JPG vs Raw: Get it Right the First Time .. © 2006 KenRockwell.com

boy, am I glad my camera doesn't support RAW .. Sounds like work

:o) ... discuss !!

The other side of the coin

cambridgeincolour.com

luminous-landscape.com

To be honest, I kinda wish that mine didn't. Steve tells me that with jpegs, I "have no control". I have always worked with jpegs, and, although I do have some Raw software, it is too complex to just use and too cumbersome to figure out. Just the idea of my images "spoiling like olives" because I didn't spend the mandatory 5-10 minutes for each individual image scares me...I take a lot of pictures, but I don't want them all to go away. I have taken roughly eight Raw images with my new camera and honestly don't know what to do with them.

I tried using the raw format for a while, but I don't think I have enough patience for it to make any difference, and the file size was just too large to be practical. Even at max quality and resolution I can still fit many times more JPG images on my cards...

Thanks K!! I really liked the "CHILDISH TOILET HUMOR" part of the page. Go figure huh?

I have used RAW more or less exclusively ever since I switched to DSLR for two main reasons. Firstly, I was never really that happy with the camera software’s abilities at sharpening images and softening colour noise – both of which seamed far too heavy handed and destructive to the image quality – when you use JPEG mode – you either seam to get to many USM lines or worse still, ‘smudging’ of pixels when the camera is trying to eliminate noise and banding. The other main attraction is the extra amount of data captured in RAW mode. A shot taken in RAW captures colour data at 12 bits per pixel whereas JPEG only does 8 – the other 4 are used for data compression information. That might seam a bit trivial but in real terms it means the RAW capture can contain as much as 33% more tonal information as a JPEG or, in other words, if you were shooting with an 8MP camera you’d actually get results in JPEG comparable to something less than a 6MP model. This means a much wider gamut of colour and range of detail.

The RAW format also allows for alterations and fixes to be carried out pre-processing that are non-destructive to the image data so exposure, colour and focus errors can be corrected as well as options to simulate various film effects in the higher end RAW software packages. I’d agree that some of these software applications can look a little daunting at first to set up but they are usually far less complicated than they first appear to be and once you have done the initial set up – everyday usage is the proverbial piece of cake. Similarly, high capacity memory cards are far cheaper than they once were, making the constant use of RAW format much more practical.

Man, I wish I could afford a nice camera that have RAW. I'm really looking forward to the trouble of tweaking the images to get that little extra quality squeezed out of the capture.

some compacts have RAW capabilities now - most notably the Lumix DMCLX1 and Leica D-Lux 2. The Panasonic is essentially the same camera as the Leica but with a different body and roughly half the price :-)

I personally use a camera with TIF compression instead of RAW. First of all RAW is huge. It is the data that the sensor collects sent directly to card. Second, JPG generally never catches enough data for my taste, although when it comes to permanent archiving I opt for JGP. However pre-edit stage I always go for TIF. Also TIF alows me more pictures per excersion while not terribly sacrificing the quality. If you must capture absolutely all the data you can go with RAW. If you're one of those snap-happy tourist types that photograph the statue of liberty out of focus go with JPG.

raptorfalcon,
I find it very interesting that your camera, using TIF with compression, evidently makes a larger file than a RAW file. My Olympus E-500 makes a RAW file that is 13.6 MB, and a 24.5 MB TIF file. Very interesting.
As for my preference between the two formats, I compose/check exposure with the histogram, by using JPEG, and when I get everything dialed in I bracket three shots in RAW, just to be sure I have what I want.
As for my RAW "darkroom" I use Pixmantec's RAW Shooter to convert to both JPEG and TIF, and then go to PSCS for the final touch-up.

RAW files are invariably smaller than TIFF's - for example - a PhaseOne or Hasselblad 40MP raw file will translate to five times it's MB size when it is processed as a 16bit TIFF.

I'm surprised that no one has brought up what I consider to be the main benefit of shooting RAW - you can redevelop the same image in many different ways, so you can give the same image different moods, and appeal to totally different audiences. Stuffnstuff, you should know that you don't make permanent changes to the image when you make a RAW image into a jpeg. You can always redevelop the image if you don't like the results. Klaas you don't have to spend hours poring over your images if you'd rather not. RAWShooter - the software I use (free) has a default mode (which you can adjust) that picks a "best guess" version automatically for each image. You can tweak it from there, but you don't have to do so. Its best guess is better than most cameras' best guess. Don't dismiss RAW until you've spent some time learning about it. I did, and the results have really helped my work.

All digital cameras record their images as a raw file. When they save a JPG to the memory card the camera has to convert that raw file to a JPG. Your computer has a bigger faster processor and more sophisticated software than your camera so it can do a better job of the conversion than your camera can.

If you take JPGs you will probably bracket your exposure to make sure you have one that is right. With my camera that is 3 JPGs at 6meg each for a total of 18 meg stored on the memory card. Just 1 RAW file is also 18 meg and I can adjust the exposure later if needs be. So taking RAW files gets the job done quicker for me and I have less files to keep track of.

I'm pretty sure I didn't say that my TIFF's are bigger than RAW. If I did, that was a mistake. Your camera may differ though. In fact I'm almost certain it does.

Even thought RAW allows one to exercise much better control over the picture, the file sizes are huge. I like being able to take more than 6 pictures to my 512MB card. (I'm cheap so sue me.) I like TIFF because it stores almost as much data as RAW at about a quarter to a half of the size. And for the aforementioned problems with JPEG, the camera has an itty bitty processor, and I'm never entirely certain at what quality the camera is going to save the picture. I can only hope for 10, but it sometimes drops it down to about 8. Bottom line, RAW: really huge, great for developers, TIFF: Good quality; sometimes loses flexibility, and JPEG: Really good for rapid capture, but invariably sacrifices quality to do so.

not so much a mistake - RAW files are smaller than lossless TIFF's sometimes by a factor of five :-)

Maybe I've been hallucinating. I thought when I compared the sizes the TIFF was smaller. Oh no my world is crashing down around me! Could be I set something that’s making the TIFF smaller. Maybe I turned down the bit depth or something. I'm not sure anymore. I need to check now.

chances are the in camera TIFF rendering isnt lossless :-)

Confirmed, it is 8-bit depth instead of 16-bit depth. Anyways, that’s more than sufficient for my purposes. There's probably more to it than that, but I lack the patience to figure out what it is.

fair enough :-)

a tiff does not digrade.

you can apply JPEG compression to a tiff though which is very degradeable.....

Why would you want to do that phil?? The only time I would apply Jpg compression to a tiff is when I am done with any alterations on the image and when a tiff cam't be used for the upload do to the incompatability of the upload fle.

I wouldnt - just pointing out that tiffs can be degraded via compression engines :-)