RAW or JPEG?

Back


- Which format is better: RAW or JPEG? Should you even care which format your digital camera uses?

Channel: Howto & Style
Uploaded: June 13, 2007 at 10:31 am
Author: lockergnome

Length: 00:03:05
Rating: 4.80
Views: 4731

Tags: raw jpeg formats digital help howto how to video callforhelp call for geek chat gadgets chris pirillo chrispirillo

Video Comments:
welfaremother (December 31, 2008 at 9:42 pm)
That is totally incorrect. My 6 MP camera easily can produce larger more "grain free" prints than a Velvia slide. This is why National Geographic's requirements are a 6MP minimum digital camera. Joe McNally shot an entire assignment with a 3MP camera in 2001 and no one could tell the difference.
lanswipe (January 2, 2009 at 3:26 pm)
but, welfaremother im not talking about slide film, im talking about 35mm film.

And i actually read it somewhere, so i cant say its definately true, im just passing on information from a photography website the address of which now eludes me
61862006 (September 10, 2008 at 5:48 pm)
please help, which one is better quality????
HunterMolnarFilms (November 8, 2008 at 12:19 am)
To simplify, Raw is 10 times better in terms of color information. As far as resolution goes, no difference.
welfaremother (December 31, 2008 at 9:41 pm)
How did you measure this "10 times better?" Your response does nothing to assist the person asking. A shitty photo with color that is "10 times better" is still a shitty photo. My response to the original asker would be that RAW is for people who may lack the confidence to make settings "in camera" and who may feel the need to change them later. For example, you are unsure whether to use Auto, Cloudy, or Daylight white balance, and would rather have more flexibility to change it later.
heminder (April 3, 2008 at 8:12 pm)
i'm upgrading my camera soon, and i'm definately getting one with RAW support for bigger, uncompressed files to be manually processed for my own (excessively) large prints.

i am, however, against camera manufacturers developing proprietary formats for their RAW files, and therefore support the OpenRAW (.org) movement to standardise RAW in an open-source file format. Adobe are trying to unify RAW with their DNG format which i think great support will be added to if it were an open source format
wutangxxx (March 16, 2008 at 10:33 am)
If you have Adobe Bridge CS3, You can open a Jpeg in RAW format where it can be edited just like a raw file then resaved. Sayin that I still shoot RAW 99% of the time.
Fredrico00 (December 9, 2007 at 11:13 am)
I use RAW because of the possibilities and by using RAW I can turn the file into almost whatever format I want to, including JPG. Because of the manufacturers not being unanimous about which RAW format to support (fore example, Nikon NEF or Canon CR2), converting your files to the DNG format for storage is probably good as that is most likely the future format. I will shoot JPG if the images are non-important i.e. NOT stock/gallery or for an assignment.
wakeupfist (November 24, 2007 at 2:31 am)
Oh yeah? Not just resolution-wise, but bit depth-wise, color gamut-wise? :-)
lanswipe (August 4, 2008 at 9:07 pm)
oh, i dont know about that, im only talking about resolution.