Shoot RAW or JPEG

[Jessitt]

I am new to all of this and am still learning, so please be patient with me.

I have a D70s and love it. I have learned so much and come so far.
I am going on vacation to San Francisco to see my kids and sightsee and will be taking the D70. Should I be shooting "Vacation Pictures" in RAW or JPEG????

I really can't screw this up....need to have good pics that I can keep of scenery and of my son & daughter. I don't mind editing in in PSPXI which I recently bought and am quite overwhelmed. But I am learning!!!

Would shooting in both RAW & JPEG be taking up twice the space on my memory card??? Should I shoot in only in one of them???

Any other suggestions would be helpful.

Thanks in advance for your help,
Rich

[jcon]

If you dont mind doing post processing then shoot in RAW. I dont know what program you mentioned so I cant comment if it will read Nikons NEF file(RAW). I would suggest getting Nikon Capture NX anyway as its the best editing software for NEF files anyway. No matter the situation I always shoot RAW. I suggest you shoot in RAW. Oh, and yes, shooting both RAW and JPEG will take up alot of space, no need to really shoot both.

[K1W1]

RAW is an exact digital negative of the scene. If you are taking "must have" shots then RAW is really the only way to go because it's the only method that lets you post process the image in a non destructive manner.
I personally don't see much (or any) benefit in shooting RAW + Jpeg unless you want or need to get quick prints from the Jpeg versions of the image. Yes it uses more space on the card but not double as a jpeg image is much smaller in size than a RAW image even in the "fine" setting.
PhotoShop Pro (PSP) does support the D70s RAW images but I have never used the program so I can't comment on it's workflow or output quality. Most RAW editing programs have some sort of "auto" adjust feature which is all that you might actually need but it's still nice to be able to tweak things or get somebody else to tweak things for that special photo.

[LR Max]

Indeed, what others have said about the RAW is correct. Use it if you have pictures that need to be fiddled with.

If you are just taking pictures, then adjusting brightness/sharpness/color a wee bit (i.e. picture project stuff) the JPEG is more than enough. I run Large size with normal quality. I did some significant testing and discovered no difference between normal and fine, other than the larger image file.

I might look into knocking it down to basic here directly. I need to do testing though. And this is one of the things you can do testing on as well but the normal is all you need. Next step up would be using RAW.

[Jessitt]

I am using Paint Shop Pro XI for post processing. So to make sure I understand this correctly.....I could just as easily shoot JPEG if all I want to do is the basic fiddling stuff, as one does with Picassa, etc. or if I shoot RAW, it would enable me to do so much more in post processing.

Is that correct??

[K1W1]

I am using Paint Shop Pro XI for post processing. So to make sure I understand this correctly.....I could just as easily shoot JPEG if all I want to do is the basic fiddling stuff, as one does with Picassa, etc. or if I shoot RAW, it would enable me to do so much more in post processing.

Is that correct??

When you fiddle with a jpeg image it is destructive fiddling. It is possible to ruin a photo. When you fiddle with a RAW image it is non destructive because once you settle on the changes you then save the adjusted image as a new file (generally jpeg or tiff).

[Honest Gaza]

Shooting in RAW, enables you to have an "unprocessed" starting point that can then be manipulated with the software to apply any of the "in-camera" settings that would have been used for JPEG captures.....including sharpness, contrast, colour saturation etc.

RAW is like having all of the ingredients available to bake a cake before it has been shoved in the oven.....and you can experiment with ingredient measures.

JPEG gives you the baked cake and limits your ability to change these measures.

[K1W1]

RAW is like having all of the ingredients available to bake a cake before it has been shoved in the oven.....and you can experiment with ingredient measures.

JPEG gives you the baked cake and limits your ability to change these measures.

I think that is a really good analogy.

[Honest Gaza]

I think that is a really good analogy.

I have to confess....I stole it from "CS2 for Dummies" :D

[Jessitt]

You guys are the best. You have really clarified this for me, not only for this trip, but in general, and I think what I am going to do is gather all of the ingredients for that cake and bake it when I come back home in my Paint Shop oven.

Thanks again and I hope you all have a great holiday,

Rich
Northern VT soon to be in sunny CA

[XaiLo]

Shooting in RAW offers you the greatest lattitude when correcting your photos. The RAW format does not apply any compression or color correction to the image. Why is this important? You do not have to work around any in camera image destruction, that you can not reverse, because the camera has already dicided these processes for you. RAW also offers 36 Bits or more bit depth (you have more data to work with) vs 24 Bit for TIFF and JPEG formats. Can be deceptive and frustrating if you do not understand how to post process an image. By deceptive I mean that the image has no processing applied and if compared to a processed JPEG image one could mistakenly conclude that RAW is inferior.

Shooting in JPEG offers you file compression (small file size and loss of data which varies dependent on file size choosen) in camera color correction. This is great if you really do not want or care to do post processing. Just let the camera do it for you.

[eduardofrances]

I would use RAW for complicate shots that may need a touch or two, but for the rest jpg is fine ;)

[dallas75287]

At first I was nervous about shooting RAW, but once I did it, I never went back. It's much easier than most people think. I find it easier to correct white balance with RAW than with JPEG.

Edit..I was mistaken about not being able to shoot in RAW + JPEG. Hope I didn't confuse anyone.

[Vich]

I always shoot in JPG-Small + RAW. Just for convenience so the JPGs are thumbnails. I forefit about 10 photos out of 200 on my 2GB card.

The only time I use JPG only is if I want 600-800 photos per card rather than 200.

Quite honestly; I use RAW because it's faster to process. I don't have the time to mess with 200 photos in Photoshop.

[Jessitt]

Vich, I don't understand something you said. You said "I use RAW because it's faster to process. I don't have the time to mess with 200 photos in Photoshop."

Did you mean JPG????

Are you also saying that by shooting in JPG Small + RAW you only get 190+/-
photos on a 2MB card???

If I shoot in both JPG & RAW and then download to my computer, can I just delete whichever I want? Or if I delete a RAW image will the JPG of the same image also be deleted automatically???

Rich

[Vich]

Vich, I don't understand something you said. You said "I use RAW because it's faster to process. I don't have the time to mess with 200 photos in Photoshop."

Did you mean JPG????

Are you also saying that by shooting in JPG Small + RAW you only get 190+/-
photos on a 2MB card???

If I shoot in both JPG & RAW and then download to my computer, can I just delete whichever I want? Or if I delete a RAW image will the JPG of the same image also be deleted automatically???

RichYes, it's about 190+-. It varies slightly with each photo. I get about 210 without the small JPG "thumbnails".

It's not an official "thumbnail", it's totally separate. The RAW processor doesn't know anything about it.

That's OK for me because I like to keep the entire original session. I do a large conversion of the ones I select into a subdirectory. My photo selection workflow isn't the greatest, but my theory is that all I'll really need later is the converted RAW (ie: the large JPG created by the RAW processor - RSP). If at some future date I want to re-convert it from RAW, I know the filename so can find it immeadiately. I may delete RAW photos that are total loosers just for space savings, and I don't mind that the small-JPG gets left behind because it's so small (200K).

So; I only use the original SMALL-JPG so I can quickly preview - it helps a lot on future searches because it's so fast. Thumbnail creation only takes about 10 seconds for all 200 photos, and a WINDOWS XP PREVIEW is also nearly instant. This helps for later photo-searches and for that hurried preview of a new download.

"RAW IS FASTER" meaning the RAW processor (RSP) will import all 200 photos in about 1 or 2 minutes (Photoshop would take forever and impractical due to memory consumption), and I find it's sorting tools very rapid too. I can "process" my 200 photos in about 30 minutes. That includes selecting the 20 or 30 best; making color, levels, exposure, contrast, cropping, tilting, and some sharpening adjustments to those selected, and converting them to LARGE JPG (or TIFF if quality is critical).

Doing all that using Bridge and Photoshop would take several hours (on my underpowered laptop)

RSP (my RAW processor) also has wonderful caching. So all my sorting and edit work is "saved" for the next time I go to that directory. Warning however; it periodically gets corrupted and lost (the changes and cache), but the originals are all still there.

If it also allowed the selected originals to get physically moved, that woul be a plus; alas it doesn't. For big jobs; I copy all the RAW stuff, sort it and flag all the "loosers" for deletion, then I'm only left with the selected RAWs. Then I copy THOSE to a subdirectory together with the originals. It gets confusing having 2 copies of the original.

Note that I occassionally need to use Photoshop for things like layering adjustments; special effects like texture, color filters, and lighting; brushing touch-ups. It also has super

Adobe Bridge has a lot of similar capabilities for processing JPG, I just haven't learned to use them yet. It also has a lot of plug-ins for things like frames and copyright watermarks So; at some future date I'll probably take my selected JPG conversions and use Bridge/Photoshop to apply finishing touches to all.

One final huge advantage to RAW is that it's not alterable. So; in the confusing mess of Post Processing, you know you can't screw up the originals. So if you color "correct" on an uncalibrated monitor, you can fix you favorite and irreplacable photo-capture 4 years later when you've learned more. You don't wonder "is this the original"? JPG is "lossy", meaning every SAVE has some quality loss.

Clear as mud hua?

[XaiLo]

Nice links Vich, read through a couple thanks for sharing. #6 was a dead link when I tried it.

[wh0128]

Excellent explanation of your workflow. I have never tried RSP for my post processing, I use Photoshop because my computer can handle the memory usage. And now I'm working my way to Capture NX because Photoshop puts a whole bunch of Auto Settings that don't need to be applied, meaning I have to go back and adjust them.

Photoshop though is good for sharpening and layer adjustments, but I think NX does a better job at reproducing the image from the camera.

[K1W1]

I have never tried RSP for my post processing, I use Photoshop because my computer can handle the memory usage.

RSP is no longer available. The free version RAW Shooter Essentials 2006 is still available for download from Pixmantecs web site (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp) but it does not support the latest generation of cameras (D80, D40) and I do not believe that there will be any further development of the product.
If you want to try RAW one good option is the beta version of Adobe Lightshop (free until at least Feb 2007). Lightshop is essentially the replacement for RSP and contains many of the great workflow features.

[Vich]

RSP is no longer available. The free version RAW Shooter Essentials 2006 is still available for download from Pixmantecs web site (http://www.pixmantec.com/products/rawshooter_essentials.asp) but it does not support the latest generation of cameras (D80, D40) and I do not believe that there will be any further development of the product.
If you want to try RAW one good option is the beta version of Adobe Lightshop (free until at least Feb 2007). Lightshop is essentially the replacement for RSP and contains many of the great workflow features.

Anone have the link for free upgrade from RSP to Lightshop? I'd like to give it a try.

[K1W1]

Sorry my mistake. It's Lightroom not Lightshop.
If you have a legally registered version of RSP 2006 Adobe should have been in touch with you as you are entiled to a free version of Lightroom 1.0 when it is released.
The beta is available for download here. (http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/lightroom/)