| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/01/2007 11:29:50 AM · #1 |
What is the difference between shooting "RAW" and shooting "JPG" ?
So far, I've only used a P&S, so only had the option of JPG.
But, I'm looking to upgrade to a DSLR in the near future.
What are the pros and cons of each ?
|
|
|
|
03/01/2007 11:31:15 AM · #2 |
RAW is a file format produced by most dSLRs which corresponds to the direct values recorded by your sensor. This "raw" file is then processed to become a JPG image that you get in a compact (and also in dSLRs).
With a compact the processing is done automatically by the camera. On a dSLR you can request to get the RAW file and do the processing yourself on a computer. It gives you more control on this processing. For example you can set the while balance at whatever value you want etc. You also have more "information" in the RAW file (JPG is a loss-making compression).
Pro: definitely more control, no loss-making compression like JPG
Con: takes a lot of time to process raw files even though you can automate many things.
Message edited by author 2007-03-01 13:32:35. |
|
|
|
03/01/2007 11:36:24 AM · #3 |
| it does take time to process raw but i think it is worth it. just the control over WB and exposure are worth the time to me. they do take more space but with my camera i can get a couple of hundred on a 2 gig card. |
|
|
|
03/01/2007 11:39:40 AM · #4 |
don't forget the sharpening, the hue, the saturation etc....
most of my new pictures are shot in raw |
|
|
|
03/01/2007 03:56:35 PM · #5 |
Here is a quick and dirty explanation on RAW from Wikipedia.
|
|
|
|
03/01/2007 04:36:10 PM · #6 |
| RAW is also just a name - meaning unprocessed and untouched - but is by convention spelled in all CAPS. It leads some people to think it must be an acronym, but it's not, just raw. |
|
|
|
03/01/2007 05:45:04 PM · #7 |
Whilst the points made above are good, the real reason is:
JPEG is an 8-bit format. That means, for any colour channel, there are 256 degrees of resolution. So if you shoot black and white, you're limited to 256 shades of grey.
RAW files have 12- or even 14-bit resolution. That means at least 4096 shades of grey - or of any colour.
This may not mean much if you're just planning on web display of images - though i would argue that the more resolution you put in, the more sense of that you get out of your final conversion to jpeg - but it sure does when you come to print.
e |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 09:01:16 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by e301:
Whilst the points made above are good, the real reason is:
JPEG is an 8-bit format. |
True. But you also need to bear in mind that JPEG is also a destructive compression. You lose a lot of information, even on top of the 8 bit limitation. The JPEG compression is meant to optimize the file size based on what human eye sees - or for that matter doesn't see. SO to make it simple, if you don't see a small subtle variation, the JPEG compression will erase it to gain space. Obviously if you start making significant edits, this will show.
And then, the question is your compression ratio. You can set various different ratios (including in your camera usually). THe more you compress, the more info is destroyed.
//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jpeg
Message edited by author 2007-03-03 09:03:28. |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 09:58:39 AM · #9 |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 12:42:02 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by e301:
JPEG is an 8-bit format. That means, for any colour channel, there are 256 degrees of resolution. So if you shoot black and white, you're limited to 256 shades of grey.
RAW files have 12- or even 14-bit resolution. That means at least 4096 shades of grey - or of any colour.
e |
This is probably the best "nuts & bolts" Comparison/Contrast Definitions of jpeg & RAW I have ever seen. Thank You very much! :)
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 12:46:34 PM · #11 |
Word of advice. Don't settle firm on either. They each have their advantages in certain situations. For party pics of a birthday party, go JPEG. If not they'll likely never get processed.
If your shooting a landscape with lots of dynamic range, shoot RAW.
|
|
|
|
03/03/2007 03:09:51 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Word of advice. Don't settle firm on either. They each have their advantages in certain situations. For party pics of a birthday party, go JPEG. If not they'll likely never get processed.
If your shooting a landscape with lots of dynamic range, shoot RAW. |
There's a good reason for going the other way around: with your landscape, allowing for the quibble about changing light and the precise moment, you can test your exposure settings, bracket your exposures, just generally make sure you get it right.
On the night out with friends, you're going to need to grab things on the fly, hitting and hoping with your exposure or camera settings - and the white balance is always going to be all over the place - all of which you stand some chance of putting right with a RAW file.
As to getting it processed - I would say if it takes you that long to sort out your RAWs, compared to a quick contrast/levels/crop whatever of a jpeg, you ain't doing it right!
Or maybe I was just doing it wrong when working in jpeg world.
e |
|
|
|
03/03/2007 03:47:25 PM · #13 |
On a lighter note,...Please remember that anything photographed in RAW and uploaded to DPC is automatically required to be posted under the NUDE sub-heading...:}
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/12/2025 07:56:40 AM EDT.
