I recently started using RAW format on my camera rather than JPG as I am aware it is supposed to be "better" somehow, but I am not quite sure how. I know the file size is alot larger, but I can't see any differences in terms of image quality or detail? And I always have to convert it to JPG before I can work on it in Photoshop anyway. So what are the advantages?

The difference in quality between a RAW and a large Jpeg is negligible, and not noticeable. It's when you start making major corrections/adjustments that it comes in handy, as it's much more forgiving of exposure adjustments, etc.

OK thanks Will. I think I will go back to using JPG most of the time, NEF just takes up too much space on my CF card...

I only shoot RAW if it's really important or the light is poor and exposure corrections will be necessary. Otherwise, RAW just eats up card space, and unless you need the flexibility, the difference is not visible.

Good to know! And what's the difference between RAW and TIFF formats. They are both uncompressed...

A TIFF is an uncompressed image, whereas a RAW is just the raw data from the image sensor, the white balance info, camera settings, etc. The conversion program then assembles this data to form the image, much like the actual camera would in JPEG mode. This is what allows the flexibility.

The only other advantage that springs to mind with RAW format is that because it has no camera trickery/compression memory issues it has 12 bit/pixel colour space as opposed to JPEG's 8 bits/pixel allowing for a wider and smoother gamut of colours a consequence of which is you also suffer a lot less with noise in your image in RAW format. I bit the bullet and bought a fast 2GB CF card for the EOS 350 and took over 160 shots mostly in RAW format which represented about 60% of the card's memory.

The real difference between RAW and JPG is that the RAW file is a true recording of the image while the JPG has had the camera parameters applied. Ie the contrast settings, saturation settings and so on. The JPGs come of the camera ready to use while the RAW file requires processing before you print or display it. In that respect RAW files can be considered a digital negative and JPGs can be considered the final image. There is a very good article about this called “Should I use raw or JPG” at:

http://www.pixelpixel.org/helpinfo/35_rawor-1.stm

I was always led to believe that jpeg's involved some sort of compression which would mean a loss in quality. Not sure whether this applies to how cameras store data though. I always transfer images onto my PC in BMP to ensure minimal compression. Is this a pointless task?

You’re right Benroy, JPGs discard some image information each time you save them. That’s why they are called “lossy”. Saving as BMP is not pontless but saving as TIF might be compatible with more software.

Agree with Robert. Tiff is very good if you want to avoid the compression defaults

id be very suprised if a tif is more compatable then a bmp. bmp are pretty much as standard as a jpg is, but its no good on the internet and its a huge file ussually. Not sure the difference from a Tiff.

One of the advantages of tif files is that they can store additional information such as resolution, exif data, colour settings and layers. Most graphic editors are able to make use of this data. Tifs can use a variety of compression techniques to suit different purposes. BMPs can’t do any of those things.

I think that professional photographers use only tiff format.
Note: there are compressed tiff formats too...

and multi layered tiffs, pc only tiffs, mac only tiffs, channel order tiffs you name it there seams to be a tiff to suit most occasions :-)

If I understand correctly, advance photo editing software such as Photoshop CS2 can manipulate RAW images and make it as if you were actually changing the settings on the camera before you took the picture. If that is correct, and my camera supported RAW, I would take ALL my pictures in RAW!

Yes that is correct. You can change the white balance, contrast, saturation etc and you can also nudge the exposure a little bit (about two stops).

i'd say 2 stops is too far to be nudging the exposure with raw editing. if you watch a histogram while you bump it past about 0.7 stops it basicly just clips either end, and applies a curve you could otherwise use to make the adjustment. you really need to just get the exposure right when you shoot, if you dont have any idea what it will be use auto with an exposure compensation if the frame is mostly bright or dark, and then bracket, so you take three identical shots each with a different exposure.

Two stops is possible in the conversion software, but nothing beats the correct exposure in the first place.

I shoot in raw,make any corrections which is rare,then save as a tiff. Then I backup to a disk. Then I open the file making any changes depending what it is used for, emails or prints etc. then resave with another name so the original is never changed.

two stops is as far as you can push the slider, but then it looks no better than simply pulling the 'brightness' and 'contrast' sliders around

I like Pierre's comment, but I think that all pro's shoot bmp. So there! Meet me behind the school in half an hour... *glares and then winks*

9 months ago I was shooting some trees in my neighborhood (unbelievable colors for about 6 days), but the jpeg just failed to do the trick. It looked nothing like what the real eye could see. I tried to find the RAW function, but after pouring through the manual, I discovered that it didnt have it. I would really appreaciate shooting stuff in RAW on occasion, but I have yet to hear a good review on the software that comes with those type of cameras. Is the real software expensive? Saving them all as RAW and then converting them to jpeg before you edit them kinda defeats the purpose unless you really adore additional compression features.

I saw an article in some European photography magazine that I have that addresses the issue. It has sample pictures, but they were overdone for emphasis. They took a RAW and an extremely tightly compressed jpeg and showed the contrast (quite a bit) and then said something similar to "You are somewhere in between, so just choose towards which side you should lean". Sometimes the simple analogies are nice just to show you which side is which.

The Canon software (EOS Viewer Utility) is not as bad as most of the reviews suggest. The third party software is said to be quicker. I don’t know about that because the Canon utility works ok for me so I see no need to spend money on another way of doing the same job. Photoshop raw converter doe’s a good job too and renders the tones and colours slightly differently to Canons utility it also has some noise control and highlight saving features. But it’s the Canon utility I use most of the time.

I agree that saving raw files to jpeg before editing them is a pointless exercise. Saving to jpeg after editing can save a heap of disk space though.

Below is a link to a good article on the advantages of RAW. (By the way, if you don't already know about The Luminous Landscape web site, it is worth checking. Lots of good stuff.)

Personally, I shoot nothing but RAW. Why? Beacuse much of the time I'm trying to capture stuff in difficult lighting and contrast situations, ones where auto mode and matrix metering don't work well. Although I typically use manual mode and spot metering, in tricky situations it is easy to be off a bit on exposure. In situations like this, RAW lets you "rescue" shots that would be throwaways in jpeg.

http://luminous-landscape.com/essays/rawtruth1.shtml

Wow! The link is really interesting, Mike. Thanks :-)

This is more information than my limited cranial horsepower can handle at once. Yesterday I went out to where a bayou and it's accompanying cadre of shrimp boats meander through the marsh to empty in to the brackish waters of Lake Ponchartrain, and I shot a butt-load (129 gallons) of RAW images. I seem to be unable to open them using Irfanview, and when I try to open the images using Paintshop Pro it's asking questions like what coloring method the image has, its size, and several other things that I don't understand. Hmmm ...

Regmar. The first step is to convert your raw files to tif with the software that came with you camera. When you do that you get the chance to make minor corrections to such things as white balance and exposure. Once that is done you can open them in Paintshop and add the final polish to them.
I hope this helps.

A good (and free) RAW conversion program is Pixmantec's Raw Shooter Essentials. It was created by the same software people who worked on Phase One's Capture One. It's a little less functional than C1 Pro, but it is free...you can download it here.

OK I think I lost this thread. Sorry Robert. I have since realized several things. 1) I didn't get software with my camera. 2) RAW image files are enormous. 3) Capture 1 costs $600 American. RAW Shooter is free and very capable - almost as good as C1, and at 1 bazillionth the cost, it is quite a bit cheaper.

The features I like best about RAW converters is that *amazing* ability to sharpen the image and the remarkable potential to adjust the exposure. WOW! I have images that I was going to throw away that are quite useable now. The adjustment ability is still no substitute for doing it right in-camera, but I don't have to shoot 20 shots of the subject to get a good one, now. Big improvement. I'll still shoot JPG most of the time, but it's sure good to have this alternative.

I think you have discovered the advantages of raw files Regmar :-)

I think I have tried all the free raw converters and Raw Shooter is the best. I do sometimes play with Dcraw, a free command line utility that can produce excellent results… sometimes.

The reason I started shooting raw in the first place is because I was bracketing my shots a third stop each way. Now three jpeg’s at 6 Mb each = 18 Mb and one raw file also = 18Mb. So for me raw was quicker and easier. After that I got a few jpeg’s that didn’t quite make the grade I switched to raw completely. All the pro shooters I know swear by jpeg’s but their priorities are quite different to mine. They want a rapid throughput first second and third and they use pro level equipment, I want to tease the best possible photo out of a lower grade camera so raw suits me just fine.

Since converting too raw I have a much higher percentage of keepers to find permanent storage for :-)

Photoshop can edit directly form the Camera Raw files. There is no need to take the step and convert to TIF. To do this you simply need to go to www.adobe.com and find the Camera Raw plugin for your camera.

What I do is save all of my orignal RAW files to DVD and bring the ones i want ono the computer and convert them to .jpg and edit them. (for web use). The reason I keep the RAW files is incase I want a print...this is where TIF comes in handy. you can send your .tif files to www.snapfish.com and they can print from TIF, for a very good price i might add.

my error, it doesnt look like snapfish accepts TIF, but i know some online print processing stores do. You wont notice a big difference anyway between a TIF and a 12 (full) quality Photshop jpg.

By the way, snapfish DOES accept bitmaps