Can someone tell me what the difference between shooting in RAW and shooting in jpg is? I have seen a lot of people saying they shoot in RAW but I am yet to grasp what it means. You need additional software to convert this so that you can work on it in photoshop? Does shooting in RAW make a huge difference to your image?
Shooting RAW gives you more flexibility, and a little extra dynamic range. One big difference with RAW is that you can adjust white balance later very easily, and also compensate exposure somewhat. You also can compensate for vignetting and CA. You do all of this prior to creating the JPEG, so post-shot adjustments are minimized, resulting in a higher quality final image.
The greater computing power available in your computer vs. the camera also means that more sophisticated algorithms can be used during conversion, whereas your in-camera processor is limited in processing power and the time available to do the conversion. The result, again, is a higher qality final image.
Thanks for taking the time to explain that to me Kirbic! This method would then cut down on noise and artifacts I am guessing, especially in color shots? when you say a little extra dynamic range do you mean that you get a greater range of color? I am sorry if my questions sound kinda dumb as I am just trying to get my head around it.
RAW is also a 12 or 16 bit file (depends on camera) and all jpgs are 8 bit - so you have more colors, more gradual gradients, etc. and when / if you need to shift the exposure 2 stops up or down you don't get that neast stair stepping jpg artifact thing going on (usually in skys and other consinous tone areas).
Also, you cannot modify a RAW file on your computer, hence it is called a digital negative. Any changes you make to it are actually saved as a list of instructions in the file so you can revert back to the as captured image anytime in the future (like when you get CS7 and know tons more than you do now you can re-edit the image from the capture knowing that it has not been altered)
I read recently that the histogram on your camera is the JPG histogram, even if you shoot in RAW - in other words, they are different. I mean to test this for myslef but have been very busy this week. I think it might be true - it seems my histograms look fine, but my RAW files seem 1/3 -1/2 stop underexposed a lot of the time.
Thanks Prof Fate, that helps explain a lot. I like the fact that it doesn't change your original and it gives you greater color range. I think I am going to jump into the scary unknown and give it a go.
I have been moving toward RAW. A big stumbling block for me beyond file size on teh CF card was figuring out the workflow. Canon has free software that once you learn it, makes it a breeze.
for trips I still use jpg - need the space on the cards - but for any paying work i only shoot raw. For most of my fun shoots i am now shooting raw as well.
yup shoot raw, it also gives bigger file size for possible larger prints
aaaah yes! I was wondering how people can manage this as when you up the resolution in photoshop on jpg's, I seem to get a lot more artifacts and noise. ? It just doesn't seem as clear anyway. I am using gfprintpro (or something close to that) to upsize the images I have but I am not happy with the results I am getting. I only like to go up slightly as too much ruins the shots I think.
yup shoot raw, it also gives bigger file size for possible larger prints
Well, not really. An 8 megapixel camera is still going to shoot 8 megapixel shots. RAW will give you more control over those pixels, as described above, but it won't give you more pixels.
