What's the difference?
And when should I?
You've probably already heard a lot of photographers saying "oh, you should always shoot RAW if your SLR can!" or "you're no real photographer if you don't shoot RAW", and for good reasons as well. But should you always shoot RAW? To begin with, what exactly is RAW?
Defining what a RAW file is.
A RAW file is basically an unprocessed version of the JPEG file from your camera (the one you see on preview and live view), hence the name RAW. The file is uncompressed (12 to 16 bits, usually), because it keeps ALL the information from each photo you take, therefore it takes a lot of space. Even more so if your SLR carries a big resolution. Becase RAW files are unprocessed, you normally cannot view them through normal means, e.g., social media, photo galleries, e-mail, etc. In order to view them, you'd usually have to use a RAW file viewer, or a program that lets you edit and process these files.
- Canon: .crw .cr2 .cr3
- Nikon: .nef .nrw
- Leica: .raw .rwl. .dng
- Sony: .arw .srf .sr2
- Fuji: .raf
So we all know what a RAW file already is, but what about JPEG? Well to keep it short, it's a compressed, 8-bit format (so you essentially lose half the colour depth, this is more important to those who export RAW files as other format to physically print their work, but less important to those who simply export as JPEG) and is the universal image format. After you've processed your RAW file, you probably always export it as a JPEG so that it will be easier to share on different platforms.
The difference is that you basically let the camera do the processing for you. There's been a lot of debate and controversy surrounding post-processing images, but that's simply because they don't actually know what it means to shoot SOOC (straight out of the camera). You see, the colour profiles you work with that you see in your SLR are akin to applying a preset to your photo in post-processing. The difference? You let the camera did it. Not only do you lose depth and information, but these said profiles aren't even flexible in the slightest. They're simply basic adjustments to detail, contrast, saturation and hue.
So should I even shoot JPEG?
That's for you to answer. Personally, I shoot JPEG for shots done in a studio. Why? I won't need a RAW file's flexibility when the environment itself is flexible. The lighting, backdrop, distance, depth of field are all under my control, so there's no real need to shoot RAW. Also because it's easier to work with JPEGs in batches. I also personally shoot JPEG when it's just a casual shots of whatever and I don't really want to be bothered trying to post-process it.
Advantages and disadvantages.
RAW advantages:
- Let's you keep all the information, i.e., all stops of dynamic range your camera is capable of and colour depth.
- Because you get to keep all the stops of dynamic range, you can either underexpose for highlights or overexpose for shadows, and easily be able to bring both information back in post-processing.
- White balance does not matter. So it's easier to reproduce (colour correction) and apply creative colouring (colour grading) when you shoot RAW.
- Local edits, e.g., local contrast, tone mapping, sharpness & detail, noise reduction, etc. are more meaningful when you shoot RAW.
RAW disadvantages:
- Big file size.
- Cannot be viewed through normal means.
- Requires more time.
JPEG advantages:
- Automated processing.
- You get an accurate representation of your photo from the live view and preview.
- Different picture profiles for different situations.
- Smaller file size.
JPEG disadvantages:
- Lose a huge amount of information.
- Almost no flexibility (but you can still post-process it if you want to, it's actually doable).
- You have to be mindful of White balance (though setting it to AWB is actually okay in itself).
While you will probably almost always shoot RAW, it's always good to be mindful of what you can get out of shooting JPEG. Namely, it becomes more convenient if you know what you're using it for.
Return to Fin's Frames Home Page