Why RAW format?
One of the conversations I often have with clients/friends is what is so special about RAW? Well, this is a personal choice – to shoot in RAW or .jpeg format – but for my work I will try and explain why RAW is my choice most of the time.
RAW is one of the available ‘quality’ settings on the camera which you can set and the camera/sensor/processors then accepts the image given and does minimal editing or tweaking to the shot. In other words, the image is RAW not ‘cooked’ – whereas the .jpeg setting DOES edit. It adjusts colour, removes redundant pixels (thus markedly reducing the file size) and attempts to cleverly render a shot that is, as near as dammit, the finished product. So, if RAW format photos require further work back home why bother?
And here is my ‘because’… because if YOU want control of the eventual end product you can do this in RAW – it is more under your control.
RAW, because it is NOT edited in camera, does not have any redundant pixels removed (as the camera’s edit sees it if in .jpeg setting) so, unlike .jpeg, the file size is a lot larger – hence fewer photos in this format can be loaded onto a memory card than with .jpeg. But the upside is that whilst you may not have the finished cake, as cooked by using .jpeg, you DO have all the ingredients to bake the cake how YOU want, not how the camera dictates.
Also with jpegs you only have an 8 bit image NOT 12 or 14 bit as in a RAW image – in other words, you have a wider colour range, or gamut, at your disposal. Shadows can be better lightened, over-exposed bright areas can be taken down a bit, sky detail can be brought out better and the whole tone rendered more accurately.
Also, with RAW files if you shoot in the wrong White Balance setting it can be amended in the RAW Converter later whereas a jpeg shot with the wrong white balance cannot – you are stuck with it.
There is lots more that can be read up on regarding RAW vs .jpeg but for my work it is RAW every time. Try it!
As shot in RAW – no editing done
Jpeg processed from a RAW file – with details brought out – compare the skies.
Nick Jenkins
There is no reason to shoot JPEG files for serious work. You throw away so much info by shooting JPEG why do it when you have spent so much on camera and lenses, and can have so much more info in the file shooting RAW.
David Morton – via Facebook
Astrid McGechan
Agree with all sentiments here, Nick. although I have just shot some jpegs for “serious” work. I don’t have a macro lens and needed some close ups in a commission shoot, so used my little compact, which doesn’t do RAW. It did the trick. I also have some images in my recently published book, which were taken with the small compact on walks, when I didn’t have the big camera with me. So jpeg does not have to be dismissed completely 🙂
Judi Lion
For ages I was scared of RAW, and I still know lots of people who have never tried it. I knew what it did, but just didn’t want to go there. All this changed after a day’s photography in Crete some years ago. WB had somehow been changed and all my shots were purple – all lost as shot in JPEG. From that day forward ……..
Richard Bingham
Totally agree Nick. RAW gives you control that is unobtainable from JPEG. Also, unlike a film neg, you can later revisit that RAW file and re-process it another way to achieve different effects. With a JPEG you are stuck with whatever the camera has decided it should be; you can make minor changes, but things like WB (as Judi has mentioned) are irrevocable. It’s definitely RAW all the time for me.
Some folk set their cameras to save both RAW and JPEG versions – seems pointless most of the time as you’re just taking up more space on the card. The only exception to this is if you’re a professional sports photographer uploading images to a newspaper during the course of a game – the JPEGs are fine for newspaper reproduction, then when you get back to the office you can select which RAW files you want to fine tune to make the best images for later use.
Barbara Fleming
I think RAW is excellent if you are doing something special or visiting places where the lighting is not too good – knowing that to produce a print will be difficult without a RAW file. I find that I like to take pictures on the RAW /jpeg setting so I have both and can decide which I need when I see them on my computer. RAW certainly gives you that extra advantage to manipulate on the computer and finish with a print that can sometimes be very special.
Mark Spridgeon
On an average day trip somewhere I still prefer the ease of a jpeg – and assume I’ll get the image correct in camera. If I go somewhere special, I normally switch to raw just in case I decide to tweak the image afterwards. Not sure I want the slightly longer workflow of RAW just for images I’ll post on social media.
Alan Santillo
I completely agree Nick. Raw gives you gives you the control and flexibility to adjust images in order to get the best visual effect … not to mention some very unusual effects as well. So for me, RAW is the way to go.