I’ve noticed some very interesting discussions in various forums regarding the quality of RAW images from the new Sony A700. I want to explore that in the near future, however Today I want to address the whole RAW versus JPEG issue.
In reading these discussions, I was amazed at the number of comments from photographers who are opposed to shooting RAW. Several people indicated that they never shoot RAW because “post production†was just too much work – it took too long, it didn’t offer much benefit, yada, yada, yada.
Let me get this straight. These people are interested in buying a $1,400 dSLR but they aren’t willing to expend the relatively minor effort needed to get the most out of the camera? To my mind that is like buying a new Corvette and only driving at 25mph on straight roads with no curves. It might be a pleasant drive, but it is not what ‘Vettes are built for. By the same token, dSLRs are built to require post-production to achieve the best results. That’s just the way it is.
RAW versus JPEG: the controversy continues
I realize that the RAW versus JPEG controversy has been going on since the dawn of the dSLR, but I didn’t realize there were that many JPEG holdouts. If you are one of them, please don’t be offended if I seem to be ridiculing the JPEG format. There is nothing wrong with JPEG – it’s just that RAW, IMHO, has so much more to offer.
Continuous Advance: where JPEG shines
Of course there are times and applications when JPEG is the better format. Chief among these is action photography – when you want or need to shoot a motor driven sequence. In all the Minolta and Sony Alpha dSLRs I am familiar with, shooting JPEG ups the frame rate and allows more frames to be recorded in a sequence. The new Alpha A700 will allow you to shoot 18 RAW frames at 5 frame per second, but if you switch to JPEG you can capture as many images as you can fit on your memory card at a steady 5fps. The A100 will also shoot until you fill your memory card when shooting JPEG, but the frame rate is only 3fps. If you shoot RAW with an A100, the maximum number of images that can be captured in a single sequence is only 6. Clearly, this an area where JPEG shines.
Instant printing requires JPEG
A second area is when you want to use your images instantly. You might need images for the web or a Powerpoint deck. If you shoot JPEG you can skip post processing and upload the JPEGs right off your memory card. I have also seen more and more photographers start offering “instant printing†at events and functions. They haul along one of the new dye-sub printers and crank out some instant promotional prints that they can handout during the affair. It’s a great way to get your name and contact info in front of a crowd, and you don’t need to haul along a laptop, because these tiny printers can print directly off a memory card – no computer required. These printers can’t process RAW images, however, so you have to feed them JPEGs.
While these quick turnaround situations might be seem to be a good reason to shoot JPEG, don’t forget that many dSLRs, including the Sony Alpha A100 and A700 offer RAW plus JEPG settings. In this scenario you can use the JPEGs for instant turnaround, then process and make images from the RAW files when you have more time. So you have the best of both worlds, instant access to the JPEGs; and RAW files that you can use to create superior photos when the time allows.
Not enough hard drive space: try JPEG
A third area whee JPEG images seem to have the edge over RAW is file size. Typical JPEGs are much smaller than RAW images – resulting in quicker recording speed and reduced hard-drive storage. So you can typically store more JPEGs on a given memory card or hard drive. This may be a consideration for some, but with today’s inexpensive memory options, I don’t feel it is worth the trade off.
Are there any other advantages to JPEG over RAW? I can’t really think of any. I can, however, think of a host of advantages to the RAW format. That will be the subject of my next post.
Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think.
17 Comments
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm
I pretty much agree with Ken’s POV. Give it a read if you haven’t already. RAW is great for pixel-peeping tweakers and for certain applications where you need to make the most of the sensor data. For most other applications, just get it right in the first place and be done with it! Getting great JPGs straight out of the camera isn’t rocket science (but RAW is good where you need to maximise dynamic range, minimise noise in low light, etc).
There is one more advantage of JPEG. I do not know about A700, but KM 7D did not magnify RAW files, only JEPG. Therefore, I usually shoot in RAW+JEPG mode this gives possibilities to check focusing quality.
In action photography RAW is much more important, because in real action you have no time to find best camera settings and PP from RAW gives you more chances to get usable a pictures. What we could see from A700 RAW vs JEPG tests its obvious only RAW.
I use RAW + JPEG. Jpeg is quick for the web. he who gets the image up first gets published. Just ask the gang a getty. Raw is so incredibly maleable for post production that it is a must have. no one is going ro prind a 40 X 50 from a high res jpeg. But if you get the shot in raw you could do it.
I love the Corvette comment… it works really well. Personally, I shoot JPEG+RAW with my 7D. JPEG is for quick viewing (no load time) and organizing, while the RAW is for processing.
I would have to agree, based on shooting and processing experience, with the gist of this article. When I bought my DSLR (Nikon), I first used the new long-range zoom for it to capture the moment of transfer of the high school diploma for my nephew, and wanted to be sure to cram as many burst shots as possible in the cam, around that very brief moment…. so I chose jpeg for that..
—and have never used jpegs for anything since.
The captures were fine, given that the hazy late afternoon sunlight had good fill light from the sky. If it had been more contrasty light, I’d have switched to RAW, since I would NEED the extra latitude just to secure that highlights weren’t blown and shadows weren’t lost to oblivion. As it was, the jpegs were Just Barely able to pull it off so that I could open up the shadow side in processing with decent contrast. I did, however, manage to machine-gun-fashion-grab several mini-moments within the greater moment, to choose from… a good thing, since I was forced to shoot from the edge of the football field and lost a couple of split seconds to foreground students crossing my field of view, and grabbing the autofocus, to boot.
Conclusion: I needed the speed and open-ended burst, but lucked out on the brightness range, making the capture a success. That said, when the speed isn’t the dominating factor, I feel like a total self-saboteur to use anything other than the expanse of RAW… and I SURE do hope the promise of ‘digital’ to expand the capture range significantly more is realized soon. It’s looking good, I think.
A100 owners can only make use of the Super SteadyShot image stabilization feature when shooting JPEG; for what might be called “the twitch-inclined shooter” (like me!) that’s definitely a point in favor of JPEG.
Hi Cindy
Thanks for your input. I believe you’ll find that your A100 can use Super Steady Shot when shooting in RAW. There are some limitations when shooting RAW, but lack of Super Steady Shot isn’t one of them.
Thanks again for your comment
–Tom
Oops! I was confusing SSS with DRO…duh! The A100 is the most advanced camera I’ve ever owned, and I’m still trying to get all of the finer points of its operation straight in my mind…and I guess the ol’ brain failed me the other evening.
Question… so whats the difference between RAW+JPEG Fine, RAW+JPEG normal & RAW+JPEG basic? Which is the best bet to stick with, or just stick with RAW?…. new to the DSLR family and still learning.
Thanks!
Hey Heidi:
It all depends on what you intend to use the JPEG images for. When you shoot RAW+JPEG, you are capturing two images of the same shot. You have the RAW image that will provide the maximum quality image, but will require post processing on your computer before you can use it. You will also capture a JPEG image, which you can print or load to the web without any extra processing.
Since the RAW image is unaffected by any of the fine or normal settings, you are always capturing the maximum detail with RAW. So I would only shoot RAW+JPEG when I needed a a quick JPEG I could print quickly without any computer work. I would use the JPEG to make quick print or load immediately to the web. Once I have a chance to process the RAW image, I would discard the original JPEGs. If I need a JPEG image I would export a new JPEG from the processed RAW image, since generally the RAW images will provide superior results. So to my way of thinking, RAW+JPEG is useful when you need a very fast turn around, but want to retain the RAW image to create a better image when you have more time.
As for Fine, Normal or Basic, you have to determine which of these will be best for your application. The RAW image is unaffected, so you will always have a top quality basis for generating an excellent JPEG when time allows. So if a basic JPEG would be sufficient for quick turn around, I would shoot RAW+JPEG basic. If I felt I needed a larger JPEG quickly, I would shoot one of the better formats, but the better the quality of the JPEG, the more room it will take up on my memory card and the longer it will take to write to memory. Since the RAW image will always provide the best overall detail and quality and I will most likely toss the original JPEGs when I have had time to process the RAW images, I would only shoot the smallest JPEG format that would suit my immediate need. Try shooting some basic JPEGs and either print them yourself or take them to Kiosk machine for a test.
If the quality is good enough for a immediate turn around, then I would shoot RAW+JPEG Basic, since you can always generate a higher quality JPEG from the RAW image if you should need it. If you feel the basic quality just isn’t good enough, then you will need to shoot at one of the better settings.
If you don’t need to turn things around quickly, you might save time and memory card space by just shooting RAW. It will provide better quality, but it requires computer processing time to provide good results. So in my view, RAW+JPEG gives you an immediate quickie image as well as the option to generate a higher quality image when time allows.
I hope this helps. Welcome to the family! I hope you and your new dSLR achieve some great things. If you have any further questions, don’t hesitate to ask!
– Tiew
HIA JPEG IS GOOD AND CHEESE TASTES NICE
Unlike the others listed above, I completely disagree with the Corvette comment. Your mistake is in making the conjecture that spending more money on a camera implies the willingness to spend more effort using it.
That is false and generally opposes the very reason of spending more money on a camera. The money spent on a better camera is meant to go into better quality results with *less* effort, rather than more. Who really wants to spend *more* money so that they can spend *more* time? Realistically, most people have either time or money, but rarely both.
It is fair to say that more configuration may be needed to milk the very last bit of juice out of your more expensive camera– this statement is actually true with any product. However, to say that a DSLR was “built” to be used in such a manner is absolutely false. DSLR’s are meant to (and do) get significantly better results without putting in any extra effort– this is where your money is going.
The improvement in spending extra time processing raw files on a professional DSLR should ideally be minor as compared to the vast improvement that jpeg gives over consumer level cameras. That would be the mark of a truly good camera. Otherwise, I would say that your money was not invested efficiently.
i agree with the above poster – the comparison of a shooting JPEG on a DSLR with driving a corvette at 25mph is erroneous and misleading – by that comparison, shooting RAW rather than JPEG should allow you to produce significantly better images, which, despite researching the issue for some time now, i have found not to be the case, and have not seen anyone else produce convincing evidence of this. a more apt comparison may be:
shooting JPEG on a DSLR is like buying a corvette and driving it as the factory set it up. shooting RAW and post-processing manually is like customising and “pimping” the corvette, to squeeze some more performance out of it.
don’t get me wrong – i think RAW can be of use, and use it myself sometimes. for example – in cases where the dynamic range of the scene extends beyond the limits of the camera’s sensor (the handling of which is a particular weakness of digital camera versus film) – if you expose for the highlights, you can pull out some shadow detail in post-processing, and “shoulder” the highlights rather than let the camera clip them. using RAW doesn’t actively improve the quality of the image, but it allows a little more lee-way in the editing process than using JPEG. but the end result is, as far as i have experienced, only marginally better than the JPEG output at best – i have not seen any examples where the output of a RAW file significantly outstrips the JPEG output.
saying that, i will still do it if the image is sufficiently important to me, and if i believe that the difference it will make is enough to make it worth the effort. this can only be a subjective decision, and can only be based on personal experience – you have to try it for yourself… if you feel your results from shooting RAW then manually post-processing are superior than the “out-of-the-camera” JPEG, i will be sincerely glad for you. this is what it is all about – freedom to do it the way you want to. if you want to spend more time tweaking the image from the RAW data, you can. if you are happy with the JPEG straight from the camera, you don’t need to shoot RAW.
if squeezing every last pixel of quality from every single image is of vital importance to you (which it may be if you intend to print the images on a large scale – say, larger than A4), i would say shoot RAW all the time. if you find more often than not that the JPEG output of your camera is satisfactory (or at least requires only minor tweaking, for which RAW would offer little significant benefit over JPEG), i would say shoot JPEG, and only use RAW+JPEG for high-contrast scenes, or those where the white balance may cause problems.
Niall Chapman above made an excellent comment about RAW being similar to “pimping” a Corvette.
I don’t know why some amateurs are so frightened of screwing up. What do you think people like Jay Maisel or Ernst Haas did when they came back with a bad shot? The slide went in the garbage. Back out there they went, to try again. Christ, I personally think all beginners should shoot jpeg just so they learn to accept full responsibility for the outcome of every shot they take. Photography requires a certain amount of thought and vision. If you can’t spend a few moments analyzing a scene and saying to yourself “Maybe a slightly warmer white balance is in order” or “Perhaps I should lose a stop on this scene in order to preserve the hightlights” then shooting RAW is not going to help you.
Thanks for pointing out the strengths of JPEG, or the weaknesses of RAW. I love RAW and hardly shoot anything else, but if you don’t know why/when to shoot RAW, you’ll be doing yourself a disservice. Printing, shot speed and file size are all factors to consider with care before you set up for a shoot.
For further arguments for/against RAW, look here:
http://blogs.adamparkerphotography.com/blog/Make-your-pictures-happy-shoot-in-RAW/18/
I cannot recall where I read the comparison, but it goes like this: RAW, think unprocessed film. JPEG, think processed film or prints. Works for me. It may for you.
how do you switch from jpg to raw shooting on the a100??
11 Trackbacks
RAW versus JPEG: Three Advantages to JPEG Format…
An interesting approach to the RAW versus JPEG debate — though the author clearly sides with RAW when he says shooting in JPEG is “like buying a new Corvette and only driving at 25mph on straight roads with no curves”….
[...] Read More… [...]
[...] Alphatracks has a new post on the (I would say “age old debate” but that’s not quite fitting . . . yet) seemingly never-ending controversy between the use of RAW or JPEG image formats in digital photography. Personally, I’m a RAW-only shooter. Alphatracks has proposed 3 reasons to shoot JPEGs over RAW: Of course there are times and applications when JPEG is the better format. Chief among these is action photography – when you want or need to shoot a motor driven sequence. In all the Minolta and Sony Alpha dSLRs I am familiar with, shooting JPEG ups the frame rate and allows more frames to be recorded in a sequence. (Keep reading. . . ) [...]
[...] Alphatracks Minolta and Sony SLR Weblog « RAW vs JPEG: three reasons to shoot JPEG [...]
[...] RAW versus JPEG: Three Advantages to JPEG Format Alphatracks An interesting approach to the RAW versus JPEG debate — though the author clearly sides with RAW when he says shooting in JPEG is “like buying a new Corvette and only driving at 25mph on straight roads with no curves”. [...]
[...] Blogosphere in Review: 6th Oct ‘07 6 10 2007 RAW vs. JPEG – Three Reasons to Shoot JPEG: When most of the evidence points towards using RAW, this post rightly looks at the advantages of using JPEG. Shooting speeds, printing, and storage are all cited as reasons to use the format. Tom also writes about the other side of the discussion here. [Alphatracks] [...]
[...] Read this article in greater detail at Three reasons to shoot JPEG. For additional digital photography information, visit http://alphatracks.com. Learn more about Tom Bonner at http://adventuresindesign.com. [...]
[...] RAW vs JPEG: three reasons to shoot JPEG RAW vs JPEG: Why I shoot RAW Your camera can’t shoot in JPEG AlphaTracks A 3 part mini-series covering both sides of the format wars and an explanation of how your camera records information. [...]
[...] A third area where JPEG images currently have the edge over RAW is file size. Typical JPEGs are much smaller than RAW images – resulting in quicker recording speed and reduced hard-drive storage. So you can typically store more JPEGs on a given memory card or hard drive. This may be a consideration for some, but with today’s inexpensive memory options, you have to ask yourself if it is really worth the trade off. In most digital photography situations, shooting in the RAW format will produce superior images. As we have seen, however, there are still times when JPEG captures offer significant advantages. Read this article in greater detail at Three reasons to shoot JPEG. For additional digital photography information, visit http://alphatracks.com. Learn more about Tom Bonner at http://adventuresindesign.com. [...]
[...] Read this article in greater detail at Three reasons to shoot JPEG. For additional digital photography information, visit http://alphatracks.com. Learn more about Tom [...]
[...] this article in greater detail at Three reasons to shoot JPEG. For additional digital photography information, visit http://alphatracks.com. Learn more about Tom [...]