RAW vs JPEG

[MommaTrish]

I heard its supposed to be better to shoot in RAW... but um what is it? I mean like what's the difference between the two types?

[Traci Reed]

Raw is a layered file that has more information than a jpeg file. When you open a file in PS in Raw format, it gives you a dialogue similar (but more advanced than) the Lightroom interface and allows you to control every aspect of your photo without damaging other bits of it like you would running actions and such on a jpeg.

[g8rbeckie]

I've been a long time .jpeg'er and I'm just now switching to RAW. It's kind of a hassle though - as only certain programs can read RAW files. My problem was that my camera was newer than my software, so NONE of my apps could read my version of RAW until I did a ton of manual upgrades. It has taken several days, but I think I'm finally straightened out (CS3, LR2, etc)...

But as Traci said - RAW files record lots more data than .jpeg, so if you're looking to get into photo editing/enhancing, it's probably worth it to make the switch.

I think there are definite trade-offs though, as now everytime someone says "oh, send me those pics!" it means I have to edit and save every dang file as .jpg first. ;o)

Oh - and file size - YIKES! I had to upgrade my memory card to 16GB (I have two of them).

[sprauncey1]

Basically RAW is just that the raw data of the camera's sensor. No filtering applied. Jpegs are the data that has had a filter run by the camera itself to make the files smaller and more manageable.

I shoot in RAW because I have recovered some photos in RAW that I could have not in jpeg and I am a hit or miss photographer definitely! But yes you do then have to take that extra step and convert them to jpegs to share/print etc. So I TRY to keep up with my new photos and process them immediately, but sometimes not so much and then its a big chore.

Try it out for a little while and see what you think. I also know most cameras can do the RAW+jpeg option but this also takes up lots of camera card space since it is two files for every photo.

[ColleenSwerb]

Yup, the RAW file is uncompressed and unedited by your camera. This means it holds a boatload more information within the file as compared to the same file in jpeg. You have much greater control over any corrections or edits you want to make to a RAW file. If you try to do a lot of the same things to a jpeg, you end up with a mess.

They are bigger, and they do require the extra step of editing/converting before you can share, but the benefits outweigh the costs by a mile for me. I switched to RAW about a year and a half ago, and I've never looked back.

[glumirk]

I switched to RAW a couple of months ago and LOVE it. The main reason: I have a lot of white balance issues since we use CF bulbs, so any shots I took indoors had horrible color casts, and because the JPEGs had already been processed in the camera, when I tried to fix the color cast it didn't turn out pretty. With RAW I can fix it NO problem. I usually just do a quick auto edit to my RAW files, then a quick tweak so that my photos don't look blue (because that's what auto does with my light bulbs), and batch save my files as JPEGs. Then I've got my beautifully edited JPEGs to use for whatever. It has also helped me to delete more blurry pictures because I am forcing myself to edit right away so that I don't get behind.

If you get decent pictures straight out of your camera, you are probably just fine shooting in JPEG, and you can still use the Camera Raw editor on a JPEG, and it'll work fine for the small tweaks and adjustments. But if you tend to mess up photos while taking them (like I definitely do), RAW gives you a chance to fix things after the moment. My goal is to take great shots with my camera so that I can start shooting in JPEG again, but for now I love RAW.