Shooting RAW Vs Jpg - Advantages / Disadvantages

ajamils

ajamils

Well-known member
Like many new GH1 users, I'm a newbie with DSLR and GH1 and I'm still trying to learn all the photography jargon. One thing that always come up (when talking with professionals) is preference of shooting RAW vs jpg. Mostly prefer to shoot RAW so that they can edit images to their heart content but others prefer jpeg because they are easier to use, print and distribute.


Now my question is, is it better to shoot RAW with GH1 or does GH1's internal processing is good enough to get away with shooting jpeg ? The reason why I'm concerned is because my pics do not look as good as my uncles D70 or my cousins D50 (shooting jpg). Am I doing something wrong ?
 
It is an advantage to shoot raw, and it does take away some of the JPEG blurriness, but its hard to notice the difference unless you're printing your photos at A3 or larger!

The GH1 has a very good JPEG image processor by digital camera standards. A lot better than the D70.

Of more concern should be the lens you use.

Raw is helpful for adjusting white balance after the shot has been taken, and gives you a bit more detail and dynamic range to play with.
 
My main reason for shooting raw is that allows me to edit in post. But I switch to jpeg if it's not something I really care about, as opposed to more professional work. There is no direct quality difference that I've ever been able to tell if you don't edit in post.
 
solution jpeg+raw....
always shoot raw. every major photographer will tell you to never shoot or save a picture in jpeg for something serious.
if you're just shooting pictures to up to the web to myspace then save the space and shoot jpeg.
 
Agreed. If you have the space, shoot RAW. You never know when something you thought was only destined for a low rez output (comparatively) may end up wanting to go to a higher quality venue.
 
my pics do not look as good as my uncles D70 or my cousins D50 (shooting jpg). Am I doing something wrong ?
Click to expand...
Not much to go on there. What do you mean by 'not as good'?
 
D70 had a lot more natural look with colors poping and giving picture an almost 3d look while Gh1 pics had a "processed" look.
 
You're taking your pictures wrong.

Framing, lighting, processing in post. Those make a good photo. Not switching a setting on or off. Technology hasn't changed the fundamentals, and you can get a great looking shot with a consumer camera if the rest is done well. But using raw files will allow you to handle the last part of that- processing- a lot better, and if there's an issue with how the camera is dealing with photos you can make up for it yourself.

The main difference I think you'll see is that it makes you value each shot a little better, since it's not going to be done for a while. That way you are careful to pick out only the best. Always be hard on yourself in that regard.
 
Last edited:
Cassius said:
The main difference I think you'll see is that it makes you value each shot a little better, since it's not going to be done for a while. That way you are careful to pick out only the best. Always be hard on yourself in that regard.
Click to expand...
I'm not a photographer, so I don't really have a point of view here, but I've read that some photographers think that shooting JPEG makes one value each shot more because RAW provides much more leeway to "fix it in Photoshop." So because everything's "baked in" for JPEGs, there's a supposedly a greater urgency to get everything right the first time, while the picture is being snapped.

Again, that's not what I think, because I'm not a photographer, but I just thought that I'd provide an exact counterpoint to your point.
 
ajamils said:
One thing that always come up (when talking with professionals) is preference of shooting RAW vs jpg. Mostly prefer to shoot RAW so that they can edit images to their heart content but others prefer jpeg because they are easier to use, print and distribute.
Click to expand...
I've heard that the large majority of photographers actually prefer JPEG. But I'm not familiar with that world, so I wouldn't know. I personally thought it strange when I read/heard it, because I would assume that most serious photographers would prefer the uncompromised quality and greater tweakability of RAW.
 
Most photographers prefer RAW, I dont know where you read that one, but raw is the closest thing we have to a film negative. Imagine you could shoot raw with HD video?
 
I guess that perspective makes sense, too, vdgmdly, but its different values. That may help people not decide to put things off in the image and get lazy, but my meaning is more that it takes so much work to actually finish a photo that it, psychologically, seems like less of a commodity. At least that's how it works with me. Professional photographers are also known for deleting or throwing out most of their/our work, keeping only the few acceptable shots.http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/member.php?u=19062
 
From all the replies the conclusion I got is that I should continue using jpeg because there isn't much of an advantage of using RAW for people who do not do professional work. I only use my GH1 to take pics of home events so its nothing critical and I can get away with using jpeg.
 
it's the exact opposite man. if you're just learning photography shoot RAW. you can easily screw up a photo shooting jpeg and then face palm yourself wishing you'd shot RAW. if a professional chooses to shoot jpeg(which is just pretentious anyway) it's because they're just that, a pro.
 
Car3o said:
it's the exact opposite man. if you're just learning photography shoot RAW. you can easily screw up a photo shooting jpeg and then face palm yourself wishing you'd shot RAW. if a professional chooses to shoot jpeg(which is just pretentious anyway) it's because they're just that, a pro.
Click to expand...


:huh:
 
It is really amazing how much this gets discussed in various photography forums! :)

The truth is that both JPEG and RAW have advantages over the other. It is up to you to figure out what works best for you. I personally prefer JPEG and have avoided raw for many years. That doesn't mean I think everyone should use JPEG though! I totally understand the advantages of RAW and one of these days I may switch over.

Advantages of JPEG: Smaller Files, Compatibility with most programs, faster on many cameras, easier to deal with in general.

Advantages of RAW: Higher quality image, way more control in post processing (setting white balance, contrast, sharpness, etc).

I understand why professionals would want to shoot RAW and have ultimate control over their images. I tend to be that way myself. However, in most circumstances the differences just aren't that big. I have done a number of comparisons between the same photo shot in RAW and JPEG and it can be very difficult to see the difference. Image quality wise you can really only see the differences when viewed at 100%. Colors, contrast, etc. can be a bit different of course, but I have always been able to adjust a JPEG in Photoshop to get both images looking almost identical.

So the bottom line is go with what makes you happy. If you want ultimate control over the final image with highest possible IQ then RAW is the way to go. Be prepared to spend more time post processing and also realize you will have to invest time and possibly money into a good program for editing the RAW files (such as Lightroom, Photoshop, etc).

-shawn-
 
To possibly shed a little light: I took a few shots with my Canon EOS DSLR in JPEG + RAW mode so it was the exact same shot.

Took the pics all into aperture, and tried to move them to different color bias and also try and bring out jpeg artifacts. My conclusion was that JPEG did have the baked in color processing, but I could accomplish 80% of the manipulation of the RAW with a file 1/8th the size, before bringing out artifacts.

The clear advantage was having the RAW ONLY adjustments, such as sharpening, exposure, etc. But even with exposure, I could get most of my highlights back with the JPEGs too, just not as much.

So for me, it settled things as this: If you have the space, shoot raw, why not? If real estate is even a small concern, you can do almost everything with jpeg. The biggest issue would be banding with 8-bit on gradients with a jpeg, but it's rare to get gradients that severe.

For video, it definitely made me think twice about the RAW workflow, so much more work for a slight advantage. A better advantage is to shoot uncompressed or to a visually lossless codec. RAW is compressed in some cinema camera systems, and the RAW does not make up for compression.

Hope this helps, but remember it's only one pair of eyes and one man's opinion. Cheers!
 
If you have photoshop, you can open jpegs in camera raw through bridge... you have all the controls of a raw file. That being said, you're still starting with whatever your jpeg file had "baked into it"... Other than that, you lose no quality afaik
 
there isn't ever a reason not to shoot raw if you have the room on your media. raw is like having cake and eating it too. but if you want the cake but don't have the room to eat it, then shoot jpeg. jpeg and raw are equal in "quality", but never equal in control in post. sure you can adjust white balance and things like that in jpeg now, but not nearly as much as you can in raw. raw offers the person correcting the photo way more room to control than jpeg ever will. i open jpegs in raw mode, but that's because i like raw controls. you're still stuck with 8bit of information vs 16-32 bit raw. jpeg compression is always against you. and always will be. that said, sure, you'll never see a difference in picture quality, right out of the camera, but try to correct something in jpeg vs raw and you'll be asking yourself why you ever shot jpeg to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top