RAW versus JPEG Formats
A jpeg is a compressed file format used for displaying and printing images. Jpeg is also called a lossy format, because repeatedly saving a jpeg file will slowly degrade the quality. RAW format contains all of the camera data captured by your camera's sensor.
Most photographers start out shooting in jpeg, because the files are smaller and you don't need a RAW editor to save them. However, RAW files store much more information, especially in the shadows and highlight areas, and allow for custom white balancing to be done. When shooting raw, white balance, shadows/highlights, tone (contrast), sharpening, color space, and exposure (to a limited extent) can be managed in your computer. An extra stop of exposure in the highlights and shadows can be recovered when shooting in raw. Many serious photographers shoot in RAW, although a few excellent macro photographers mainly shoot in jpeg because they may not have time for RAW file processing.
Let's review some differences between RAW and jpeg files formats:
RAW files
Pros
- Saves all of the data from your camera sensor
- Gives you more data to work with when adjusting color space, white balance, tone, exposure
- Has12-14 bits of color vs 8 bits in jpeg
- Has a higher dynamic range
Cons
- Needs to be converted to TIFF or JPEG to be displayed/printed
- Larger file format
- A RAW editor usually needs to be purchased, and upgraded for newer camera models
- Sometimes needs contrast adjustment
JPEG files
Pros
- Smaller format allows more photos to be stored on a memory card
- Photos can be instantly printed or displayed on the screen / web
- Some recent dSLR's, such as the Olympus E-PL2, Nikon D300 & D7000, do an excellent job of noise reduction, sharpening, exposure control, etc. when creating a jpeg, saving the user time in post-processing
Cons
- Difficult to adjust exposure, recover highlights, and change white balance
- Lossy format means repeated saves slowly degrades image quality. Repeated changes can introduce types on noise known as jpeg artifacts
TIFF is another format. Data is stored in 8-bits, but the is no loss with repeated saves, and no compression. TIFF files can be very large, and people sometimes only store TIFF files if they have done extensive processing in photoshop and want to save a lossy format.
I usually shoot in RAW + jpeg format. At first I only used jpeg files. Then I started processing raw files more often, which took up a lot of time. Now I find myself being able to get great color and exposure in my jpeg files, especially when shooting macro, and using them is saving me time. It is possible to get it "right" in camera. However, just in case I need it (and sometimes I do), I always have a raw file available for what I shoot underwater.
Here's an interesting viewpoint that goes against the grain of most people's advice, in the end you need to decide what is right for you
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
The big question - should I shoot RAW or JPEG?
It's really a personal choice. Someone shooting with a G10 recently asked me this question. I suggest you try shooting one dive in jpeg, one dive in RAW. See if you feel that the additional raw workflow is worth it to you. Try RAW first with some ambient light shots, that's where you will initially see the biggest difference in recovering contrast and some color, depending on depth. RAW + jpeg will be the answer for most intermediate and advanced photographers.
If you have a large enough memory card, and space on your hard drive (and most people will), and think you may ever want to sell photos, definitely shoot in RAW.
Keep in mind that all photos saved in RAW must be convertered to a format such as jpeg eventually to display them on the web or to print them. Your photo editing tools can't re-write a RAW file, only your camera can do that. Some RAW editors will maintain a list of edits in a separate file however.
Further Reading
Camera Settings for underwater photography
Camera sensor size, pixels, bit depth and dynamic range



Comments
Seems that some RAW-advocates
Seems that some RAW-advocates want to claim that jpeg-pictures cannot be processed at all and improved as regards colour, contrast, white-balance etc. This is fundamentally wrong and depends only on two things; the skills and the knowledge of the one doing the processing and which software is being used.
Echoing what's been said,
Echoing what's been said, this article is completely off. Anyone that can shoot raw should be doing so. The difference is huge for any sort of contrast, highlight recovery, cropping and WB issues. I don't think anyone will disagree it's better to get it right first, but it doesn't always happen. Postprocessing is a critical part of a digital workflow and raw gives you much more to work with. 14 bit is not just a little better than 8.
EVERYONE should shoot in RAW
EVERYONE should shoot in RAW unless they are an expert photographer who knows what they are doing (and even then they should shoot RAW+JPEG).
Any advice to the contrary, especially linking advice from Ken Rockwell, is bad advice. (Never listen to Ken Rockwell - it is bad for your nervous system.)
Don't make the same mistake I did. I took Ken's advice and shot JPEG when I first started doing digital photography. I have regret it ever since, since I now have thousands of photos that could have been sharper, with more accurate color and looking better overall, if I only had the opportunity to do proper post-processing on them.
Shooting JPEG is like throwing away the negatives and keeping only the prints to save space. Don't do it.
Fabian Gonzales
My view is that for
My view is that for underwater photography RAW is a requirement for any serious photographer. The opinion of "professional" photographers who shoot "hundreds of pictures every day" for "years on end" has zero relevance to Joe Diver who takes 1-3 dive trips a year and wants to wow his friends. Every decent picture is precious to Joe. The key benefit of RAW to Joe is that it can make a lousy shot decent. Joe is going to display his only picture of a manta ray he has ever seen and he wants his only picture to look as good as possible. Well, Joe was too far away. The white balance the camera set made the entire scene look green and their is simply no contrast. No problem in RAW. Crop the huge RAW file down 50% to make it look like Joe was closer. Run the exposure up 2-3 stops, no problem. Mess with the white balence till the picture ain't so green.Drive saturation through the roof to get some color and drive contrast and clarity to get something that looks good. Then load in Photoshop and use levels to drive the picture even further to something decent. Once you are good at this the entire process takes about 2 minutes. Your junk picture still won't win a prize but you wow your friends. Try doing that in jpeg.
Editors note - Like Tom,
Editors note - Like Tom, I also enjoy processing my RAW files, but it can take time. MY personal belief is that a lousy shot can only be made marginally better, it's best learning how to get it right "in camera". RAW can be a significant benefit when adjust the white-balance, recovering highlights. You can also adjust contrast & saturation, although you can also bring back contrast and adjust saturation with jpegs, although results may be better with a raw file. I don't think RAW gives you any advantage in terms of cropping a file. Personally I always shoot in RAW and feel others who are willing to do the post-processing should also do the same. Steve - feel free to email me about your comment regarding cropping and jpeg compression.
Scott Gietler Owner/Editor, Underwater Photography Guide & Bluewater Photo http://www.uwphotographyguide.com
http://www.bluewaterphotostore.com
Post new comment