Skip to Content

JPG or RAW Photography

Discuss and share your wildlife photography, filming and equipment

Moderator: lion queen

User avatar
arks
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 4108
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:53 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA (and home from home in Darling, WC)

Unread postby arks » Sat Oct 01, 2005 3:06 pm

Meg wrote:I almost always shoot jpeg, I don't like to digitally manipulate my images though - I prefer my digital experience to feel like I'm still shooting slides and must get it right first time :). However, when shooting long exposures at night I always shoot RAW so that I can correct reciprocity failure. Also, if I were to come across something really rare in the bush I'll switch to RAW - just in case!


Interesting insight, Meg. As a digital newbie, I'd already decided that I choose to shoot JPEG fine, for much the same reasons. I'd not considered that there might be excellent reasons for occassionally shooting RAW and I'm very glad of the tip 8) Thanks!!

User avatar
Loams
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:48 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Unread postby Loams » Sun Oct 02, 2005 4:23 pm

Meg wrote:I almost always shoot jpeg, I don't like to digitally manipulate my images though - I prefer my digital experience to feel like I'm still shooting slides and must get it right first time


Hi Meg, I have the same feeling that you have, although my skill and experience level is not the same as yours. I wonder what the general concensus of this is in the industry. It is so easy to correct an overexposed pic or manipulate that irritation blade of grass to disappear so it doesn't steal the attention from your subject. Is it frowned upon? Or is it just accepted as something that moved on and it's the new way of doing things?

Feels very much like cheating to me
Operation "Duke" Member

Being African is not determined by race, but by what's in your heart

User avatar
Jay
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 1451
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 7:10 pm
Location: Golden Mile,West Coast, CFG

Unread postby Jay » Sun Oct 02, 2005 7:00 pm

Digital manipulation is a very contentious issue "in the industry", I don't think the fun has even started yet! I see even GETAWAY mentioned having disqualified some of the entries into the Fujifilm competition due to manipulation.

As for the JPEG versus RAW, the fundis in the industry say the technology in the latest better model cameras has made JPEG format good enough to shoot in unless you are going to greatly enlarge your pics.
This makes me, for one, really happy as I feel the same way Meg does about "fiddling" with a pic.

vkalia
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:11 pm

Unread postby vkalia » Thu Oct 06, 2005 6:17 pm

Digital manipulation gets a bad rap, as people tend to combine/confuse digital manipulation with digital processing.

Let's start by clearly defining the terms, atleast as I am using them.

Digital manipulation, to me, is the act of introducing things that were not there, or removing things that were. Cloning out objects, pasting in objects, etc. This stuff is fine for commercial photography, or even for fine art, but as far as nature photography goes, most people consider it off-limits.

Digital processing, on the other hand, is a different kettle of fish. This refers to the act of adjusting exposure, contrast & saturation. This is nothing new. There was this fella called Ansel Adams who was a master of this. He used a darkroom, and by using special techniques to process the negatives and make prints, was able to get manipulate contrast and dynamic range to an amazing degree.

People still do it today - the use of high saturation films (Velvia) or low-contrast films (Portra), choice of papers, pushing exposure, cross-processing, etc. Digital processing is performing exactly the same type of arrangements, but with far greater control and scope.

Slide film covers only 5 stops. 5 stops isnt enough to represent the real world. Each slide film has its own color rendition - with digital postprocessing, one can choose whatever rendition one wants.

We have to make a choice - what is our standard of reference here: our vision of the real world, or a piece of celluloid's rendition of the real world? If the former, then lets stop thinking of "slide films" as the ultimate arbiter of what is and what isnt correct in photography.

In short - digital post-processing is just another way to get the final images to look like what we had visualized.

Vandit
www.photosafariindia.com
Wildlife/nature appreciation and photography tours in India

User avatar
richardharris
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Location: Nottinghamshire UK

Unread postby richardharris » Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:44 pm

I regard RAW as taking a negative which needs processing. This is the same as the camera does when producing the jpg picture - so there is no difference in the final photo as far as representing the actual scene.

The big advantage of good RAW software is that it will produce better results than the limited software built into the camera.

The other advantage is that RAW is lossless, and can produce a lossless tiff file. This means some manipulation can be done without losing quality. jpg is a lossy system and gets worse every time use save it.

There is one type of editing I do have to do occasionally, which is a problem of digital SLRs. Dust on the sensor sometimes shows up on clear blue skies as 'blobs' and these can be quickly removed with photoshop. I think this is an allowable manipulation!

The other area where external programs really excel over the camera software is sharpening - especially PS CS2 which has a new type of sharpening system.

The huge drawback of RAW is the time taken up!! - but its worth it.

Richard

User avatar
Loams
Senior Virtual Ranger
Senior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 864
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 8:48 am
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

Unread postby Loams » Thu Oct 06, 2005 8:55 pm

Interesting input you guys thanks. I suppose this is a hotly debated topic in camera circles???
Operation "Duke" Member



Being African is not determined by race, but by what's in your heart

vkalia
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 5:11 pm

Unread postby vkalia » Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:38 am

Actually, it isnt that hotly debated (or maybe it is, and I've just avoided those debates). The way I see it, I'm happy to discuss the merits of what is better, but I don't care one way or the other if someone else follows it or no. Never understood why people get so possessive about cameras. Girls and cars - I can understand. Cameras? Good grief, get a life, I sez.

The general consensus pretty much is as reached on this group - if you generally need the best possible results and know how to post-process, shoot RAW. If you don't want to spend a lot of time tweaking your image, or are only printing up to A4 size prints, shoot JPEG, adjusting the color/contrast sliders to taste.

JPEG/Fine comes pretty close to RAW in most cases.

Vandit

PS: As Richard said, cloning out dust specks is the one instance of digital manipulation (technically) that is universally accepted as being allowed.

PPS: Hi Hedrus! Am finally taking out that swivel head you had made for me in a week and a half (been busy with admin work since I got back, no time to shoot).
www.photosafariindia.com

Wildlife/nature appreciation and photography tours in India

User avatar
Meinfam
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 8:18 am
Location: RSA

Unread postby Meinfam » Tue Oct 11, 2005 8:02 am

We shoot RAW and found that 1GB per day per camera
( Sigma SD10 and Minolta D7 ) can do the trick.
Maybe a 512 MB back-up.

We offload to a laptop WITHOUT a editing program, thus in the evenings no EDITING.

Additional storing space is essential if u shoot RAW.

MeinÆ’am

User avatar
lecter
Posts: 50
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:43 am
Location: Thailand

Method or Ideology?

Unread postby lecter » Fri Nov 04, 2005 4:42 am

I use it as an Ideology.

Shooting Jpg probably makes you a better photographer quicker, as you have to get it "more right" than you do with a RAW file. But RAW will ultimately get you more out of your photos and your photography (this is a whole other discussion)

But you have to make the ideological decisions regarding storage, computing power CF cards and the like.

If you're worried about putting more images on a 128MB card, you're ideologically in the wrong camp, and should stick with jpg.

Always remember RAW records what you presented to the senor. Jpg is a representation that you camera manufacturer makes of it through it's own algorithms. Your choice!!

Cheers

Rob
------------------------
Cogito Ergo Sum
Caveat Lector
http://www.1ds.com

User avatar
Ollie
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 253
Joined: Thu Sep 29, 2005 2:38 am
Location: California

Method or Ideology?

Unread postby Ollie » Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:24 am

So what are you saying? :hmz: You have some opinions on this :?: He he he :lol: Agree jpg. is already processed in the camera vs. RAW's capture allowing you to do more after the fact... again a personal choice

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Re: Method or Ideology?

Unread postby bert » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:21 pm

Ollie wrote:So what are you saying? :hmz: You have some opinions on this :?: He he he :lol: Agree jpg. is already processed in the camera vs. RAW's capture allowing you to do more after the fact... again a personal choice


But if you are into making large pictures, say 30 x 40, RAW is the best. jpg. always results in quality loss. And RAW can be edited as many times as you want, as long you keep the original

User avatar
j-ms
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 303
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:55 pm
Location: Schoenmakerskop (near Port Elizabeth)

Unread postby j-ms » Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:29 pm

Sometimes equipment is the dictator. I shoot with a 300D so despite prefering shooting with RAW to facilitate better post-processing, there are situations where JPEG is more suitable because the buffer cannot handle lots of action in RAW. Just this morning I was tearing my hair out because the buffer was full and I was trying to get shots of a Rufous-eared Warbler as it displayed.

User avatar
elpaco
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 177
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:15 am
Location: Paris

JPEG or RAW

Unread postby elpaco » Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:25 pm

I just bought a new camera
With my old one, I could only save pictures in jpeg
now I have read in the -very small- notice that I can save them in jpeg or in raw.

being no expert at all, could someone please explain to me the difference between the 2 and which one I should use ?
thanks
LIT, CIT, AWCIT, ROTR membership

User avatar
richardharris
Junior Virtual Ranger
Junior Virtual Ranger
Posts: 538
Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 3:04 pm
Location: Nottinghamshire UK

Unread postby richardharris » Fri Jul 27, 2007 7:32 pm

I am sure you will find several references to this on this site.

A brief summary; a RAW file is literally what comes off the camera sensor. Without considerable processing it means very little. Your camera will do all sorts of processing to the RAW file (colour balance and sharpening for instance) whilst converting it to a picture file which you can see on any computer - usually a .jpg file. Many point and shoot cameras do this and only save the jpg.

Better cameras and all SLRs will save either or even both. Why? So you can do the processing yourself on the RAW file on your computer and nearly always get a better result than the camera does. Thats the main advantage. The disadvantage is that you have to process every file!

Other disadvantages are the RAW file will be bigger (so few per memory chip), and you will need special software to do the processing.

But the results are worth the effort.

Richard

User avatar
bert
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Distinguished Virtual Ranger
Posts: 17184
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 9:02 pm
Location: mind in SA, body in The Netherlands

Unread postby bert » Fri Jul 27, 2007 9:00 pm

Can only
If you want to adjust the image with photoshop or any other sofware programme RAW is the only method.
But if you want to display the images straight on the computer JPEG is fine


Return to “Wildlife Photography Enthusiasts”