Raw vs JPG

[GoingUp]

With my little point and shoot S70 I just shoot everything in the highest quality JPG I can. I never understood the need for raw. Do all photos really need that much correcting, or is to mostly so you can do more effects later?

Please elaborate!

 

[dartworth]

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/raw-vs-jpeg/

 

[dug777]

That article is great

I love Ken

For Pentax (K10D at least, unless it's been fixed?) users i understand the jpeg quality is abysmal, at least from the reviewing i did when i was making my decision...

I honestly can't see any difference between my RAW and jpeg output on the D80, but i shoot RAW anyway. Go figure

 

[BeauJangles]

I shoot raw for one reason - to have a digital negative. There is no processing applied, no resizing, no compressing, nothing. Any quality that should have been there is.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I shoot raw for one reason - to have a digital negative. There is no processing applied, no resizing, no compressing, nothing. Any quality that should have been there is.

when i view the raw preview the images are positive. the way a sensor works is also positive. that is, the bright parts of the image correspond with a higher number of photons collected by the sensor and a higher amplitude signal sent from that part to the dsp. it's more like a digital slide.

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: ElFenix

Originally posted by: BlinderBomber
I shoot raw for one reason - to have a digital negative. There is no processing applied, no resizing, no compressing, nothing. Any quality that should have been there is.

when i view the raw preview the images are positive. the way a sensor works is also positive. that is, the bright parts of the image correspond with a higher number of photons collected by the sensor and a higher amplitude signal sent from that part to the dsp. it's more like a digital slide.

Whatever you want to call it, you're getting exactly what the camera 'saw' - no processing involved.

 

[nero2]

RAW is superior for most shooting IMHO because A) it's not compressed (or compressed in a less obtrusive manner than JPG) B) it features more color depth C) no processing adjustments are made, so you can control the level of sharpening D) you can think about photos in quantifiable photographic terms such as exposure E) you can dial in WB.

JPG has its uses, but RAW is quantifiably better in every way. For those times when you need to spit out JPGs and the images aren't too throw-away, most cameras have a RAW+JPG option.

 

[rudder]

when you miscalculate the white balance its easy to fix.

raw is forgiveness for people like me.

 

[GoingUp]

Originally posted by: rudder
when you miscalculate the white balance its easy to fix.

raw is forgiveness for people like me.

how does one miscalculate the white balance? and what do you see in the photo that makes it obvious that its off?

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: Gobadgrs

Originally posted by: rudder
when you miscalculate the white balance its easy to fix.

raw is forgiveness for people like me.

how does one miscalculate the white balance? and what do you see in the photo that makes it obvious that its off?

By choosing the wrong white balance? I could pick flourescent for an incandescent light and get the wrong white balance. I could also try to manually set the white balance and do it improperly. Often AWB (Auto White Balance) will not come out right and needs correction...with RAW, like rudder mentioned, its trivial to adjust

edit:

btw dug - the K100d/K10d don't have JPG processing issues like the older models did...that said i still shoot raw

 

[troytime]

i shoot in JPG 90% of the time.

If what i'm shooting has difficult lighting, or has the potential to be one of those "magical" photos - i'll switch to raw

i'm not a pro, so the advantage is not worth it
it actually slows down the post processing because EVERY photo has to get tweaked

i may change my mind after i learn the nikon capture NX software though