Raw vs JPEG Debate

[Alan T]

Steven R wrote:

Something to think about.

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

Brilliant link, thanks!

Also I recommend anyone worried about these issues to take a series of carefully recorded & noted test shots, on a tripod, of a scene with lots of detail in it. Save theshots in each of the sizes & compressions offered by the camera.

Then compare these shots alongside each other in any image editor, magnified enough to see the individual pixels. Measure the RGB values of pixels using tools such as the 'eye dropper' in Paint Shop Pro.

I've done this each time I've acquired a new camera, and made labelled test prints of hugely enlarged bits of images, to remind myself later.

It's easy enough to determine what resolution and what compression you need for different purposes. If you can't see the difference, why save a much bigger image? This technique has led me to save vast quantites of disk space by shooting a lot fewer pixels, and JPEG compressing them more, unless I anticipate....

- heavy cropping (the zoom wouldn't reach);

- lots of post-processing; or...

- the shot of a lifetime

Even so, if you have a good lens, modest numbers of pixels and high compression will merely return you to where we all were just a few years ago, or just to your last camera's standards, and still produce excellent results.

Then you can get on with the creative bit!

[ahill876]

Why is RAW the one compared to being like film photgraphy?

[Bob Nichol]

RAW would be like shooting negative film where you have a chance to correct any flaws when printing. JPEG has less leeway for corrections.

[stowaway7]

If you have a big enough memory card shoot RAW + JPEG if your camera is capable of it.

[nixter]

Personally I don't really see why there would be any debate. They are different formats with different purposes.

[stowaway7]

tjsnaps wrote:

As for that shot of Elvis dancing with Big Foot... I figure the men in black will just confiscate my memery card anyway.

...and erase yours as well.

[TCav]

Is RAW better that JPEG?

YES! ... and no.



Are Primes better than Zooms?

YES! ... and no.



Is Available Light better than Flash?

YES! ... and no.



What did you expect? :-)

[msantos]

Kalypso escribió:

I shoot RAW like a negative in 35mm...

RAW is the only Digital Negative you have from an image. It can not be modified or duplicated (if you don't share it, of course).

Most the time I shoot on JPEG, but for that special picture, to be sold, public displayed or published, I always shoot in RAW.

If there is any kind of controversy about who is the original author of an image, or if it has been modified, a RAW file saves you.

[Nathan W]

Bill Drew,
How did you take that photo of the horse and rider in multiple stages? I know it was burst mode, but how did you put it together, and that too without clearly visible stitching lines? I love it!
Nathan

[BillDrew]

I used PTGui to stitch them as a panorama, output the image as a masked PSD, then manually adjusted the location of the stitch lines to avoid cutting the horse in half. If you want to learn how to do that, start by doing some simpler panoramas.