[Wind Chaser]

Excellent easy to understand article on what the difference is and why one is so much better than the other.

http://www.prophotolife.com/2008/04/29/tech-raw-vs-jpeg-the-real-story/

[Scott F.]

RAW can be an absolute lifesaver. I normally shoot in available light. I feel it gives me a more natural 'look' to my pictures. Doing so, if you shoot to jpeg, you have to get your settings almost perfect to get the pic to come out with the right color and white balance. If you don't, you end up with a poor pic.

Just recently I shot a pair of Hebrew Hammers OB speakers. It just so happens the roller that controls everything (ev,tv,av,etc) my Canon 30D decided to take a vacation. Fortunately I was shooting raw. When I downloaded the pics, they were extremely dark and [what looked to be] unusable. After some really quick processing adjusting white balance, contrast and a touch of color intensity, they turned out like this
link to pics
The final pics still have a couple of issues but considering where they started from, they turned out pretty decent.

If I hadn't shot RAW, the whole shoot would have been a waste.

Oh, my 30D body is shot. I ended up having to buy a new one. It should be showing up today.

[zybar]

Thanks Wind Chaser.

I am just about to make the change and starting shooting in RAW (based on prompting from my more serious photography friends).  This article was great in terms of explaining to me why I should make that change and how it will be a big benefit.

George

[Goosepond]

If you're not sure about RAW, some cameras allow you to shoot RAW+jpeg.

Once I changed over to RAW, there's no way I'd ever go back.

Look at it this way. In-camera jpg's are processed by whatever s/w and computing power is in your camera. Compare that to the s/w and computing power in your desktop. Plus you can compare the numerous choices in RAW s/w.

Now if you're a pro and take perfect shots every time, then jpg should work. 

Gene

[Mag]

The Canon T2i is 18 mega-pixels, so perhaps jpg would work in most situations. However one picture because of cloud cover was rather dark. On editing, I increased the brightness slightly to compensate, then the clouds in the sky looked over exposed. Perhaps using Raw this would not have happened.

However I think I need to learn to use the software that came with the camera. The one I used was limited in editing options.

[Mag]

Correction on that, Canon T2i is 18 mega-pixels in RAW mode and 8 in Jpeg.

With Nero-photo edit, I was able to fix the exposure on the section of the photo I want, using Histogram correction or Graduation Curve on this Jpeg photo.

This is the original photo:




This is with Exposure edit, I brightened the bottom left corner, keeping the sky from being over-exposed. Whereas with previous software, it brightened the whole photo over-exposing the clouds.

[low.pfile]

mag, cool that you are taking advantage of RAW.  have fun with the T2i, it's a very nice little camera.

From the images you posted, on my calibrated LCD monitor and an uncalibrated laptop, the original image looks much more realistic. There is very good detail in the dark reflections on the water under the bridge. It has a good overall exposure. Your edit though looks washed out (overexposed almost one stop), and the darks are all gone. I grabbed your images you posted to look at the Histograms.  You can see below in the histograms that the darks are missing(left side), as a bit of clipping toward the light grays (right side)--circled areas.



Again just looking at the images themselves, the original looks more correct to me. The edited version appears more flat due the reduced dynamic range. I am evaluationg this as though as this is supposed to be a realistic landscape scene and not a creative interpretation where there wouldn't be a "right" exposure.

[low.pfile]

RAW has saved me so many times. Both in Exposure and White Balance (WB). Below is a shot taken in the worst possible lighting condition: mixed stage lighting dominated by red lights. Ugh!

But using the RAW file I was able to correct it to near reality. Not a great image, but it shows the advantage of non-destructive color correction! (though this is not an example of exposure correction from RAW)



Left: The original image as shot  | Right: White Balance corrected using the RAW image file (edited with Capture NX2 application)

And for all you nikon digital shooters. a new version of the free viewer/converter for NEFs, View NX2, is on Nikons site now. http://nikonimglib.com/nvnx/#

[low.pfile]

A good example of exposure correction of a RAW file [here] A very dark image corrected.  Coincidentally, made with the new View NX2 I mentioned above.

[nathanm]

No technology can truly salvage bad photos, but you sure can do a LOT with an editor like Lightroom and RAW files.  I took a really badly lit photo last night and was able to massage it into a very good one.  I'd post it, but I don't have the original to compare it to.  All RAW does is give you some extra bits to work with, resulting in less ugly artifacts.  RAW in and of itself does you no good unless you know what you want to achieve.  Even if you have JPEGs, Lightroom is still the bee's knees.  It pains me that I can't download the new 3.0 trial.  Need an Intel Mac.  Dammit.

[Mag]

Okay BS will only get you so far, I admit I was ignorant on the subject not having read my camera manual. Also I read a bit on Jpeg and RAW.

It appears to me that RAW is more of a professional application. Like previous film negative it gives you more options on the processing if you know what you are doing.

I'm however an amateur hobbyist. My goal is to view HD pictures on my HD TV via HDMI cable. To do this the pictures have to be Hi-Rez Jpeg 18 mega-pixels. In RAW it would not be the finished product. So I have to let the camera finish the photo prior to photo shop.

The setting on my camera gives me the option of Large 18 mega-pixel Jpeg. Or Large 18 mega-pixels RAW & Jpeg or just RAW 18 mega-pixels. Since presently I cater to landscape, I think that Jpeg alone, suits my purpose. However if I know the lighting situation is poor or I want to have more creative control then I should use RAW.

Also since Jpeg is the established standard format. It seems logical to me that Jpeg is the format I should shoot in the majority of the time unless I turn Pro.

[BikeWNC]

I didn't even know my 5D2, 7D and 20D can take jpegs!      

Seriously, I've never used the jpeg option on any of my cameras other than the PnS.  I like the control Raw gives me in editing and the lossless process when I do make corrections. 

[Goosepond]

Well first of all, the only thing you can do with RAW is process it with RAW converter s/w and then you have the option of saving it in a format such as TIFF or JPG, etc.

You definitely don't have to be a pro to justify shooting in RAW. All you have to do is experience the much wider range of parameters available in order to realize it's benefits.

Gene

[Mag]

Here's the problem, you wanna view your photos in HDTV resolution. You can't leave 'em on the camera memory card forever, unless you purchase a m-card for each time you shoot.

So you can use either RAW or Jpeg in 18 bit. Save to your computer drive, process, then save uncompressed in Jpeg. Transfer pictures to dvd-r and play back through a Jpeg DVD HDMI player.

 I don't think a cd-r would store HD photos?

[adydula]

Hi,

I am a professional photog and shoot a lot.

Your not correct in assuming RAW is for Pros..

If your shots are perfectly exposed ALL the time then you dont need RAW, very few of us do this all the time. RAW allows you to make shots that arent well exposed be fixed more than you can with a JPEG file.

There is more dynamic range in a RAW file. If you shoot a wedding on jpeg and dont get the exposure right with the brides white dress on a sunny day you have lost it with JPEGS the data is not there to be had as with a RAW file.

A problem with RAW files with point and shoots is the conversion software is sometimes crap and pathetic. RAW gets a bad name and is hard for people to really understand. With RAW you get all the data that the cameras sensor can put out...all of it. Good or Bad.

Most of the mainline DSLRS do not have this issue like Canon, Nikon etc..

Again RAW is not just for Pros...it can save your butt if things are challenging and not perfect...more latitude less data loss...but even RAW cant perform miracles but more miracles than JPEG files could ever do.

And remember JPEGS are lossy....every time you open and save you loose data.

RAW files, work with in Photoshop, LightRoom etc..convert to TIFF...a non lossy format.

All the best
Alex
www.alexsgallery.com

[tabrink]

JPEG  is a lossy heavily compressed file and you are giving up so much information
Equate it to connecting your ipod to those Maggies.
I shoot up to 50k RAW files a year and never listen to a iPod.

[low.pfile]

I am nowhere near a pro. I just take photos for fun and I shoot RAW. Usually RAW + lowest quality JPG. As stated above RAW gives you flexibility that is not. And yes you do need a raw converter but Nikon, Canon have stand alone converters with a basic interface for the correction(sliders and/or pulldowns) Adobe has a free plugin converter if you use photoshop. I just opened a photo that I took this afternoon (just a snapshot) and was underexposed by 2 stops due to very strong backlighting (therefore dark). and just sliding the exposure slider to +2, voila. there is the person. It was just one shot but hey, shooting RAW is free if you have the space on your card.