Just got an SLR...is there an advantage to saving pics in RAW format?

[MrMatt]

So I just got an XTi (thanks Tealk) and I was wondering; is there any advantage to saving the pictures in Raw format on the memory card, as opposed to an identical sized JPG?

 

[ElFenix]

only benefits of jpg is that there is less post involved, your buffer won't fill as fast, and your card won't fill as fast.

but, there is only less post involved because you can't do as much to it. depending on the settings, there's already been noise reduction and sharpening applied, tone curves applied, and white balance is set. if you didn't want that much noise reduction, or less sharpening done, too bad. noise reduction reduces the information available in the file, as well. so does setting tone curves. a lot of cameras apply NR and sharpening even if the values are set to their lowest level in camera.

with raw, you can tweak the photo to apply just right amounts of NR and sharpening, recover highlights or shadow data much more readily, adjust white balance easily (you can do it with jpgs but only in full sun), etc. the difference between jpg and raw is bigger than the difference between a print and the underlying film.

 

[MrMatt]

wow...hmmm

So, it seems like if I want to do editing & tweaking after I get them off the camera, go with raw, and if I don't want to tweak then go with Jpg?

 

[fbrdphreak]

wow...hmmm

So, it seems like if I want to do editing & tweaking after I get them off the camera, go with raw, and if I don't want to tweak then go with Jpg?

Pretty much. Also keep in mind that if you shoot RAW, you HAVE to at least run them through a program that can output them in JPEG - even if you make no changes.

If I'm just shooting something that I don't need the best picture possible from, I'll use JPEG to save time and memory card space.

 

[speedy2]

If you want a lot more to work with, shoot in RAW. You can adjust exposure. You can even create HDR images from one single RAW file, that look pretty darn good. If you have the hard drive space and big enough cards, it's a pretty good idea to shoot in RAW. Your camera should also have the option to shoot in JPEG + RAW. It will create a file of each type. Try that out and see if you really like RAW.

 

[ElFenix]

Pretty much. Also keep in mind that if you shoot RAW, you HAVE to at least run them through a program that can output them in JPEG - even if you make no changes.

If I'm just shooting something that I don't need the best picture possible from, I'll use JPEG to save time and memory card space.

if it's shot in raw it needs sharpening. due to the various filters just in front of the sensor and the demosaicing of the bayer pattern, raw images are necessarily soft.

 

[Kaido]

In my experience:

RAW gives you a lot more editing power. More work, but better results. More colors in RAW to play with for color correction. JPG gives you smaller images (more pictures per memory card) and sharper images, plus faster recording. RAW seems to come out blurrier, like image stabilization is off or lowered or something. This may be because of JPG processing in-camera that applies a sharpening filter, I don't know. It also takes longer to write a RAW file to the memory card because the file size is larger, so if you need quick shots, JPG is faster.

I shoot pretty much exclusively in RAW because I like having a lot of editing power. My wife shoots mostly in JPG (she shoots professionally on the side) because the pictures come out sharper and lets her take pictures faster. She shoots a lot of kids and familes (outdoor portraits mainly), so speed in both shooting and editing is important for her. There is definitely less data available in the color correction department, however.

So mostly it depends on how you want to shoot. If you want speed, JPG gives you an advantage. For me, RAW isn't that much slower, and I have more editing abilities later, so I opt to go with that. Plus if you want to edit a picture down the road when you have more time, or if you want to try a different picture style in Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture/whatever, you have more original data to work with. Storage space is cheap nowadays too (2TB for $99), so storage capacity really isn't an issue anymore. Try out both and see what you like!

 

[MrMatt]

if it's shot in raw it needs sharpening. due to the various filters just in front of the sensor and the demosaicing of the bayer pattern, raw images are necessarily soft.

How does one go about sharpening a Raw image? Are there any particular tutorials that are useful in this?

 

[slashbinslashbash]

How does one go about sharpening a Raw image? Are there any particular tutorials that are useful in this?

It depends on the program you're using. When you import a RAW in many programs there is simply a "Sharpen" slider that you can bump up a bit. I think most people normally go in the 10-20% range, but it really depends on the shot, and sometimes you have to eyeball it to get a good mix of sharpness vs. oversharpening artifacts (which often come from sharpening noise). I think that most people who have an automated workflow to process all their RAWs usually go in the 10-20% range though, and they can tweak it later if they want.

I shoot RAWs pretty much exclusively. You're just throwing away information by shooting JPEG. Only time I will shoot JPEG is when I know I've got the exposure nailed and I've got to shoot really long strings of rapid shots.

 

[MrMatt]

hmm, so I could just batch sharpen by a certain percent in photoshop then if I had like 300 pictures from a wedding?

 

[Jtorrespr1]

excellent post from both the op and the posters, since I'm thinking of buying slr.

These are things that us amateurs like to learn from the expert. Never new about the raw images have more options to be edited.

 

[ElFenix]

How does one go about sharpening a Raw image? Are there any particular tutorials that are useful in this?

last time i used canon's DPP it had a drop down box when doing raw processing with a few levels included.

frankly i hate post so i'd rather shoot a well exposed jpg than muck about with raw later.

 

[Munky]

I use Nikon Capture NX2 to process RAW files, and it applies sharpening by default unless I select otherwise. So straight conversion to JPEG may or may not require additional processing, depending on the software.

As far as RAW vs JPEG shooting, it depends on the situation. If I want the most detail and dynamic range possible for some photos, I shoot RAW. In other cases, if you get correct exposure from the start, JPEG is simpler to process, more economical in space, and still lets me adjust the image to some extent, like white balance, unsharp mask, and burning/dodging.

 

[Adul]

Lightroom is great to work with for RAW files. You can easily batch process large amount of pics with it. I got 15k+ pictures taken this year as well so it is a helpful.

 

[MrMatt]

Lightroom is great to work with for RAW files. You can easily batch process large amount of pics with it. I got 15k+ pictures taken this year as well so it is a helpful.

I'll look into that as well, thanks!

 

[elitejp]

great posts. Just to emphasize what others have said. if your shooting something that your wanting to be able to tweak to your liking than shoot raw. If your shooting for fun and arent too concerned about color balance etc then jpg would be the better choice. RAW just gives you more flexibility to edit your pics (mainly allowing you to fix the white balance) But its a huge headache if your wanting to individually post process 100 raw pictures. Sometimes i shoot raw and sometimes i shoot jpeg.

Heres a question though as with the ability to pp using layers and such that you can do a lot of pp with jpeg with very little to no degradation, outside of raw allowing you to change the wb what else can you only do in raw?

Edited: Raw files are great to have when you need to recover blown highlights