1. Raw data has more dynamic range (as no curves etc. are applied, which is done before conversion to jpeg, so some extra highlight/shadow data is still available)..

2. WB, contrast, sharpness adjustments can be done on Raw files without any degradation of quality, as information about these camera settings are tagged with Raw file. In jpg files, these are in-bulit in pixel data (fully cooked up). So editing these further may result in artfacts, which might jump out when viewed/printed large..

3. Raw files have typically 12-bit data, while jpg has 8-bit data, which is compressed too. So Raw files have more data to work with..

Nevertheless, it is always prudent to use Raw+jpg option. If you like jpg, you save time. If not, then better start editing with Raw file for best results..

MWCT wrote:.

I just read in another thread about the advantages of raw includingthe ability to correct gross exposure errors. Is this the case(that you can correct stuff in raw that you can't with jpeg)? I useadobe camera raw (yes I know it's ironic) to manipulate all my jpegimages (I also keep raws since I shoot jpeg+raw) and I never reallythought about the need to go back to raw, but if there areadvantages to using raw, perhaps I should..

Regards, Ajayhttp://picasaweb.google.com/ajay0612..

1. RAW simply records the information at each pixel and the camera settings. JPEG processes in camera and, as it were, cooks the ingredients to make the dish there and then with limited scope for change after. With RAW you do the "cooking" with the luxury of time on your home PC and an ability to taste and adjust the ingredients endlessly..

2. Once you are happy with one photo you can batch process the remaining photos in RAW if you wish..

3. Typically RAW processes in 12 bit as opposed to jpeg 8bit. That means there are 2048 (? or is it more) shades between black and white compared to 256 for jpeg. That means there is a much better chance that you have not blowns the highlights or have recoverable detail in the shadows..

4. Downside of RAW is large file size and the need for some PP even if only to batch processs the lot to jpeg..

5. A good RAW processor (like Nikon Capture NX) will apply your camera presets to each RAW image. A RAW processor which cannot read that info will normally allow you to set presets as to values for displaying the image..

Most of us using digital take lots of photos then sort them and bin many. On a serious shoot I sort into "Best" "Maybe" and "Bin". I only PP the "Best" then batch convert the Maybes to jpeg binning the RAW files.Chris Elliott.

*Nikon* D Eighty + Fifty - Other equipment in Profile.

Http://PlacidoD.zenfolio.com/..

MWCT wrote:.

I just read in another thread about the advantages of raw includingthe ability to correct gross exposure errors. Is this the case(that you can correct stuff in raw that you can't with jpeg)?.

Yes.

I use.

Adobe camera raw (yes I know it's ironic) to manipulate all my jpegimages (I also keep raws since I shoot jpeg+raw) and I never reallythought about the need to go back to raw, but if there areadvantages to using raw, perhaps I should..

If you are getting the results with jpeg, then do not bother..

If you are finding you cannot eke out enough image quality and find you need to process your jpegs a lot then look at trying RAW...

First I shoot jpeg all the time. I use a pentax *istD dslr. have tried raw and got no improvement in my pics, though before my little jpeg vs raw test I thought that there would be a difference. there wasn't FOR ME. the reason I concluded was that my pics as shot in the field require almost zero processing. the great rpt great rpt great advantage of raw is the amount and type of post processing the picture taker does in the pc.

I am currently pp about 5% of all jpegs I shoot. also, I currently crop in the pc 0% of what I shoot. I do it in the camera, it's called composition..

The two great areas that raw absolutely shine in is when you have no time to properly set up the shot. the other is when the lighting is so odd or undetermined that you have no idea what it is and you have to rely on pp to give you the proper color and white balance adjustments. a possible third necessity for post-processing would be that if the camera or scene has something that you have to correct for on virtually every picture..

In other words, it all depends on the quality of pictures you are delivering to the pc. if you consistedly shoot pics and they are such that the pc is used for sorting storage and printing, like me, then you can go to the convieniece of jpeg..

But, if you find yourself adjusting correcting or fixing the iso, exposure, white balance, color, and cropping THEN you should be using raw. only you know your photographic abilities and what type of pics you are taking. for this reason, the decision to shoot raw or jpegs is yours alone based on your needs..

For me jpegs work, BUT that might not work for others. raw for others could be the way to go..

The ONLY rpt only rpt only time the shot is a jpeg is when it is brought to the computer. it is either discarded or changed(i tend to have small tweaks) on the pc in some way, then it "save as" a tiff. the jpeg is never "save" or "save as" a jpeg ever. the original jpeg is stored in a jpeg folder that is a holdall..

This keeps the as shot quality intact..

With a raw file you have to convert the file to jpeg or tiff to use it for any other purpose. you cannot print a raw file, for example. with jpegs they can be used immediately as soon as they are downloaded into the pc. as far.

As batch processing is concerned, yes it speeds up the raw conversion process, but it eliminates one of the advantages of the raw process. this is the individual care and effort an individual raw pic gets when it is not batch processed. the individual raw file gets the maxium care it needs to give it's best picture. with batch processing this is gone, you are not achieving the max from each shot. and this is the reason you are shooting raw in the first place. to me if you are batch processing, you might as well go with jpeg..

Yes, I have pe3 and cs2 and can use both..

My view. gary..

MWCT wrote:.

I just read in another thread about the advantages of raw includingthe ability to correct gross exposure errors..

I guess it depends on how 'gross' the errors are. Even when shooting raw, you want to get the exposure as correct as possible. It's not a miracle worker. Memory is cheap - use the histogram and reshoot when & if possible..

Is this the case(that you can correct stuff in raw that you can't with jpeg)?.

For me, the ability to set white balance at conversion is the biggest benefit. You can also set saturation, sharpness (I use unsharp mask as the last step), contrast. On the Canon 30D you can also change the Picture Style in DPP, but I rarely use it..

I useadobe camera raw (yes I know it's ironic) to manipulate all my jpegimages (I also keep raws since I shoot jpeg+raw) and I never reallythought about the need to go back to raw, but if there areadvantages to using raw, perhaps I should..

You could always use raw+jpg, and compare the results. If you're happy with the jpg, there's no reason to go through the added steps of raw conversion..

Mark..

I always shoot RAW. This is not what you need, however..

JPEGs are pre-processed in-camera and you have little or no control over this. In addition JPEG is a lossy format - at best it will never exactly reproduce the image you saved..

RAW has more detail, it's true. At worst 10-bits ( 1024 levels of light in each component ) and at best 14-bits ( in P&S ). However to get the use this you really do need to learn to expose properly ( which means Shutter, Aperture and Manual modes really )..

I'd actually suggest you start by learning to expose properly. Take your camera out and shoot on manual ONLY ( using JPEGS ). Shoot at different settings and combinations. Get a book on photography ( not just digital photography ). Use the histogram, in playback and/or live if you can. Do this every so often, and you will find your technique improves. You may even find you don't need RAW - why recover when you don't need to ? .

You should also shoot in Auto modes as a reference and try your own versions in Shutter, Aperture and Manual modes. You may find with practice you can outdo the camera..

If your camera has it use exposure bracketing..

The reason exposure is so very important is to minimize noise and get good colour. When you post process to recover an under-exposed image you amplify small errors to bigger ones. These become very visible noise quite quickly. Whether you use a DSLR or P&S this is true. In addition you will loose colour information and things go off-colour in post processing quite easily..

Note that low- and high-lights are most likely to produce noise and colour errors, so recovering them is very prone to problems..

Yes - shoot RAW..

First - learn basic exposure..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900.

Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..

If you are happy with the jpeg's then stick to them but try and learn (bitter experience soon does it) which shots will be tricky and then switch over to RAW. That way you get the best of both worlds because you don't need raw all the time (most modern cameras are pretty good) but can use it as a tool, like (say) spot metering _whenever it's needed_..

Regards, David.

PS If you think you need it all the time then buy a book on photography and read it, btw. This "PS" for people doing a search on "raw" or "RAW"...

Yes, I'd basically agree with that..

I should probably also say that I like post processing - you may too, in time. But regardless of whether you enjoy it or not, shooting in RAW is, as has been said, wasted without basic photography skills..

Whatever you do, do it for enjoyment if you can..

StephenG.

Fuji S9600Fuji S5200Fuji F30Fuji E900Canon A710ISPCLinuxOS..