Raw or JPEG?

[John Gulliver]

No idea who this Ken Rockwell guy is.

You might like to read this: RAW vs JPG

 

[John Gulliver]

not much of an u/w photographer yet but i am amazing on land, shoot with a Nikon D300 , i notice when i shoot RAW i can't edit the pics, but i can on JPeg, my advise to you would be if you can shoot on RAW + JPEG Fine, that way it will take a pic of the subject in raw and jpeg.... good luck dude

My camera (Nikon D50) only allows me to take Raw + JPEG Basic so that's not really an option. I have to choose between Raw and JPEG Fine.

 

[John Gulliver]

If you don't process your images and post/print/use them right out of cam, the answer is obvious: Stick with jpg.

If, on the other hand, you do process your images and you have ever compared processing a jpg and processing a RAW image, the answer is equally obvious. It shouldn't take more than one try to prompt you to never consider jpg again.

I have only processed land images with both JPEG and Raw and, as I said, I cannot see any difference.

 

[John Gulliver]

For UW photography isn't it also a question of macro vs. WA -- i.e., having strobes as your light source vs. natural light? IF you are doing macro and lighting with strobes, is there any significant/real advantage to RAW over JPEG?

It seems clear to me there RAW has a significant advantage with WA/natural light.

Possibly, but this beautiful WA JPEG image of a red water lilly, taken by a friend of mine, was runner up in the In Praise of Plants class in last year's BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year contest, with several thousand participants from all over the world: Veolia Environnement Wildlife Photographer of the Year - Online gallery

 

[VJey]

John if you take pictures for magazines, to print, even for yourself I prefer RAW. For championships, contests, etc., you can´t edit your pictures, you should give your card for judges in jpeg.

 

[H2OMAN211]

I have been shooting compressed RAW files with my D-200 great results.

 

[AussieByron]

I shoot RAW and Fine Jpeg with both my Nikon D80 and D90. I use the Jpegs for quick editing and posting on websites etc. RAW files for more serious work.

I fine that memory is so cheap these days why not shoot both. I get over 900 shots from a 16gb card in Fine Jpeg and RAW. External hard drives are cheap and I have a couple of 1TB for storage. So I dont feel that I need to worry about taking up space on the computer.

I find that I can edit a little quicker with jpegs but for a great picture I like editing in RAW as there is more data to be play with if need be. After I am happy playing with the RAW image I can save it in whatever format I like....like TIF or even Jpeg.

Regards Mark

 

[John Gulliver]

I shoot RAW and Fine Jpeg with both my Nikon D80 and D90. I use the Jpegs for quick editing and posting on websites etc. RAW files for more serious work.

I fine that memory is so cheap these days why not shoot both.

In my case, because my D50 will only let me shoot in Raw + JPEG Basic, not JPEG Fine, as stated above.

 

[AussieByron]

If I had a choce between RAW only or Fine Jpegs only I would be going for RAW. More data to be able to be played with in editing software (example D90 Fine large jpeg is approximately 3.7mb vs 8-9mb for RAW).

You can shoot RAW and then save your images via software like PS as a Jpeg but you cant shoot a Jpeg and save as RAW.

I find that RAW editing might be 25%-50% more time consuming than editing Jpegs.

Regards Mark

 

[victor]

It's not the technology but the eye behind the camera that makes the difference.
RAW will allow more options to overcome difficulties with the image than a JPEG will. However maybe moving, better lighting, changing angles, etc. then we would not have the problems in the first place.
There is an exhebition of photographs of London by a famous photographer taken on a mobile phone. He did admit that there were problems but the images are still impressive.

So don't worry about the technology go out and get those images.