I am a real beginner in the field of RAW photography, but can see the advantages of using it when taking pictures. What I cannot understand is, why do so many people recommend taking pics in both RAW and JPEG? Afterall, you can convert any RAW files easily enough to JPEG on your PC having first done any editing you wantto them. Why take up precious space on your memory card to record both? please can someone enlighten me?
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: What's the most interesting small town you've visited in South Africa?
raw v jpeg
- Thread starter simonbee
- Start date
ldmelsa
Executive Member
What camera are you using?
Digilus
Senior Member
Just a wild idea - maybe they take jpegs because
a) so that they can skip the converting process after wards and only convert those that they like to higher quality jpegs
b) they trust the camera's noise reduction more than the software
(there is a difference between packages even - like Photoshop's import is more noisey than the Sony software they gave me)
c) they don't know how to turn off that setting
Speaking for myself - I only shoot in RAW cause I want to get every single byte of space off my cards - then I jpeg the batch when I get home and plonk it in a browsing folder - then from that I can determine which need more work and are worth of some photoshop time.
Sony DSLR- A100 here - not great but saving up for a A900 or A850 (both fullframe)
a) so that they can skip the converting process after wards and only convert those that they like to higher quality jpegs
b) they trust the camera's noise reduction more than the software
(there is a difference between packages even - like Photoshop's import is more noisey than the Sony software they gave me)
c) they don't know how to turn off that setting
Speaking for myself - I only shoot in RAW cause I want to get every single byte of space off my cards - then I jpeg the batch when I get home and plonk it in a browsing folder - then from that I can determine which need more work and are worth of some photoshop time.
Sony DSLR- A100 here - not great but saving up for a A900 or A850 (both fullframe)
RAW is the image data as it is "seen" by the CMOS ,and then the exposure, colors, etc are mapped in the file. So, it gives you a lot of control over changing exposures, colors etc since you are working with - raw data. The JPEG is a finalization of the image run through the compression software and saved. Yes you can edit it after wards and change exposures, but you will be "applying" those changes to an existing image, whereas when post processing RAW you make changes and then view a finished product applied to the raw pixels - not applying over them, but changing them each time.'
Maybe one way to put it is, think of developing a photo. everytime you modify artifacts of a RAW image its like re-developing it, not changing a finished product.
Maybe one way to put it is, think of developing a photo. everytime you modify artifacts of a RAW image its like re-developing it, not changing a finished product.
Last edited:
Sometimes you might need to get proofs to someone right away - this way you can work the RAW files at your leisure when you have the time.
I sometimes set my camera to record the RAW to a SD card and a JPG to CF card simultaneously but only because I have twice as much space available on SD than I do CF.
Recording JPG+RAW is handy if your curious as to who or what does the better job - you or the camera. I'm still waiting for the day the camera can interpret what I see better than I can - until then there's no way I'm shooting only JPG
Did you read the question? The OP knows what RAW is, he was asking a different question entirely.
DVD007
Well-Known Member
My Camera (Canon SX20iS) can't shoot in RAW, but the quality is not that bad.
cause its not a SLR camera, its a point and shoot
