Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Why RAW instead of JPEG?

Discussion

6 replies
Posted by SandyRichardsBrown on November 8, 2013 at 10:09 PM
A good explanation with images to show why RAW is preferable to JPEG, for those still reluctant to change:

http://www.texaschicksblogsandpics.com/why-i-shoot-raw-instead-of-jpg/?utm_source=Texas+Chicks+Blogs+and+Pics+Rooster+Roster&utm_campaign=66d2a1d902-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN+060713&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_f5476c9a5e-66d2a1d902-219582318#

(sorry, don't know how to post this as a short link, can anyone tell me? thanks)

Sandy
Posted by Greg Vaughn on November 9, 2013 at 12:39 AM
That's a very good explanation, IMO, of the differences between RAW and JPEG, and the reasons for using either or both. For those who have not tried it before, I recommend experimenting with setting the camera for RAW+JPEG and having the JPEG setting selected as "Landscape" or "Vivid".

Two ways to shorten that link, Sandy:
(1) use a service like http://www.bitly.com to make any URL just a few characters long.
(2) you can copy and paste the link, and then delete everything from the ?utm on. The "?utm_source=...." is for the benefit of the original poster, and shows how someone got to their site (in this case, through a link in an email campaign).
Posted by Paul DeCesare on November 9, 2013 at 1:02 AM
Interesting article and comments afterwards. I'm surprised the subject is still discussed. Shooting JPEG means shooting Raw then the camera's firmware throws away image data to make it 8 bit, then compresses it. THEN it writes the JPEG to your card. How could anyone want the camera to delete data before saving the image? Not really looking for an answer... :biggrin: (file size is now irrelevant, cardspace and disk drives are stupid cheap).

Anyway, that paragraph should start some good :argue: !

The author was dead on about one thing though: Raw is a word describing the format and JPEG is an acronym, so we shouldn't write Raw in all caps which I am guilty of.
:cool:
Posted by Nancy de Flon on November 9, 2013 at 8:07 AM
The editor in me is grateful for the explanation of the spelling of RAW! As for my own work, now that I've bought a Nikon D7100 and Photoshop CS5 doesn't support the Raw files, I'm glad I also have Lightroom 5 and can process the Raw files there. Same goes for my Canon G15.
Posted by Myer Bornstein on November 9, 2013 at 9:40 AM
Tim Grey in his latest issue of Pixology also has an article about shooting Raw-JPEG and why it is not necessary in this day and age
Posted by Paul Breitkreuz on November 9, 2013 at 9:41 AM
Sandy, you can shorten URL links by using the information here at NPN by reviewing the Text Style Menu listed at the point of every comment entry.

Text Style Menu
Posted by Mike Ramy on November 9, 2013 at 11:58 AM
My 2 Cents . . .
The analogy between shooting in Raw versus JPEG was told to me by a Canon Executive who was a member of a photo tour that I did several years ago when the whole Raw format explosion was just starting. He compared it to baking cookies, yes that’s right, Baking Cookies. If you buy processed cookie dough at the store, you open the package, cut to size, put on a baking sheet and when they come out of the oven, you have what you have with limited processing to refine to suit your taste (JPEG).
If you make cookies from scratch, you can change, alter, add or subtract ingredients to develop cookies that suit your taste for whatever your in the mood for each time you bake a batch (Raw).
This analogy has some obvious overtones that clearly may have influenced the article that Sandy has posted.