File Formats Made Easy

[James Fee]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=1184&page_number=1' target='_blank'>http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=1184&page_number=1</a><br /><br /></div><i>"When an image is captured by your camera's digital sensor, a series of settings are applied as alterations to the original raw data. In many high-end cameras, this raw data can be retrieved "un-touched" as a RAW file, but most digital cameras save your photos as JPEGs. In addition to "alterations" for sharpness, white-balance, and the rest (which are either selected by the camera's default settings or set by you), the choice of file format that the image is saved in can have a profound affect on overall quality. Get it wrong, and there's little that can be done even in Photoshop."</i><br /><br />Popular Photography has posted a great overview of the different file formats available on your digital camera. I personally think that most people are better off using JPEG instead of RAW, but if you find yourself spending some time in Photoshop working on your images, RAW is the better route.

[Neil Enns]

I personally think that most people are better off using JPEG instead of RAW

Hmm, I love the smell of flamebait early in the morning *grin*.

If you're the type who loves to drop $1500 on a digital SLR because it "looks cool" and have no desire to dabble in any aspects of creative photography, I totally agree with you. Actually, these folks are better off with a digicam, but what the heck, if you have cash...

Otherwise, shoot in RAW. If you do nothing else but convert them using RAW software as-is without tweaking you're still better off than if you shot JPEG. You'll wind up with a JPEG that's as good as what the camera would have given you in the first place, and you'll have that digital negative for years down the road when you've learned more about image processing and want to re-print that special image.

Or, if you are *really* lazy and don't want the conversion step, shoot in RAW + JPEG mode and get both for free (CF cards are cheap).

Neil

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Well, given that DSLRs are getting cheaper, and everyone else seems to be getting richer, you'll find more and more people who'll buy DSLRs the same way some people buy low end 35mm film SLRs instead of using a compact 35mm camera. For these people (who in the near future will outnumber a lot of us here) JPEGs are plenty. Especially if AWB is very much improved by then.

I myself don't forsee shooting everything in RAW. Snapshots, simple walkabout shoots, I'll stick to JPEG. For more serious stuff I'll shoot in RAW.

The article itself is a bit simple though. Could've explained what RAW was a bit more to show its advantages.

[SassKwatch]

If you're the type who loves to drop $1500 on a digital SLR because it "looks cool" and have no desire to dabble in any aspects of creative photography, I totally agree with you. Actually, these folks are better off with a digicam, but what the heck, if you have cash...

Otherwise, shoot in RAW.
Couldn't agree more.

[Jonathon Watkins]

Hmmm, the thing about RAW is that it takes so long to post-process. I still have 200+ RAW images I need to get round to editing from holiday. :?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

Hmm, for me, most photos take no more than a minute or two to post process. Apply colour balance, adjust for exposure if needed, export to Photoshop, tweak the curve, sharpen the image, conver to 8 bit, save as JPEG.