Why shoot in RAW?

[JANGAJONGA]

i have been suggested to shoot in RAW instead of JPG. i looked online and have not found a reason that would suggest RAW is better then JPG. what are the pros and cons to shooting in RAW and JPEG. in my photos i am looking at little editing nothing more then cropping and contrast and sharpness just stuff like that.....well ok maybe a little more then a little but my point is not much. im just looking for some insight on both of these formats having no prior expierience. thanks.

[Big Frank]

when you shoot in JPG. files Janga the camera processes the picture than saves it to what it thinks you want. where if you shoot in Raw it saves the image with out processing and it saves all the data for the picture the way you shot it. so you can do more processing to a Raw pic than you can a Jpg do to the fact that if the camera processes the photo it may take out some of the detail of your shot. so its better to shoot in raw

[conrailmike]

When you shoot RAW, you're telling the camera "do not process in any way". Make sure your editing software will convert the RAW files beforehand or else you won't be able to view them.

[jkh2cpu]

Shoot in RAW if you are interested in getting the most out of your shots. You will need a RAW editor for initial processing of your images, and from that you use a digi image editor to finish up.

I'm running linux, so I use ufraw for the raw editor, and then I edit in gimp. I believe that you are using a Mac; Macs' run on System X, which is a Free BSD variant; and also a 'nix operating system. In short, you can run linux programs on your Mac. This is a link to ufraw: http://ufraw.sourceforge.net/ I've used this program for over four years, and it works great. You could do your RAW editing in ufraw, and then save as a *.tif file, and finish editing with your favorite editor. ufraw will also run on windows machines.

Be prepared for serious learning

Have fun.

John.

[JANGAJONGA]

Ok well it appears that my photo editing service can read RAW so that will work.

[J T]

If your camera can shoot in RAW, it's quite likely it came with the appropriate software to edit/convert RAW to jpg.

[TrainWatcher]

Now can a point and shoot do this feature? Because That would be nice to actually get into editing better for my pictures.

[PSK at CH45.2]

The other thing to remember about shooting in RAW is that the file size will be significantly larger than JPEG because there is no compression. My 2 GB memory card holds about 200 RAW shots which is plenty for me on any given trip, but if you normally take a lot of shots or like to shoot in burst mode you want to make sure you have a larger memory card or a spare one handy.

[conrailmike]

Now can a point and shoot do this feature?

Here's an idea James....READ THE OWNERS MANUAL.

Most p&s cameras will not shoot in RAW, some of the much higher-priced ones do though.

[M.D.Bentley]

This one time, I was by the tracks shooting some pictures in the RAW But that's another story !

[Y@]

Here's an idea James....READ THE OWNERS MANUAL.

AMEN to that!

[cmhfan]

JPG should work fine for the majority of photographers, especially newer ones. RAW is usually for those with advanced photo processing skills and for those that want more control over their photos. (i.e. control freaks and/or dark room dwellers)

I've seen photographers boast that they *only* shoot RAW and their photos aren't even that good. Sometimes I get the impression there's a certain 'machismo' that comes with saying you shoot RAW over JPG. Though I dabbled (only) once into RAW, I found that I can trust (and know how to use) the camera's built-in white balance settings, so ultimately JPG is easier and less time consuming to process for the majority of photos that I shoot.

Maybe someday I would use RAW if I were going for artistic shots that required more control of the final image, but for plain old sunny day train shots uploaded to the web, high quality JPG is more than adequate.

[jkh2cpu]

So my D200 is about 3900 by 2612 pixels. If I shoot jpegs I should adjust the output so that I'll have a 1200 x 800 pixel shot: jpegs are already a degradation of the original shot, more editing of a jpeg just spoils the shot more. I guess the thing that drove me nuts about shooting fine jpegs was that the quality of the shot was bad given the artifacts that the jpeg process introduces: a fine jpeg on my Nikon is about 1/4 quarter of the information from RAW (what the sensor collects) Then if I shrink to fit the screen I introduce more 'noise.' In the olden days, 2-1/4 square was good for train shots; smaller film sizes equated to poorer shots, quality wise.

You are right about setting the camera up right for shooting jpeg, and avoid post-processing in order to avoid extra jpeg artifacts.

Shooting RAW is not a bragging right, but it does give you flexibility to extract the image that you saw in your mind's eye when you snapped the shot, IF the camera is set up properly: avoid auto exposure to avoid unwanted changes to the exposure due to the headlight. A simple snap of the scene without the train will tell you if your exposure is correct; a quick delete of the trial shot(s) will save you digital 'film,' which is cheap by the way


Happy Train Hunting in 2010.

John.

[J T]

I've seen photographers boast that they *only* shoot RAW and their photos aren't even that good. Sometimes I get the impression there's a certain 'machismo' that comes with saying you shoot RAW over JPG.

Of COURSE you would come away with that impression.

[Big Frank]

cause RAW is the way your mother likes it Trebek!!!!

[A No.1]

cause RAW is the way your mother likes it Trebek!!!!

I JUST FELL OFF MY CHAIR

[cmhfan]

So my D200 is about 3900 by 2612 pixels. If I shoot jpegs I should adjust the output so that I'll have a 1200 x 800 pixel shot: jpegs are already a degradation of the original shot, more editing of a jpeg just spoils the shot more. I guess the thing that drove me nuts about shooting fine jpegs was that the quality of the shot was bad given the artifacts that the jpeg process introduces: a fine jpeg on my Nikon is about 1/4 quarter of the information from RAW (what the sensor collects) Then if I shrink to fit the screen I introduce more 'noise.'

You are right about setting the camera up right for shooting jpeg, and avoid post-processing in order to avoid extra jpeg artifacts.

I never really thought about it too much, but I agree about artifacts being a problem with JPEG. I will have to say that many (if not all) of my images have artifacts in them. Shooting on the highest JPEG setting on my Rebel gives me in the neighborhood of 2272 by 1704 pixels, HALF of which are getting thrown out on account of resizing the image for the web. I haven't done any serious research to improve my photos, but I presume there's a way to process resized JPEG's while keeping artifacts to a minimum.

[A No.1]

Im really quite new to the whole photography thing. And real new to digital photography. What is a JPEG ARTIFACT?

[MDH]

Im really quite new to the whole photography thing. And real new to digital photography. What is a JPEG ARTIFACT?

Short & sweet (but a good, quick explanation): http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/glossa ... ifacts.htm

[A No.1]

Thank you Michael