Is the differance between jpg and raw really that big?

tried to take pic of my sisters baby and when u compare it to anyone elses portrait pics, theye ALWAYS far superior

Is the difference between a large format transparency and a Polaroid really that big?

The thing with JPEG is the camera makes it on the fly from a ready-built recipe. Usually, it's fairly good, but as you're finding, it's not always.

The answer is to shoot in RAW.

RAW is the digital equivalent of an original negative. All the data your camera recorded when you pressed the shutter is there, and if it doesn't look right when you download it, you can adjust it until it is. When you're happy, you can produce a JPEG from there if you want to share it.

The JPEG from your camera is the same as having the standard print when you get a film developed. There's only so much you can do to it before it's ruined.

I shoot RAW, use software to manage the download, keywords, editing, printing, etc. At any stage I can undo all the changes I've made to an image, and it goes right back to the original file captured by the camera. I don't lose anything, unlike when I was working with original JPEGs.

RAW is your friend. Yes, it means a new workflow for you, but if you are serious about improving your photographs, then it's the only sensible option to follow. I think you should be serious about your photography, because from what you've shown us in the past, you have a good eye. It just needs nurturing, and sticking with JPEG isn't going to help.

mmmmmmm

Right. On the subject of RAW. I only know a little about it and I have to admit to only trying to use it once.

When all said and done, the photos have to be converted to another format for distribution and display- jpg- so, providing that the photo is OK in the first place, is a PC/MAC created jpeg far superior to a camera one, even with default settings?

My RAW photos do look great, but they have to be turned into another format at some stage.

Some superb photos there nick,in particular Mossy Wall & Bramble.



yours wecrookie

Thanks for all the lovely comments eveyrone. Taking them one at a time:

1) Yes, Heather, it is lichen. D'oh!
2) Re depth of field; entirely deliberate, though I guess not as effective as I'd hoped. Note the bits sticking out on the top edge are in focus.
3) Yes, I always shoot in RAW, for all the reasons given by others
4) Yes, it's a tiMark on the causeway, doing a great impression of doing a Number Two

I'm finding I don't need to turn them into another format much of the time. They remain in a RAW format with the instructions to make the changes I've made.

Being a Macolyte, I have chosen to use Aperture for handling my photos. Others here use the cross platform Lightroom from Adobe. The software does the job of managing the RAW files, and keeping me organised. If I want to print, I do it from within the software environment. If I want to export to another more transportable format, I can do that, but the original is still intact within Aperture - and I can reimport the exported file so it's still managed by the software.

I upload to Flickr using a plugin which reads the Aperture formatting and converts it on the fly to the Flickr system. I rarely need to export to JPEG or TIFF or PSD, except when I need to use an image for print or web work, or when I need to do some serious tinkering I can't do in Aperture.

Using Aperture/Lightroom means the photographer doesn't end up with multitudes of variations of images in different formats on hard drives hither and yon. It's all in one place, using one "master" image until I need to move it outside, and I retain full editorial control over it. Exporting to a JPEG or a TIFF means it becomes pretty much fixed at that time.

Does that make it a bit clearer as to how and why I choose to use RAW over the other formats?

Mmmm. I see what you do, and if it works, I am certainly not the one to make a reasoned arguement, but I do have other thoughts.

A picture has a number of pixels and a screen has a number of pixels and unless the picture is shown full size on the screen, then you will lose some of the detail. I, for example, have a 6MP camera and my screen only has 1.3 million pixels, so I only see around a fifth of a photo on the screen at it's full size. When I see the picture fitted onto the screen, that's 4.7 million pixels that have to be magically removed and that's almost 80% of the detail gone.

With that much of the picture missing, how much difference does it make between any of the formats? I can understand that it makes a difference for printing and it's great with digital cameras when you can make an image in the middle of the picture fill the screen, but the only time that you would see the full pic in all its glory is if you have a massive screen that, to the best of my knowledge is either non-existent or so expensive that you'd have to be a millionaire to afford one.

Two things that I will accept- 1, use RAW and you are off to a good start no matter what you do afterwards, 2, a PC/Mac and software has far more processing power than a DSLR's firmware and the resulting compressed formats should be far superior-

But, I have only (recently) taken a relatively small number of photos in RAW and subject for subject, I am finding it hard to find a significant difference between those in RAW and those in jpeg format

It has to be said, that I don't have the best TFT monitor, but surely that's another point to consider. And when all said and done, I only have an EOS300D

Sorry for hijacking the thread, Nick.

To be honest, there probably isn't any significant difference - except in the fact with the RAW files you have far, far more control over what you can actually do to the files. There's all the depth of data in the RAW which simply isn't there any more with the JPEG.

Let's take an example:

JPEG workflow: I take a bunch of photos, and end up with stuff that looks okay. Back at base, I dump them to the computer, and make some adjustments to improve them to my taste. To be safe, I save as a copy a couple of times so I can revert to earlier iterations if I choose. I end up with perhaps five or six variations of the same file. I can't just go back to the third iteration and decide to lower the contrast again, because there's nothing to go back to. I'd have to start over. And I've got a mess of files that fill up my hard drive.

RAW workflow (either using camera maker software or third party): Take the photos, dump them to the computer, and make adjustments, add some keywords to help me find them again, rate them so I can filter the ones I'm not keen on for now. I decide I want a mono version, so I can "duplicate" an image and make it black and white with lots of control over virtual filters and colours. I boost the contrast, crop it, add a vignette, and I'm really pleased. A coupe of days later, I don't like the crop and want a version with less contrast, so I dupe the mono version and change the crop area and tone down the contrast slider.

In the last example, I only have one image. But - and here's the killer - the RAW software has written text files that explain how to recreate my actions when I reopen the images I've changed: every adjustment and crop is non-destructive and can be reverted to the original at any time. To revert, I just undo the actions to get right back to the original if I want to, but there's only the one file at any time. Less space on my hard drive is taken up because there's not dozens of iterations of the same thing.

To me, using RAW was a win-win. Yes, I lose a little on the portability, so I have to export to other formats occasionally, but on the whole I've got complete control of my images. I can revisit an image I took last year and make non-destructive changes to it at any time I like.

I hope Nick doesn't mind the hijack, but this kind of discussion is why we set this part of the forum up. It's all a learning experience, and I like the idea we can share our experiences like this. Having folk like Nick around is enormously helpful to those of us who are learning all the time!

No problems with the hijack - especially if the end result is that more people start using and realising the benefits of RAW format.

I use 35mm, and I can't see the point in shooting JPG.
RAW gives you soo much more control over the final output - one of the advantages of digital is that the software darkroom can sometimes pull something out of what would otherwise have been a not-so-great shot.
If I was to get a digi body tomorrow, it'd be all I'd shoot in. Shooting digital, and then not taking advantage of the flexibility of the system seems silly. You might as well join me in the completely luddite approach!

Ah, now I get that.

I suppose one thing that I have to consider is how much I play around with my pictures- and the answer is, not much.

But, I have been through four years worth of digital photographs today and only found 39 that I would choose to show someone to demonstrate that I can take a half decent photo. It's not that there's anything wrong with most of the others, it's just that I was looking for something that was right in composition, exposure, focus and subject and while I've got some good ones, the chosen few impress even me

Even then, whilst the photograph might have been good enough to work with, I adjusted the colour in quite a few and the brightness in a couple and I was very pleased with the results.

So, working in RAW format, I can carry out work on all my pictures and yet, easily undo those changes. I can turn an acceptable photo into an excellent one.

Now, where can I download some artistic talent?

There's some plug in for CS 3 and 4, I think...

Not only that, RAW files are compressed losslessly so when you do make changes you don't lose any of the quality. JPEG compression means that every time you edit a JPEG you make the quality progressively worse. RAW editing is a purer process overall.

How does working with RAW files take any longer or require more effort? Also, each save of a JPG reapplies the compression algorithms.

Edd