JPEG or do you like it RAW??
- Thread starter Paranoia08
- Start date
- Status
Depending on situation. JPEG at its large or fine setting from today's DSLRs are decent and can yield quite a bit of detail, provided the exposure and settings are more or less correct from your camera, and jpeg files are easier to manage and store also. Also, you can tweak settings in camera to your liking (Picture Styles etc), and this cuts down on post-processing time.
I usually shoot JPEG settings for casual walkabout shoots or non-critical events, or when a fast turn-around time is desired. I shoot RAW if I need maximum details from the pic, and when I know I have the time and leisure to post-process it to obtain maximum results from it.
I usually shoot JPEG settings for casual walkabout shoots or non-critical events, or when a fast turn-around time is desired. I shoot RAW if I need maximum details from the pic, and when I know I have the time and leisure to post-process it to obtain maximum results from it.
Thanks alot for the clarification.
Does that means that after editing in photoshop and saving as JPEG will bring down the quality of the picture as well?
If so, what is recommended if you wanna bring your photos to develop?
Well, it all depends on the print size. Most use jpeg for pics up to 8R, keeping in mind the 300dpi specs. Ratio depends on the size you want, some are different. 2:3, 3:4, 4:5, 5:6
Anything above 8R would be better if you save it in TIF.
\
4R hehe you can get away with jpeg for sure with moderate compression. lah.
For me moderate can be a scale of 9-10 in the Photoshop setting. But for something I intend to exlarge for use as a super banner..even if I save to jpeg, I will set it to 12 in photoshop...after I have enlarge it bigger to 2-3 times its own size before saving it as jpeg. But if I am not stingy on space then I will save the work to tiff. Big but all the details and information are intact.
RAW for critical images. JPEG if I just want to take a snapshot of the scene for documentation.
ya that is true. I personally shoot in jpeg when I am on walk about...but then again I set things up carefully in my camera setting. And I also tend to bracket my shots..that way I am sure at least one will be best exposed....in my view that is.
But if I am in a country on tour, I am not going to get another chance to go again or a scene that comes by rarely..eg. I wil switch to RAW man heheh...extra kiasu just in case that chance never come back again heheh
Have shot in JPEG for the past 1 month since i started photography but just switched to RAW last week and i like it! Has more options for editting and although you have to take more steps to save the file, it gives more control. Still trying to explore the options in editting raw pictures ;D
I routinely shot RAW. Even if the final picture needs minimal PS in jpg, i will still backup that RAW anyway, since space is really not an issue. When there is a file that needs abit more editing and salvaging, the RAW will come handy.
Ryan
Ryan
Haha...
Me too...
I shoot in Raw, save as JPEG but back up the original raw..
For compression in PS, i still use 12(Max), although developing in 4R... hehe
Kiasu la.... :embrass:
I also did not understand this point when I first heard about RAW. But after playing with RAW, I find I prefer the picture quality when I shoot in RAW compared with JPEG. RAW pictures hold the information in a photo better than JPEG pictures. Tweaking a photo in RAW, you may consider it to have 100% information after you've converted. That's as much information as you are going to get out your RAW file with those settings.
Whatever you do to your jpeg picture in photoshop, you are losing information (in fact, any picture format that is edited, you lose information whether editing a GIF, BMP, JPEG, TIFF etc...). Every time you do leveling, or curves, or colour balancing, your picture is getting less and less information in it. This is why you should try to do all your photo-shopping on the original picture, and not on photos that have already been edited. When you adjust photos in RAW, and then convert to JPEG, for example changing the exposure, or colour balance, you are not losing information as such. The software is processing the raw data that came out of sensor according to a different set of parameters chosen by you.
Your photos can all tolerate a certain amount of post-processing. If you shoot in RAW, you can withstand the most postprocessing. If you shoot in JPEG, you have much less ability to withstand tweaking.
As has been pointed out, JPEG is a lossy format, ie: information is lost when you save it as a jpeg. The designers of jpeg tried to optimize the information that is lost, and they've done a pretty good job. Additional information is lost when you perform your photoshop functions (curves, levels, balancing etc...) regardless of the format you save in. When you adjust the exposure in photoshop, the photo has less information after than it did before. When you adjust the exposure in RAW, the information has been processed differently. Thus you may consider that the information has not been lost.
Because of this, you can under or over expose photos by 3 stops and still get a useable picture if you shoot in RAW (although it won't look as good as if you got the exposure right). If you under or over expose a photo by 3 stops and you're saving to jpeg, you are going to have a much harder time getting a useable picture out of that, and it may indeed not be possible. If it is possible, your resultant photo will be very fragile, in that any further editing may quickly render it unuseable.
It comes down to how much post-processing your pictures will need to tolerate. If you shoot perfect exposure and never need any post-processing, you may as well shoot in jpeg. If you anticipate needing some or lots of post-processing, then shoot in RAW. I always need postprocessing, so I always shoot in RAW.
- Status
Similar threads
