 Rachelle P. Cooper |
JPEG Vs. Raw I am trying to decide what to shoot in Raw or JPEG, I have been doing JPEG but find my card fills up too fast, so I was thinking of trying Raw. The quality of the picture is still the same with both, right?? But don't you have to change the files over when using Raw?? What is the best option, the easiest and the best quality??
|
|
|
|
||
|
Todd Bennett |
Rachelle, This subject has been beat to death here. Search the Q&A for "Raw vs. JPEG" and you can read all the pro's and cons.
|
|
|
|
||
|
John Rhodes |
Rachelle, First of all, if your card fills up too fast with JPEGs, you won't believe how fast it fills up with RAW. For instance, with a 1GB card, I can get about 60 Raw images or 165 large fine jpegs. If your card fills up too fast, get a bigger card. Some cameras ship with a 32 MB card - not good for anything. I just ordered 2 Gb Sandisk Utra II cards from Staples for $15 each (this offer may still be good, but offers like this are available if you look.). My second point: if you have a question about "what happens if...," try it and see for yourself. The best way to learn what is possible is to experiment. Finally, yes, Raw files do require processing to "develop" and convert to TIFF, psd, or jpeg. If you are not comfortable with the extra steps involved, you might wnat to get a higher capacity card and shoot with the largest jpeg file you can use (least compression). Bottom line: RAW is superior in that the image contains much more information, so the resulting image may be better than if shot in jpeg, depending on how the file is handled. John
|
|
|
|
||
|
Richard Lynch |
Nice answer John... Summarizing: * RAW will be bigger than JPEG (not the other way around) * Getting more memory is a great way to enjoy taking more pictures (I use a portable reader/drive as well: Wolvarine). * Quality of the picture is potentially better with RAW (more bits, and no in-camera pre-processing) * RAW isn't for everyone. Some find the additional technology intimidating or bothersome. You certainly have to process a RAW file... JPEG files are, to some extent, pre-processed in the camera (which doesn't necessarily make them better, just more convenient if you don't like processing them yourself from RAW). I hope that helps!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Rachelle P. Cooper |
Hey thanks everyone for your comments!!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Angie Ray |
You've already gotten the right answers, I Do ahve to say one thing though. Richard pointed out that RAW files do need to be 'processed' which sounds like a lot of work. If you don't want to do a lot of post-production retouching etc, you can always import your RAW files with, for example, a program like Adobe Lightroom and export them as TIFFS, you don't HAVE TO process, or work on them. But then where's the point in even taking the pictures in RAW in the first place? :D I say, go with RAW, get Adobe Lightroom and you will feel like a whole new world opened up for you, I promise. It makes such a difference, both creatively and quality-wise. Angie
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||