it. As for appealing, one of my warm up shots. Takes me a few to get my Mojo going, then I fall into my zone LOL.
As for appealing, one of my warm up shots. Takes me a few to get my Mojo going, then I fall into my zone LOL. ThePhotoLegend
Senior Member
Agreed. To the untrained eye both are acceptable. However, no owner with an slr/dslr in their hands should have an eye so untrained as to accept unprocessed raw and jpeg results as equal. A raw file is very much like a digital negative. The point of raw is the potential it offers in giving the photographer precise control over the final outcome of the photo. For point and shoot or trigger happy snappers this unprocessed result is fine and in fact, they might as well shoot jpeg as they are not going to bother with the creative post processing process. However for even moderately serious photographers, be it enthusiast or professional, raw files lend to so much more creative/accurate results. Its not simply about what you capture straight out of the camera but what you captured in your imagination at the time when utilizing the camera to capture the picture in the first place.
Ruidoso Bill
Senior Member
Thanks Eduard for posting. I can see the flatness of the RAW image immediately.
Not to shoot RAW - would be like leaving the house without my Iphone. Seriously I quit shooting JPEG a long time ago. I am not a pro - just shoot for fun, after discovering what I can do with NX2 & Photoshop Elements - there is no way I would shoot anything but RAW. Granted I have friends that don't want to do any Post, and they shoot JPEG and are happy with their photos.
Eduard, thank you for posting this
No problem. . . though I have to admit I didn't expect such a lively discussion!
I respectfully have to disagree with you here. As post processing tools improve over time, why wouldn't you want to save your "negative"?
On a related topic, see this follow-up article titled "Can photos taken in JPEG be as good as photos taken in RAW?". Great discussion!!!
Since data storage is always getting cheaper there really won't be an excuse to not shoot RAW. The only reason I didn't when I went on my trip to Europe is because I didn't have enough sd cards at the time, and I would have quickly ran out of space. After I got back I was wishing I would have shot everything in RAW because of the editing limitations. Photos that came out dark were not as easily lightened up.
Carolina Photo Guy
Senior Member
This entire discussion has ignored the fact that jpegs degrade every time they are opened.
The degradation is small but cumulative. If you have photos that you want to stay pristine, use raw.
Simple as that.
The degradation is small but cumulative. If you have photos that you want to stay pristine, use raw.
Simple as that.
ohkphoto
Snow White
I can attest to that first hand. I recently opened a jpeg (that I had exported from LR about a year ago) and discovered "destroyed pixels" --the picture was worthless.totally unusable and unfixable. Because I have my raw files (in duplicate), I simply re-exported the photo and had a nice clean copy.
I forgot to add that I had not even been opening that photo that much. I've also had this happen to jpeg's that I stored on a CD and never opened. About a year later, when I checked it, same thing, damaged pixels. For that reason I don't save jpeg's to a CD.
Last edited:
Patrick M
Senior Member
I'm sorry, but it's not right to say pictures degrade on a pc.....they can certainly degrade if they're stored on discs like CDs or DVDs simply because the material that medium is made of can degrade. That's true for any data, including pictures, and would affect RAW as well as JPEG similarly.
Data on a pc though is saved as binary values....and it doesn't matter whether that refers to numbers, words, pictures or whatever, it's simply not possible for pictures saved on a pc to degrade each time they're viewed.
Data on a pc though is saved as binary values....and it doesn't matter whether that refers to numbers, words, pictures or whatever, it's simply not possible for pictures saved on a pc to degrade each time they're viewed.