Which is better RAW or JPEG?

Question

I've graduated from my bridge camera to my first D-SLR. Is it best to shoot in RAW or JPEG?
I am now starting to learn how to enhance my photos - correcting white balance, brightness etc.

Answer 1

>>I've graduated from my bridge camera to my first D-SLR. Is it best to shoot in RAW or JPEG?<<



Ok, you should change your way of thinking a bit, it will make it easier to grasp.



You don't have the option of shooting in RAW or shooting in JPEG. Every time your camera takes a picture, you are shooting in RAW.



The question you need to ask is, Do I want the camera to convert it to a JPEG, or do I want to convert the image to a usable format myself.



Now, you say that you are learning to enhance your photos by correcting white balance, brightness, etc. If you allow your camera to convert the photo to JPEG, then you try to enhance it, you aren't doing yourself justice. You are taking a high resolution photo full of data, and allowing your camera to compress it and lose a lot of that data. *THEN* you are manipulating the result.



So, save the RAW file, and manipulate it while it still contains all of the important data that was recorded. Then save it in a format that you can use, such a JPEG, TIFF, etc.

Answer 2

All digital images are taken in Raw and need processing to de-mosaic, sharpen, increase saturation and lots of other 'tweaks' to make a passable image. If you save in Jpeg the camera does this with what it thinks is the best process, then it saves in an 8bit format file, any data that won't fit in this file format will be 'dumped'.



If you save the Raw data you have to do the processing, the software will do the de-mosaicing (which is why the software has to be up to date if you have a just released camera, mosacing is sensor and camera make dependant as they all use different methods), but everything else is down to you, but it has lots of advantages, the main advantages are;-



you get to keep ALL the data. This means that you can alter the Exposure, Colour Balance etc.



You can't overwrite a Raw file, so the original data is always available no matter how many time you edit it. Any editing changes are kept in a 'sidecar' file attached to the Raw data file.



Unlike Jpeg, any editing is totally loss-less and cannot degrade the original data.



Your working with 12bit or 14bit files, every time you add a bit you double the amount of data that can be stored so Raw file can hold 8 times the amount of data that a Jpeg can store. The main advantage of this is data is much more accurate and you can use Adobe 1998 colour space which has a wider gamut of colour, but you have to set your camera to record that. Jpegs can only use the sRGB colour space which has limited Reds and Blues. This only comes into it's own with prints, most monitors are 8bit and therefore sRGB colour space.



You don't get any artefacts with Raw. All Raw files, except DNG, are loss-less compression formats, none will degrade the image with compression.



Raw just keeps all your options open, if you save in Jpeg what you get is pretty much fixed any editing will always degrade the image further.



Disadvantages;-



File sizes are larger, less of a problem now that hard drives and large cards are cheaper than they have ever been.



You have to do the editing on all your images, most see this as an advantage, for those that don't there are programs that can be set up to automate this, Lightroom for instance, and you can have multiple outputs, (Vivid, Natural etc.), they can even recognise camera/lens combinations and apply specific sharpening etc.. Even Photoshop applies a pre-sharpening and basic corrections by default.



Chris

Answer 3

RAW is uncompressed, that means you save exactly what the camera "sees". The jpegs sometimes show minor distortions, that wouldn't show up in a RAW. Especially in the past(jpeg compression wasn't very good), or when you need extremely high quality shots, it is useful to use RAW(you don't get any of the flaws that may occur during compression. Also in photoshop and possibly other programs as well, you have slightly better control over the final image when working with RAW. raw isn't really better but it has no distortions. If you think of film cameras, RAW would be a negative and jpeg would be the developed film. In development things can happen but the negative stays the same.

Answer 4

There is no question that RAW is superior to JPG.



The answer is: RAW is better, JPG is more convenient.



The question for you is, which is best for you, as there are advantages and disadvantages to using them.



RAW files contain all of the image data, so they work the best for editing photos. JPGs, are compressed photos, not having as much information as RAW files. They work well enough that unless you are going to edit them, they will provide acceptable results. In fact, when you edit a RAW file, you typically create a JPG from it when you are finished.



RAW files are harder to use, as you have to have an image software that can read them. This is not as much a problem these days, but camera manufacturers use their own formats for RAW files, and tend to change them with new camera model releases. But for the main stream image softwares, you can usually download a new update for your image software to read the new RAW format soon after the new camera model is released.



But JPGs can be virtually read by anything. The idea that RAW files are like negatives is a pretty close analogy - well slides might be a better one as they are a positive, rather than negative. You won't be able to upload and view a RAW file on your electronic photo frame (although a JPG made from a RAW file can).



Some Pros swear by RAW files, other pros strictly use JPGs, as they don't edit anything, and figure they will do their "editing" in the camera by composing the photo. Which is correct? Both/Neither. If they produce the equivalent result, then it does not matter which format they used.



Which is best for you is up to how you want to proceed with the process from shooting the photo to final product. RAW does take a bit more effort, but has more flexibility.



Many cameras can do both simultaneously. I shoot RAW+JPG. I use the RAW file as my archive copy, and the JPG as my instant file. This gives me the best of both worlds.



But this takes more storage space on the memory card and on the computer, takes a faster memory card if you are shooting in continuous mode, and is a bit more difficult to manage the photos in your library. But none of these disadvantages are really significant, and it is pretty doable.



The only downside is that my camera's white-balance bracketing function is disabled for RAW+JPG. But as it is available for either RAW or JPG (just not the combination), it is a quick thing to change the setting to one of the other if I have the need for bracketing white-balance.

Answer 5

When a camera takes an image in jpg format - it compresses the data & throws away a lot of it before you even see it. Hence the smaller file size. Also, jpg files are 8bit files - that has implications in post processing. Editing jpg files excessively leads to colours & tones not being able to be rendered smoothly - you get banding or posterisation in the image.

The advantage of jpg is that it takes up less space & is also an industry standard format, so is recognised by all software.



Raw files (no need to capitalise it - it's not an acronym) are large because they are all the data off the camera sensor - untouched by software. They are 16bit files which means they have a lot more leeway when it comes to editing. The disadvantage is that they are bigger files & also each raw format is different between camera makes - Nikon's is .nef, Canon's are .cr2, Olympus are .orf - so you need codecs (decoders) to read the image data.

Answer 6

It depends. Most people actually shoot in jpeg and never need to shoot in raw. But most pros shoot almost exclusively in raw. Some people switch from one to the other depending on what they're shooting.



I shoot raw+jpeg. I have plenty of memory and storage space though.



Keep in mind that you have to process raw files before you can use them and not all software can handle raw, or even allow you to view them. And if you use ACR you have to download the software updates for your camera brand.

Answer 7

When your camera saves an image in RAW, it retains information in the highlights and shadows of the image that a JPEG simply cannot do. RAW images are much easier to edit in terms of exposure for this reason. Also, each time you save a JPEG, you lose detail...

Answer 8

raw is the digital equivalent of the negative with film.



You get an unenhanced file with ALL the information. Use that for any important shots or shots which you are planning on doing any manipulation on.

The original raw file is always kept original and intact.



Jpg is a camera processed file which loses quality each time it is changed and saved.

Good for snapshots and files which are required to be transmitted straight away (news/sports etc when there is an urgent deadline)



If your camera can do so then shoot both at the same time.

Answer 9

Depends.



If you want to post-process your photo beyond using contrast sliders in picasa, then RAW is the way to go, as it retains the very best options for doing so.



If you don't want to do more than that though, the JPG would get my vote. The reason is that in case of jpg the camera already performed some image optimizations, such as sharpening, saturation changes and even some lens profile corrections or chromatic aberration removal. If you shoot RAW and not intend to do all these things yourself, you likely will not get satisfying results.

Answer 10

RAW is better, much much better.



It can be more hassle than shooting jpeg - as you will need to process every single image.



but the extra effort is worth it if you are serious about photography.



If you just want instant results and couldn't care less - shoot jpeg.

Answer 11

jpeg is fine if all you want is an image you're never going to enhance but otherwise RAW everytime. It records better detail and is generally lossless unlike jpegs. So if you are enhancing your images, most definitely RAW.

Answer 12

It would depend on what you plan to do with the image. Jpegs loose their resolution with each edit, thus using TIFF or PICT or GIF for storage of the original image is my recommendation, RAW is a large file and what you would/could use to storage the image.



I shoot in GIF, store it and SAVE my edited work in GIF or Jpegs depending on the demands of what I am to do with it.



Word to the wise; emailing photos to friends and family and posting on FB etc. should ONLY be in Jpeg AND should not exceed 1Gig in size.



Hope this helps.

Answer 13

It really depends what for. Raw gives more qualty but files are bigger and you need a special program to process it. Jpeg's can be edited in any program, and be used straight on without edit

Answer 14

It is best to shot in JPEG.



Yes, it is a compressed file and you wont be able to recover as much detail as you would with a RAW file but RAW files are BIG, almost 3 times as big. And RAW files have to be converted into another format before being printed. It is much simpler to use JPEG.



You don't need to correct white balance in post if you pay attention to taking the photo correctly in the first place. Same goes for exposure.



That said, I like to take little photo projects in RAW format to be able to play around with the editing more.

Answer 15

Hello,

My favourite photo retouching software is GIMP. A good free alternative to photoshop. Free download here http://bitly.com/1zbndQt

It's a really nice software.

Cheers.

Answer 16

many bridge cameras use RAW too... you should have been able to shoot and learn with that...



RAW is better to manipulate...

Answer 17

Use Raw. Images are much easier to edit when in photoshop ( you have much more control )

Answer 18

Jpeg higher compatibility rate And usually better quality

Answer 19

of course JPEG