jpeg vs. nef (raw)

[pontifex]

whats the diff between jpeg and nef images. other than what i read in the manual for my camera, whats the difference? is it that much better quality? pros and cons?

 

[Rubycon]

I asked about this a while ago and all I got was nef replies.

Funny how it works because RAW is better even if you're not shooting fish.

 

[BDawg]

RAW images are not processed. They are directly from the CCD. JPEG are processed and compressed.

Oh, and NEF!

 

[CKent]

Nef? :laugh: First I've heard of the file format.

 

[ShellGuy]

Ok here is the crash course. NEF is just a different form of RAW, NEF is used by Nikon cameras and is the purest form of digital photo. Kinda like the Digital negative. Jpeg on the otherhand is close to the print in digital. With NEF or RAW which ever term you wish to use the camera does no processing it takes it as it sees it. You have to do some post shot processing as a NEF or RAW photo doesn't have all the needed info for a full picture. If you open a NEF or RAW photo in Adobe and do no changes it will look very funny. With JPEG on the other hand the camera has done some in camera processing including white balance hugh satuartion and some other things. Most DSLR cameras offer NEF or Raw capature only as well as RAW or NEF + Jpeg. My GF new Nikon D50 offers NEF + Jpeg basic.


Will G.

 

[Mrvile]

It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

Why woudl they require more time to shoot, if there's np processing/compressing

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

Why woudl they require more time to shoot, if there's np processing/compressing

Wait, what?

 

[Chaotic42]

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

Why woudl they require more time to shoot, if there's np processing/compressing

Write time. The files are larger.

 

[Xyclone]

I like working with JPEG.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

Why woudl they require more time to shoot, if there's np processing/compressing

Write time. The files are larger.

True but they don't take longer to shoot. They take longer to write. So if the camera has a burst mode it will fill up the buffer faster and you will not be able to take as many picstures as fast. That's the only way it takes longer to shoot.

So unless you're doing continuous mode shooting you shouldn't see any issues.

 

[ShellGuy]

the files arn't that much larger compared to Un or low compression Jpeg.
RAW just gives you much more control over the pic in general than JPEG does.


Will G.

 

[Mrvile]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

Why woudl they require more time to shoot, if there's np processing/compressing

Write time. The files are larger.

True but they don't take longer to shoot. They take longer to write. So if the camera has a burst mode it will fill up the buffer faster and you will not be able to take as many picstures as fast. That's the only way it takes longer to shoot.

So unless you're doing continuous mode shooting you shouldn't see any issues.

Most nature photogs do, and having a fast continuous drive mode is crucial.

 

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: Mrvile

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: Chaotic42

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: Mrvile
It's pretty simple.

RAW pics are much better in quality/resolution, but take longer to shoot, process (must process them before viewing them) and take up much more memory. JPEG, on the other hand, is faster, easier to get "straight off the camera," and takes less memory. But you'll be sacrificing image quality.

Why woudl they require more time to shoot, if there's np processing/compressing

Write time. The files are larger.

True but they don't take longer to shoot. They take longer to write. So if the camera has a burst mode it will fill up the buffer faster and you will not be able to take as many picstures as fast. That's the only way it takes longer to shoot.

So unless you're doing continuous mode shooting you shouldn't see any issues.

Most nature photogs do, and having a fast continuous drive mode is crucial.

True.

Then you have a tradeoff point.

Use JPG and get faster continuous mode, but less control over the file. This means you have to make sure you get your white balance and exposure set properly for the best results, whereas with RAW you don't have to worry about white balance and exposure can be altered easily if you are only a stop or two off.

Use RAW and get less speed, or have to purchase a high-end camera which will allow the best of both - RAW and speed.

 

[nakedfrog]

Fast, good, cheap, pick two, right?