[Fred Quimby]

Hi, Im fairly knew to Digital Photography, the last camera I bought was a Pentax Spotmatic 500, a few years ago.

Can anyone tell me anything about taking pictures on Raw as opposed to Jpegs. I have just recently bought a Nikon D40 and Im fairly well pleased with it.

I will never print anything bigger than 10"x8" and most of my prints will probably be around 7"x5". Plus the usual collections on the harddrive.

I know basically,that Raw will give a better picture,but how good will it be,as they take up a lot file space on the SD card.

Any help on this would be very much appreciated,thanks in advance.

[GBDG1]

It's incorrect to say that RAW gives better quality. It gives you more input into how the picture looks, but the quality is no different.

Some people like shooting in RAW as it gives you the ability to adjust

-exposure
-white balance

and a few other bits and bobs. Personally I am not bothered as you can do most of the adjustments to JPEG in photoshop.

It is really down to personal preference.

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

It's incorrect to say that RAW gives better quality. It gives you more input into how the picture looks, but the quality is no different.

Some people like shooting in RAW as it gives you the ability to adjust

-exposure
-white balance

and a few other bits and bobs. Personally I am not bothered as you can do most of the adjustments to JPEG in photoshop.

It is really down to personal preference.

Sorry, But I really have to disagree with this.

There are advantages to shooting RAW over JPG.

Your RAW images will be 12bit, compared to 8bit. Basically speaking this gives you more information per pixel. Try pulling out highlight detail or shadow detail on a JPG, then a RAW file to see the difference. You can also make your basic tonal and colour adjustments in 12bit before converting to 8bit. Again, this will enable you to resolve far more data than the JPG files.

In my experience with the D50, the RAW images are indeed 'better quality' and slightly sharper. This may well be down to the camera processor 'overcooking' the JPG comapred to the untouched RAW, whatever it is.. they are better. FACT.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

It's incorrect to say that RAW gives better quality. It gives you more input into how the picture looks, but the quality is no different.

Some people like shooting in RAW as it gives you the ability to adjust

-exposure
-white balance

and a few other bits and bobs. Personally I am not bothered as you can do most of the adjustments to JPEG in photoshop.

It is really down to personal preference.

I totally disagree with that.

RAW is either non-compressed or far less compressed than JPG. JPG is a lossy format that throws away data that can never be recovered. Shooting RAW means you have the data that can then be used. Shooting JPG means you let a camera decide what conversion parameters to use, not you. There is absolutely no question that shooting RAW allows you to end up with a file of higher quality than shooting JPG. Whether you can access that quality means you need to know what you're doing with a RAW converter, but that doesn't mean the quality isn't there.

Look at a JPG straight out of a 400D and then compare that to a JPG converted from RAW and tell me there's no difference.

(Liquid just beat me to it).

[mjw123]

Remember he has a D40 though where the jpg quality out of the cam is claimed to be superior to the Canons.

I may move to raw eventually but it's an extra faff in my eyes and i'm pretty pleased with the jpgs i'm getting out of my D40 so far.

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by mjw123

Remember he has a D40 though where the jpg quality out of the cam is claimed to be superior to the Canons.

It might well be, but this is about RAW vs JPG, not Nikon vs Canon and in this contest there is no argument.

The reply to the OP is fundamentally wrong.

[vulkan75]

If your not planning on Lots of Pp and you just want camera processed Jpgs You may as well have bought a point and shoot.

Shooting Raw gives you every detail thats exposed to the sensor, it speaks for itself the quality will show,and one of the reasons Dslrs Are set apart from P&sl cameras.

Shoot in Raw...Its not hard in a simple program like picasa to sharpen and adjust saturation and contrast etc.youll get better reslts than letting the camera do it thats for sure.

[senu]

I agree , the more I shoot RAW ( with whichever camera) the happier I am that I have the potential to extract the last bit of detail ( and also fix WB? exposure issues with just 5 min time on PP.. You don't need more time once you incorporate it in your work flow..and if you get it wrong .. your original RAW image is not changed forever

[Tobers]

RAW is like having a film negative which you can then play about with as much as you like.

JPEG is like taking a print from that negative, and then trying to make adjustments from that.

Looked at this way, you clearly have more flexibility with RAW. If you like post-processing, this is the way to go. If you are happy with no post-processing, you can be relaxed and content with your JPEGs.

[Peakoverload]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

It's incorrect to say that RAW gives better quality. It gives you more input into how the picture looks, but the quality is no different.

Some people like shooting in RAW as it gives you the ability to adjust

-exposure
-white balance

and a few other bits and bobs. Personally I am not bothered as you can do most of the adjustments to JPEG in photoshop.

It is really down to personal preference.

Sorry to reiterate what others have said but that statement is utterly wrong. I'll agree that for day-to-day shots the difference between jpeg and RAW isn't a huge amount but to infer that jpeg is of equal quality to RAW is completely misleading.

Anyway, back to the OP question.

Don't feel that you have to shoot RAW, many pro's don't shoot RAW all the time because jpeg quality is often good enough. However if you really want to unleash the full potential of your camera than it is worth at least experimenting with it. Basically, in terms of actually taking photo's, there is no difference between RAW and Jpeg with the exception that some people will say that you don't have to be as accurate with the exposure as you can always adjust it later. Whilst this is true up to a point it is highly recommended to get the exposure right in camera as this will only increase the dynamic range of your photos. The only complicated thing about RAW is the processing. RAW generally can't be read by your operating system in the same way that JPEG can and so special RAW processing software is needed. No doubt your camera will have come with some Nikon software for this and this should be your first port of call. Generally speaking most of the parameters you can change are self explanatory and many RAW editors also have an auto mode/setting where the software will attempt to make the best choice of settings. Basically have a play. One of the great things about RAW is that it's non destructive meaning that any changes you make to the RAW file are not saved to it permanently so you can always revert it back to how it was shot.

If you get more into it you may want to experiment with other RAW editors as there are some that do a better job than others. Recently I compared 4 of the more popular ones on my website which, if you do decide to get more into RAW, you might find interesting http://www.peakoverload.com/blog/pho...-raw-deal.html

HTH

[Yandros]

Another vote for RAW here.

Actually I'm a recent convert, as my old Nikon 5700 wrote RAW files so slowly it was unusable. The best compromise for me was to save the jpgs in Paint Shop Pro lossless .psp format, so at least any PP work didn't reduce the quality still further.

At the moment I'm shooting RAW+jpg fine, as a belt and bracers approach. Although Ken Rockwell spouts a lot of twaddle, there is one thing he said that's worth remembering - camera specific RAW files (eg Nikon .NEF files) may be unreadable by software in a few years time. jpg files are so ubiquitous that they stand a much better chance of surviving. At work I have cupboards full of backup disks in obscure formats from 15 years ago with are completely useless

[Fred Quimby]

Thanks everyone for your help. Special thanks to Peakoverload and the web link to your site. This forum is better than a book.

As a matter of interest,Does Adobe Elements 5.0 have a Raw Editor. The best thing really is to go out and take a pile of photos in Raw and Jpeg fine,then see what happens. Thanks everyone, I feel a bit foolish now,calling myself the Nikonkid. I would have been better served calling myself the Kodak Brownie box boy.......

[vulkan75]

Elements has a Raw plug in..which is very basic.When you open aRaw file you can adgust the Exposure,brightness,saturation,contast etc etc Before going on to full edit.

It sets your prefered default settings for the Raw file.

[Holowlegs]

Hi ya


Still a newbie with Raw here but if I had the knowhow I would shot in raw all the time.
Picked up some great tips in this months Photo mags about Macro shooting, and now am at that stage were I use the av setting on the 400d and shot in raw when doing Macro.

Have played with other settings but still not sure why or when yet. Next thing I would love to learn is how to shot the bird life I have been doing in raw.

Cheers Holo

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Holowlegs

Have played with other settings but still not sure why or when yet. Next thing I would love to learn is how to shot the bird life I have been doing in raw.

Cheers Holo

The file format you're saving your images in should have no impact on what or how you shoot. Or did you mean the post-processing stage?

[Holowlegs]

What I mean is with Raw, I think it gives you a bit more control in PP on how your final picture turns out.

I haven't been shooting in Macro just because I know how to using RAW, this would be silly. I do enjoy doing certain types off macro and being able to shot in RAW I think is a benefits mean, the extra time in PP dosen't really bother me because I think the results are better.


At the moment have been shoting a lot of bird life, but would like to take this one step further and start shoting in raw in the sort of semi automatic setting on the 400d and in the end I would love to shot a lot more in manual.


Cheers Holo

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Holowlegs

At the moment have been shoting a lot of bird life, but would like to take this one step further and start shoting in raw in the sort of semi automatic setting on the 400d and in the end I would love to shot a lot more in manual.


Cheers Holo

I'm still lost mate - I don't get why the file format affects what you shoot. The exposure and metering modes you're using are unrelated to the RAW or JPG issue.

[Holowlegs]

On the 400d you can't shot Raw in automatic.

Hope this help otherwise I am lost


Cheers Holo

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by Holowlegs

On the 400d you can't shot Raw in automatic.

Hope this help otherwise I am lost


Cheers Holo

That's true and I think the reason for that is that if you don't want the creative input when you actually take the photo then the chances are you won't want the extended adjustments that RAW is capable of.

Personally I always shoot in RAW + JPG so that I can quickly and easily view all the photo's I've taken with JPG. Then I can pick the photo's I like the most and edit the RAW version. It does take up about a third more memory this way but I only keep .jpg's and edited RAW's on my HD so I know what photo's I've taken. I copy all files to an external HD and back up to DVD.

[GBDG1]

Woah should have prepared my flame suit

I think there has been some misunderstanding about what i said. Maybe the use of the word quality was confusing. All I was trying to say is that RAW will not take a higher resolution image and similarly it wont make a difference akin to having a bigger/better CCD.

I have to say that in skilled hands RAW can produce superior pictures.

[allymac123]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzi

All I was trying to say is that RAW will not take a higher resolution image

Technically true but it does/can give a sharper image which means that it uses each pixel to its utmost quality. so could be said to give a slightly higher resolution.

[GBDG1]

Sharpness? Sorry it definitely doesn't affect sharpness.

Liquid was correct in saying that for things such as highlighting shadow Raw is much better as it keeps the information in areas that jpeg wouldn't. Also I didnt at any point say that there wernt advantages to shooting RAW, of course there are. However, it's certainly not as big a difference as some people would like to make out, especially if you have photoshop.

[allymac123]

100% disagree with you on the sharpness issue there. I have taken 100% crops of a camera jpg and a RAW file. RAW was noticably sharper. You can't expect to decrease file size by 1/3 and not loose detail.

[Radiohead]

Much of that will depend on a) the in-camera parameters and b) the software you're using.

If you're a Nikon shooter and shooting NEF then only Nikon Capture will read the settings you've used in camera. If you use, say, Bibble Pro, it will simply see a flat RAW file. The same is true of Canon shooters using DPP and so on.

I have all image parameters set to 0/off in-camera anyway so I can deal with them as flat files. There are a large number of variables at play with any RAW vs JPG comparison but, all things being equal, for a given image a RAW file will produce the higher quality final file.

Holo - that makes sense to me now. I didn't know that about the 400D.

[GBDG1]

Originally Posted by allymac123

100% disagree with you on the sharpness issue there. I have taken 100% crops of a camera jpg and a RAW file. RAW was noticably sharper. You can't expect to decrease file size by 1/3 and not loose detail.

Well a RAW file isn't an image and that statement isn't true. You're showing a lack of understanding about this.

I don't really have a desire to get into an argument about this. However, I am not an idiot, my camera does shoot RAW and I am not going to not shoot RAW just be be pig headed. I do accept that it has advantages, which I have never denied. It has costs and benefits.

It would be interesting for someone (preferably with a high end camera such as a 5D) to post up 2 identical images one RAW one Jpeg, 100% crop and we can have a blind vote about which is better.

[Holowlegs]

Originally Posted by Radiohead

Much of that will depend on a)

Holo - that makes sense to me now. I didn't know that about the 400D.

we got there in the end

[Radiohead]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

It would be interesting for someone (preferably with a high end camera such as a 5D) to post up 2 identical images one RAW one Jpeg, 100% crop and we can have a blind vote about which is better.

Are we assuming that all image parameters are set to be off, or that each file is processed as well as possible (by a camera and PC/Mac respectively)?

[Liquid101]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

Sharpness? Sorry it definitely doesn't affect sharpness.

I have tested this on several occasions, and can say with certainty that it really does - I'll dig some out tomorrow.

As allymac has already pointed out. If you compress a file in the way that a JPG is compressed, you can't expect to have the same quality, detail or sharpness. JPG compression works on areas of the same tone and colour, sharp edges, by there very nature don't have this, so there is a loss of 'edge' where the compression is doing its work.

[allymac123]

Nothing done to either of them.

Obviously having to convert to .jpg the difference is not so pronounced as it would be in .TIFF or that but it is present none the less

[GBDG1]

The picture on the left looks like the camera has moved during exposure. A comparison of night shots is obviously difficult as the exposures are long and therefore there are too many variables.