RAW vs Jpeg

[r6isnum1]

I know this isn't the first time this has come up and I'm sure it wont be the last. To my understanding the advantage to shooting in RAW is that you had the ability to change the White Balance in post processing. I've had Lightroom for some time now but never really played around with it as I have always shot Jpeg. I recently upgraded to the 1.3.1 version of LR and opened a Jpeg file and it seem to let me do everything I'm able to do with a RAW file. Now I'm not sure why I would want to shoot in RAW. An obvious downside is that the Raw files on my 40d are an average of 12 mb.

[Shelby Lane]

It's not just the white balance. It's the control. I can add contrast etc in my raw conversions and not be messing with the quality like it would for a JPEG. There is also the advantage of having slightly more latitude when it comes to exposure, but i hate to even talk about that because if I shoot it, I want it to be exposed properly from the start, LOL.

[bondarnes]

As a comparison to film, a RAW digital file is like having a film negative and scanning it, where a JPEG digital file is like having a print to scan. If the print is really good you might get a decent scan, but if the print is bad then you may be out of luck. I always shoot in RAW + JPEG and burn those to a DVD. To me that is like having an original negative and a proof. If the proof is good then that is all I need, but if I am going to print enlargements then I am going to go back to my original negative/RAW image for that.

[r6isnum1]

hmm that's a really good idea. Thanks for the quick replies ya'll.

[Shelby Lane]

Originally Posted by bondarnes

As a comparison to film, a RAW digital file is like having a film negative and scanning it, where a JPEG digital file is like having a print to scan. If the print is really good you might get a decent scan, but if the print is bad then you may be out of luck. I always shoot in RAW + JPEG and burn those to a DVD. To me that is like having an original negative and a proof. If the proof is good then that is all I need, but if I am going to print enlargements then I am going to go back to my original negative/RAW image for that.

Don, you have such a knack for explanations. Thank you for this one.

[bondarnes]

Thanks Shelby. I don't remember hearing this analogy from someone else like most of the ideas I quote on here. Maybe I actually had an original thought.

[toverman]

I shoot everything raw because (at least in a good, in-focus shot) I know I've captured as much detail as I can (see comments above).

It is good to shoot in RAW mode, but not in the raw. That is illegal in most places.

[Shelby Lane]

Originally Posted by toverman

It is good to shoot in RAW mode, but not in the raw. That is illegal in most places.

Oh, wow. Thanks for the heads up. That explains why I keep getting chased out of locations.

[Shane Jennings]

As a DLSR novice, an advantage I've seen for shooting RAW is that when I make PP adjustments to the RAW file, I learn how I should have had my camera set when I took the picture. I am learning what white balance settings work best in different situations. I get to see different exposure levels, contrast, saturation, and such. And I can do that without screwing up my "negative".

I haven't learned how to get a RAW file to put something into focus that I captured OOF though.

[Hogleg 44]

My View, in simple terms!!

In jpg, the camera gets to make nearly all of the decisions on the image processing.

With Raw, you get to make most of those decisions.