# Nikon D5100 RAW vs JPEG?



## gryffinwings

So I'm not sure what to shoot in, RAW or JPEG. The dilemma is that I like the idea of post processing and making photos better, but my wife like to be able to use pictures pretty quickly, like on facebook. What's the recommendation here?

I'm currently using a Mac G5 having to use adobe DNG converter to make us of the RAW files in Aperture 2, which isn't a problem.

What do you guys think?


----------



## Mach0

RAW is always better.


----------



## KmH

The D5100 has Raw+JPEG as a capture option, so you can do both. (Page 47 of the D5100 user's manual)

Tutorials &#8211; The RAW File Format

Image Types: JPEG & TIFF File Formats

Raw isn't always better.


----------



## 480sparky

Simple solution:  Shoot raw+jpeg.


----------



## gryffinwings

Does anyone agree with any Ken Rockwell says about RAW and JPEG?

Link to his page:
RAW vs JPG


----------



## TCampbell

gryffinwings said:


> Does anyone agree with any Ken Rockwell says about RAW and JPEG?
> 
> Link to his page:
> RAW vs JPG



Actually no.  I don't agree with Ken Rockwell.  Ken loves to stir up controversy and drive traffic to his website (it's how he gets paid).  I've concluded that Ken knows a lot less than he thinks, OR Ken just loves to post controversial positions on purpose in the hope of generating traffic and interest... or maybe it's a little of both.

In any case, dealing with RAW is just as easy as dealing with JPEG w.r.t. software.  If you have the software to read your RAW files, then it's no more trouble to import RAW than it is to import JPEG.  The software I use (Aperture 3) has a camera profile and performs certain auto-adjustments that the camera would have performed in-camera had I shot in JPEG *except* it's non-destructive.  So it'll offer a little sharpening, de-noising, etc. as the images are imported.  Disks are really cheap.  I'm not worried about space.

JPEG is an 8-bit format.  RAW is typically more (on my camera it's 14 bit).  If you're shooting a landscape with 5 or 6 stops worth of dynamic range in the frame then you've got about 2 bits worth of tonality at the lowest stop... that's why you can see pixelation, banding, or other undesirable effects in JPEG.  If you do need to recover detail in shadows or highlights, RAW doesn't dispose of the original information... JPEG does!  There's a REASON JPEG files are smaller... it's not that the compression is better... it's because JPEG actually throws valuable information away and it cannot be recovered later.

JPEG is really a "final output" format.  All of my "RAW" images are converted to JPEG before I post.  Note that this isn't a step I actually perform... my software does it automatically. 

I can shoot all day and not worry about filling my memory card and I can then import the images into my computer in a few minutes.  If Ken says it takes all day to import his RAW images than he might want to think about buying a computer built in the current decade.  

JPEG and RAW images are not "about the same".  A JPEG image cannot have more than 8 stops of dynamic range by definition because it's 8 bits.  (it requires 1 bit per full stop of exposure.)  But worse, at the lowest level of the range you have no tonality WITHIN the stop.  It's one "bit".  It's either on or off.  There's no fractional-bits in a computer.  You can't think about a third of a stop (much less a 1/10th of a stop) because at the first bit you only have on or off.  At the next stop up you get a half stop of tonality.  At the next stop up you get quarter stops.  That's 3 out of 8 bits and you STILL only have 1/4 stop resolution on tonality within the stop!  If we want to have at least 1/8th stop resolution on tonality than for all practical purposes we may as well consider JPEG as having just 5 useful stops worth of dynamic range and ONLY if you remember to "expose to the right".  If I only want 5 stops of dynamic range in a RAW image then my RAW files lowest range is still has TWICE the tonality resolution of all 8 bits worth of JPEG!!!  This is not a subtle difference for anyone who understands how it works.


----------



## jaxx419

Raw+JPG. Simple..


----------



## pthrift

gryffinwings said:
			
		

> Does anyone agree with any Ken Rockwell says about RAW and JPEG?
> 
> Link to his page:
> RAW vs JPG





When I began shooting with a dslr about a year ago, I had gotten tons of "good" info from Ken Rockwell.
I used this info on my cruise this past year.
I shot EVERYTHING in jpeg, because he said there was no difference, and I hadn't done enough research to know any better.

Now I have several photo's that I took on the trip that could really be pretty good (for me) that are "eh" at best because the post-photo processing is more limited.

That being said; if you aren't doing any photoshop or etc, I can see where he is coming from with that statement. But doesn't everyone use photoshop or GiMP or something to make at least minor enhancements to photo's?

All that to say, if you aren't sure, shoot in jpeg+raw. If you don't know what to do with a raw image, save it on a hard drive for later should you decide to do something with it.

This way you also have the jpeg image to post to facebook or etc immediately.

Otherwise just shoot raw & convert in post-processing.


----------



## TacotheTurtle

Shoot Raw + Jpeg. Edit the Raw. Convert to a small jpeg.


----------



## Ysarex

gryffinwings said:


> Does anyone agree with any Ken Rockwell says about RAW and JPEG?
> 
> Link to his page:
> RAW vs JPG



If you're new to digital photo and don't have post processing experience then it's fine right now to shoot the camera JPEGs. RAW is serious business for commited and skilled photographers. There's a lot to learn. Other's here have noted the RAW+JPEG option in your camera; if you can afford the storage space no harm keeping the RAWs. You may wish in the future you had them.

As for Ken Rockwell: He's so full of it. I started to read that article:

1. "A big problem in 2008 is that people are shooting raw and not knowing why."
I agree it's a problem for them.

2. "Ha Ha! Photoshop is so good I've seen no need to update from CS2, and not shooting raw, I don't have to."
Clearly a statement from someone lacking in post processing skills.

3. "Saving this raw data is exactly like people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles around their house. They know they might need the information sometime, but it sure gets in the way!"
A third grader would see through this false analogy in a minute.

4. "Image quality is the same in JPG and raw."
Unquestionably and provably false.

5. "If you have to ask then just shoot JPG."
He got one right!

6. "The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw,...."
Didn't even make it down one screen and hes waffling already. See item 4 above.

 7. " (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.)"
And another waffle -- see item 4 above.

8. "One's preference for JPG or raw depends on what you're trying to do. Each format has no absolute goodness; it's all in how appropriate they are to your particular work at hand. Everyone's needs vary and I just happen to prefer JPG."
Two waffles followed by a retraction -- Ken just prefers JPG.

9. "Raw files are just like raw olives: you need to cook or otherwise process them before you can use them. They also go bad fast if left in the raw state and can keep forever once processed to something like olive oil or JPGs."
!!?? Sufficiently left-field to make you stop right there and move on to profitable use of your time.

10. "The JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able to do later in software from raw."
Never. Just never. It may be better than what Ken can do later.

11. "I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly."
And here then is the bottom line: The automated software in the camera doesn't do as good a job processing the RAW data as I do. I can take any photo that Ken has ever taken as a JPG and with the RAW data produce a better photo. I can then repair Ken's JPEG and remediate some of the camera errors. Of course if Ken can't do the same he should keep shooting JPEGs.

Joe


----------



## jaxx419

Ysarex said:
			
		

> If you're new to digital photo and don't have post processing experience then it's fine right now to shoot the camera JPEGs. RAW is serious business for commited and skilled photographers. There's a lot to learn.
> 
> Joe



OP will never learn if they never try to learn. I'm still learning and shoot JPG+RAW but have found I never do anything with the JPG files anymore and I'm by no means at all a pro. My RAW processes files appear to be better than the JPG files which is why I never bother using the JPG lately. Have i mastered RAW? No.. But I've learned a lot by just jumping into it.


----------



## gryffinwings

Thanks for the replies guys, very helpful.


----------

