Wednesday, December 22, 2004
RAW vs. JPEG
Posted by James Fee in "ARTICLE" @ 12:00 PM
"Let’s begin by acknowledging that RAW offers superb benefits of increased adjustability for image files, and some photographers simply like working with all the adjustment possibilities it features. RAW isn’t the “pro” format and JPEG the “amateur” format, nor can it do miracles, however. Once exposure is beyond the range of the sensor, RAW offers no benefits over JPEG. Whether shooting RAW or JPEG, it’s always good technique to shoot it right from the start. Adjusting a well-shot photo to make it look its best is always less work and more profitable than fixing a problem shot. As a compression format, JPEG takes a file and reduces its saved size by removing redundant data. It then rebuilds that file to its original size when opened in the computer. JPEG has a number of important advantages to the photographer that are well worth considering"
I find as time goes on I take less and less RAW pictures and more and more JPEG. Most of the time I find that RAW just adds to my workflow creating a barrier between me and my photos that just takes time. I do still use RAW when I have a shot that I really want, but these days I keep my camera on JPEG by default. There is nothing that RAW can do to make a bad photo look good and there is nothing that JPEG can do to make a good photo look bad. Anyone think different?
I find as time goes on I take less and less RAW pictures and more and more JPEG. Most of the time I find that RAW just adds to my workflow creating a barrier between me and my photos that just takes time. I do still use RAW when I have a shot that I really want, but these days I keep my camera on JPEG by default. There is nothing that RAW can do to make a bad photo look good and there is nothing that JPEG can do to make a good photo look bad. Anyone think different?
