# JPEG vs RAW - Beginner



## DreamPhotos (Dec 29, 2013)

I'm going to try to "self teach" myself how to really use my DSLR and get myself off of Auto mode. I'm also planning on learning how to really edit and not just use iphoto on my Mac. With that being said, is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW before I start learning?


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 29, 2013)

More to the point, your question should be: _What am I lacking in shooting JPEG that I would gain using raw?_

Until you understand what you can possibly gain, it makes little sense to shoot raw.  Once you can actually benefit from it, then the transition will be much easier to make.


----------



## DreamPhotos (Dec 29, 2013)

I did some reading in the forums and it looks like you should have a good solid knowledge base of editing to shoot in Raw. I think that I should stick with jpeg for now until I get a handle on editing.


----------



## KmH (Dec 29, 2013)

*Image Files*

Understanding Bit Depth
Understanding Image Types: JPEG & TIFF
Understanding RAW Files: Why Should I Use RAW?


----------



## Ysarex (Dec 29, 2013)

DreamPhotos said:


> I did some reading in the forums and it looks like you should have a good solid knowledge base of editing to shoot in Raw. I think that I should stick with jpeg for now until I get a handle on editing.



Then again you might find mention in some of the forums that you really shouldn't be making changes to JPEGs at all. I never allow my students to use the phrase "edit JPEGs." The words we use to describe what we're doing can be very telling. I insist that my students refer to making changes to JPEGs as repairing them. Which then begs the questions, how did they get broken in the first place, if you broke it why did you break it, and do you plan on breaking more of them?

Joe


----------



## dxqcanada (Dec 29, 2013)

I suggest shoot JPEG + RAW, if you are unsure.

I shoot RAW, and I am not that experienced at post processing ... so if I can do it, so can you.


----------



## CaptainNapalm (Dec 29, 2013)

You should shoot RAW.  Even if the benefits of this don't seem apparent at first, you will appreciate this choice later once you really get into editing your work.  You don't want to revisit your photos a year down the road, find a few keepers, and realize they were shot in JPEG which limits your editing options.  Happened to me.


----------



## Designer (Dec 29, 2013)

As written above, shoot both.  It will mean that you're going to fill up some memory with the RAW files, but better to have them than not have them.  

The software that came with your camera will allow you to upload to your computer and view them, even if you don't do any editing now.  

Meanwhile, the JPEGs will be what you view primarily and send to friends.  

You can get some low-cost RAW converter softwares and even some free ones.


----------



## hirejn (Dec 29, 2013)

There's no one right answer but I suggest you read this to learn more about each format and make a decision that works for you. Then shoot RAW. Seriously, you should understand each file before you use it. The one thing most photographers aren't aware of is that even with perfect negatives, it still pays to have the flexibility of RAW because new software can take advantage of RAW information and it gives you more flexibility for changing the way you develop the file when new software comes or when you want to reinterpret the negative. You just can't do that to the same extent with JPEG. The type of file you choose has no relation to skill. Especially as a beginner, you might appreciate the flexibility of RAW when new software or developing techniques become available.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 30, 2013)

Shoot which ever way you want, everyone does everything a little different.  There is no one perfect solution to the question, and a lot of it still comes down to what you are planning to shoot, and what you are using the images for.


----------



## weepete (Dec 30, 2013)

Shoot raw for the photos you want to edit, shoot jpeg for snapshots and the ones you dont. I'll also shoot jpeg for fast action where I want to max out my buffer and FPS.


----------



## Light Guru (Dec 30, 2013)

DreamPhotos said:


> is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW



This question has been asked more times then you have pressed the shutter button.  Doing a search on the forum and on the web at large will provide you will more then enough to answer your question.


----------



## skieur (Dec 30, 2013)

1. If you are neither skilled nor knowledgeable in editing and post processing then there is no benefit to shooting in RAW.

2, If you are very skilled in editing, have some of the best plug-ins, and can edit in 16bit there may be little benefit for you to shoot in RAW

3. If speed and "getting the shot" are most important in, for example sports or journalism, then shooting in RAW will slow you down and therefore be disadvantageous.

4. Editing and processing in RAW is slower than in JPEG and time is money for professionals.

5. Extreme fine tuning of an image in RAW has limited value if you cannot decide where to position the sliders to make minute changes.

RAW is not a format for everyone to use on all occasions, rather it is a useful option to have available when needed since there are advantages and disadvantages to its implementation.


----------



## TCampbell (Dec 30, 2013)

DreamPhotos said:


> I'm going to try to "self teach" myself how to really use my DSLR and get myself off of Auto mode. I'm also planning on learning how to really edit and not just use iphoto on my Mac. With that being said, is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW before I start learning?



You will certainly have more adjustment latitude if you learn to shoot in RAW.  

There is one difference at the time of shooting when you shoot in RAW... which is that the camera doesn't apply any changes to the image if those changes would result in a loss of data.  E.g. if you tell the camera to shoot in black & white, but are in RAW format, you'll notice your RAW shots are actually in COLOR (but are "tagged" that you intended for them to be B&W).   Also... white balance settings are also not applied in camera... you have to apply them when you process your images on your Mac.

This means the first significant difference is that if you want accurate white balance, then you'll want a neutral gray card... snap a photo that includes the gray card in the photo (it can be anywhere -- it's not like "custom white balance" in JPEG where the gray card must occupy the center of the image.)  You only need one of your images to have a shot of that gray card as long as everything else is taken in the same lighting conditions.    BTW... notice I said "if" you want accurate white balance.  I shoot in RAW but often do not bother to shoot a gray card.  If you're out sooting candids... it's not important.  I only use the gray card when I know accurate white balance will be important.  The reason only one image needs to include the gray card is because with RAW processing tools you can copy an adjustment from one image and tell the software to apply to many other images (this is true of Aperture, Lightroom, and even Photoshop.)

Next... iPhoto _only_ does it's work in JPEG format.  It can read a RAW image... but will immediately convert the RAW to a JPEG and will then do all processing on the JPEG.  This means you instantly lose your adjustment latitude when you use iPhoto because iPhoto was designed for JPEG... but is able to import RAW.

A better choice would be to get Aperture (since you're on a Mac).  This has a few advantages.

First... it's _optimized_ for RAW workflow (but can work with JPEG).  Second... since both iPhoto and Aperture are Apple programs, they actually know how to open and read each other's photo libraries -- you can access all your iPhoto images while in Aperture.  Aperture is the original digital asset management and adjustment program designed for RAW workflows... it is what Adobe Lightroom was modeled after.  The two approximately have the same capabilities but Aperture is a bit less expensive ($79).  Also any other Apple software that might leverage your media (iMovie, Pages, Keynote, etc. etc.) will all be able to directly read your libraries without you having to export the images first.  On a Mac... I would suggest Aperture over Lightroom.

When you use Aperture, each adjustment is technically independent of the others.  With iPhoto, it saves your original image (which it will not directly alter) and any adjustments you make are saved to a copy of the the image.  It doesn't make this clear as you use it, but notice you always have that option to "revert to original" -- that actually causes it to discard the current working copy and create a fresh working copy based on the original (which it tucks away safely and never edits directly).  But apart from that... each time you change the image, the change is applied to the image more or less permanently... you cannot make a change... followed by 5 or 6 more changes and then later decide that you want to get rid of that first change.  It's "all or nothing" when you want to go back (I think you can "undo" the last single change but that's it.)  With Aperture, adjustments are tracked individually and any of them can be turned off, deleted, or re-adjusted at any time without impact any OTHER adjustment you made.  This is because the working copy of the image does not actually exist as a physical image... it opens the original (which it refers to as the "master") and then applies the list of adjustments very rapidly only to your on-screen image.  Only the "list" of adjustments is being maintained... not a physical copy of the image (although you can tell it to create one... there's little reason to do so).  This is much more control than iPhoto offers.  When you ultimately want to print or share an image, it "exports" the "version" of the image (basically the "master" with all your adjustments applied is called a "version".)

While this sounds complex, it's actually quite easy to use. 

Lastly... pick up a copy of either Bryan Peterson's "Understanding Exposure" or the Scott Kelby Digital Photography series (I think that's 4 volumes now.)  Both are popular... Understanding Exposure is probably more popular.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 30, 2013)

FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 30, 2013)

Robin Usagani said:


> FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.



I would agree that's true if your raw converter doesn't apply the camera settings during the conversion.


----------



## DiskoJoe (Dec 30, 2013)

Robin Usagani said:


> FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.




A raw captures more data then a jpeg would and needs to edited to remove some of the excess. 

Always shoot raw and always edit each photo. 

ALWAYS!!!


----------



## robbins.photo (Dec 30, 2013)

Ok, well as you can see opinions vary on the topic quite a bit.  For my part to start with I would suggest you use both RAW and JPG both, and do some post processing with both so you can appreciate the differences between the two and get a better handle on what you can do with a RAW file as opposed to a JPG.  The RAW will give you a lot more options in post processing and allow you to fix things much easier than you can with a JPG, in some situations it will allow you to fix things that you just can't fix with a JPG.  

Once you get a better handle on the differences, then you make your choice based on your equipment and your shooting situation.  For example, normally I shoot in RAW because it gives me more options when I go to post process files.  However RAW files are much bigger than JPG, and they take longer for the camera to write to the card, thus taking longer to clear the buffer.  Once your buffer fills up the camera will slow down and shoot much slower until the buffer is given a chance to clear.

So I will occasionally shoot JPG when I'm shooting sports - I use a Sandisk Extreme Pro 95 mps card, and when I'm shooting JPG I can fire 5 FPS pretty much as long as I keep the shutter button pressed.  If I switch to RAW I can generally get a burst of 16-17 RAW files before the camera slows to roughly 2 FPS.   So if I'm shooting sports or sometimes a fast moving critter I will sometimes switch to JPG so I can fire longer bursts and not miss the action I wanted to capture.  I don't use JPG mode often, usually 16 frames is sufficient, but on occasion if I really feel like I need to open up with a long burst I'll change to JPG.  

Just my 2 cents worth of course.


----------



## AceCo55 (Dec 30, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.
> ...



Obviously not shooting sports - 3000/4000 shots ... I just can't afford the extra time it takes to process RAW files. So whilst you advice might be true for a lot of situations, I wouldn't be quite so dogmatic about it.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Dec 30, 2013)

All I was saying is.. if you are not going to edit it, shoot with Jpeg.


----------



## Derrel (Dec 31, 2013)

Robin Usagani said:


> All I was saying is.. if you are not going to edit it, shoot with Jpeg.



And set the camera's controls PROPERLY, to create the kind of JPEG files that will look good. Don't shoot JPEG and be a lazy butt and leave EVERYTHING set to the Default Values!!! Modern, higher end d-slrs can create amazing SOOC JPEG files--if the user sets the camera up properly, for the conditions, and for the intended use.


----------



## bratkinson (Dec 31, 2013)

Mr/Ms Dreamphotos -

As it would appear that you are still very new to the world of photography, my recommendation is to shoot JPG with Automatic White Balance (AWB) enabled and spend your time learning about the exposure triangle (aperture, shutter speed and ISO speed) rather than trying to learn the ins and outs of editing RAW images. When I was new to digital photography after 35 years of shooting film, I didn't even KNOW what RAW was and was perfectly content with the JPG results straight out of the camera.  Although I did find some shots that needed color 'touch-up' and horizontal horizon fixing in post but was still satisfied with JPGs for several years. 

So, spend time learning photography and how to use the shooting capabilities of your camera before spending time and money learning editing.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Dec 31, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.
> ...



You obviously have never had to work under a very tight deadline where getting pictures out fast means getting them used.  Sometimes it's only a matter of seconds that makes the difference.  If a pay cheque was on the line you would reconsider your "ALWAYS"


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2013)

DiskoJoe said:


> .............Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.
> 
> ALWAYS!!!




Flat out:  *bad advice*.


----------



## apaflo (Dec 31, 2013)

480sparky said:


> DiskoJoe said:
> 
> 
> > .............Always shoot raw and always edit each photo.
> ...



That was advice to a *beginner*, and in that context it is *absolutely correct*.

For a pro shooting photojournalism, sports, or anything which *requires* high volume and speed to be successful it does make sense to shoot JPEG.  It also assumes the photographer is experienced and knows exactly how to get the type of shots wanted every time, which by definiiton  is not the case with a beginner.

   Shoot RAW and always edit each shot is very good advice in this circumstance, for a beginner, because it provides the experience needed to become good at 1) editing and 2) shooting.  It also means that a shot taken by a photographer lacking that knowledge may well be useless today, but with the RAW file available it might be a very useful shot in the future when their editing skills have been better honed.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2013)

apaflo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > DiskoJoe said:
> ...




I didn't say raw should not be used.  I'm saying the advice to 'always shoot raw' is plain, flat-out bad advice.  Raw has it's advantages, but also disadvantages, and sometimes the cons far outweigh the pros.

Would you recommend someone always shoot with a 50mm?  Always shoot with a tripod?  Always shoot in bright sunlight?  Always shoot with the Magic Green *A*?


----------



## apaflo (Dec 31, 2013)

480sparky said:


> I didn't say ...



As noted, the best advice the OP has received is that a beginner should always shoot in RAW and to edit every photo.

Obfuscating the context with discussion that doesn't apply to the question asked is not helpful.


----------



## 480sparky (Dec 31, 2013)

apaflo said:


> As noted, the best advice the OP has received is that a beginner should always shoot in RAW and to edit every photo.
> 
> Obfuscating the context with discussion that doesn't apply to the question asked is not helpful.



And I will, again, repeat what I *did* say:  That is _just plain flat-out bad advice_.


----------



## Sharkbait0708 (Dec 31, 2013)

As a beginner myself there is some good advice in this thread!  Thanks!  Are there maybe more details about the difference between the two rather than just which you should use!


----------



## apaflo (Dec 31, 2013)

Sharkbait0708 said:


> As a beginner myself there is some good advice in this thread!  Thanks!  Are there maybe more details about the difference between the two rather than just which you should use!



The nature of digital photography is that you do use both the RAW file and the camera generated JPEG with every shot, no matter what else is done.

It's just a question of when or if the RAW file is discarded, and how much interactive use it gets before that.

Every click of the shutter produces raw sensor data.  The camera has a JPEG generation system, which among other things provides a preview image and data for histogram presentions that show blinking highlights and a graph.  A JPEG image is also embedded in each RAW file if that is saved to the memory card, and it produces a JPEG file if that is saved to the memory card.

Hence it is clear that regardless of what is saved, both are generated and both are used.

An in camera JPEG image is generated using configuration options selected prior to making the exposure.  Most cameras have a large variety of settings, some of them that can be fine tune and others that are generic.  Things like "Night", "Daylight", "Portrait", and so on are more generic and may change the specific sharpening, saturation, contrast settings.  The significant point is that what you actually do shoot and which settings you use need to match, and can never be more than a very good guess.   The advantage is that if the guess is close enough, a finished product is produced instantly.

The raw sensor data from which the in camera JPEG is produced is saved to the RAW file, and the JPEG generation configration can then be an external process, adjusted by observation to be not just close enough, but rather to precisely match results with what is desired.  The typical example is that Color Balance can be controlled very precisely, either for what looks best or for the closest match to the actual colors seen at the time.  Or one image can be generated for one criteria, and another for a different criteria.

 Neither workflow is inherently "best", but they each are better for different aspects of photography.

 A beginner needs to see what the camera  produces, so shooting in JPEG mode is perhaps essential.   But not getting a RAW file for future use means losing many images that could be very useful.   Shooting in a RAW+JPEG mode is very helpful. Working on how to produce better JPEG images than the camera defaults can make will also allow a beginner to make better camera configuration choices for the in camera JPEG images.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 1, 2014)

From day one when I started shooting digital in 2001 I have never shot RAW files, for me I have never had any reason to. It's not something I require in my line of work.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 1, 2014)

DiskoJoe said:


> Robin Usagani said:
> 
> 
> > FYI, a jpeg straight from the camera looks a lot better than an unedited RAW converted to JPEG.
> ...



*No.*

If you're learning, shooting RAW piles a HEAP LOAD of additional stuff that you have to learn on top of what you're already dealing with. AND that heap-load is the kind of thing where- if you don't know what you're doing- you run the risk of being unable to produce an image that looks ANYTHING CLOSE the quality that you would get from an out of the camera JPEG.

Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW?

Again.. *NO.*

I am merely saying that there is nothing wrong with using a shortcut to simplify the camera in the early stages. (same is true for Manual vs. an automated mode)

*AND* skieur aptly pointed out a variety of situations where shooting RAW isn't the best choice.

As with *ANYTHING*... any answer that prescribes only *one *way of doing something- for *any *set of circumstances- is likely a poor answer.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 1, 2014)

Sharkbait0708 said:


> As a beginner myself there is some good advice in this thread!  Thanks!  Are there maybe more details about the difference between the two rather than just which you should use!



RAW is pretty much all of the data that the camera's sensor captured stored in a file.  It allows you to do a lot of subtle variations because all of the original data is still available.  JPG, on the other hand, is a compressed format that has already been processed to a certain extent by the camera.  It discards any data it considers to be "unnecessary", and by that it's generally subtle variations in color from one pixel to another, so subtle that the human eye wouldn't be able to perceive the difference.  The end result is a much smaller file, however it also means that when you go to edit the final product you have a lot less information to work with and as a result your options are more limited.

I saw it posted somewhere earlier that "beginners" should always shoot in RAW, but I would disagree.  I think your best bet as a beginner is to shoot both when you can - so you can see the differences between them yourself and learn what you can and can't do with each, hands on.  Just my 2 cents worth of course, YMMV.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

manaheim said:


> If you're learning, shooting RAW piles a HEAP LOAD of additional stuff that you have to learn on top of what you're already dealing with.



There is no such heap load of additional stuff.  The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction, which almost any RAW converter will do very easily.

One can also shoot in RAW+JPEG and even avoid that step.* The point is to generate and save a RAW file for every shot.*



manaheim said:


> if you don't know what you're doing- you run the risk of being unable to produce an image that looks ANYTHING CLOSE the quality that you would get from an out of the camera JPEG.



No such risk exists.  The JPEG is right there.



manaheim said:


> I am merely saying that there is nothing wrong with using a shortcut to simplify the camera in the early stages.



  Your "shortcut to simplify" eliminates potential for every image shot without a RAW file.  If the RAW file is retained it can be processed 15 years later.  If it is not retained, its potential is *gone forever*.  Shooting in RAW mode loses nothing, shooting in JPEG mode loses a great deal.



manaheim said:


> *AND* skieur aptly pointed out a variety of situations where shooting RAW isn't the best choice.



 None of which apply to a beginner.



manaheim said:


> As with *ANYTHING*... any answer that prescribes only *one *way of doing something- for *any *set of circumstances- is likely a poor answer.



Suggesting that a  beginner shoot JPEG mode is exactly an "anwser that prescribes only one way".  You cannot get the RAW file back if it is never generated and never saved.  When shooting in RAW there  *is* the exact same JPEG file generated and embedded in the RAW file.

Once again:  a *beginner* should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge and  experience to know posititively when or not a RAW file will be useful.  When a photographer is no longer a beginner it makes perfect sense to select JPEG mode if that is appropriate.  *

Selecting JPEG only mode is never appropriate for a beginner.*


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > If you're learning, shooting RAW piles a HEAP LOAD of additional stuff that you have to learn on top of what you're already dealing with.
> ...



Hi.. cascade kitchen counselor here - could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time?  I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly.  RAW is a great format - if you have the ability and skill needed to post process it.  But for those new to post processing they might actually get better results using JPG.  Just something to consider.

I think the point that might be getting lost here is that Manaheim and others are not suggesting that beginners shot "only" JPG, or "only' anything - but rather that the experiment with both formats so that they get a better appreciation for how they both work.  

 Also, we could do something about those hard water spots on your dishes.  You know, when your ready.. lol


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time?  I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly.



The point is, and was at the beginning, to generate and save a RAW file.  That can be done in either of two RAW modes, RAW or RAW+JPEG, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

The manufacturer of every camera provides free software with their cameras that processes RAW files.  There are several third party free packages available on the Internet.



robbins.photo said:


> RAW is a great format - if you have the ability and skill needed to post process it.  But for those new to post processing they might actually get better results using JPG.  Just something to consider.



 Extracting the JPEG file from the RAW file is not difficult, and it was pointed out at the beginning of this thread how learning to do at least minimal post processing should be part of learning photography, just as are any number of other things a beginner doesn't necessarily know on day zero.  Downloading files from a camera, storing them, resizing them, etc etc...  and extracting a JPEG from the RAW file does not add excessively to that learning curve.

 As has been repeatedly stated, RAW+JPEG mode generates and saves the RAW file, and *that is what a beginner should do.*



robbins.photo said:


> I think the point that might be getting lost here is that Manaheim and others are not suggesting that beginners shot "only" JPG, or "only' anything - but rather that the experiment with both formats so that they get a better appreciation for how they both work.



That isn't true.  "Manaheim and others" are saying exactly to shoot JPEG only and dispense with a RAW file.  That is advice they are providing to a beginner.

They repeatedly say do not shoot RAW, and that is absolutely backwards from what a beginner should be doing.  They are not saying shoot in RAW or RAW+JPEG mode and save the RAW file too, they are saying shoot JPEG only until they have a need for the RAW file.  The fact is a beginner needs the RAW file for every shot.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> robbins.photo said:
> 
> 
> > could I point out that most DSLR's actually allow you to shoot both RAW and JPEG at the same time?  I think one part of this you might not be considering is that not all beginners have software that can process RAW files and that even when they do get such software their is a bit of a learning curve involved in using it properly.
> ...




Wow, well the hostility is really unnecessary.  I have nothing against RAW files, never have - and you will note that beginners should use both has been repeatedly stated by both sides, not just by you.

And no, I don't always generate a RAW file, because in certain situations using JPG only gives me better results.  With my equipment I can only get a burst of about 16-17 RAW files in a burst before my camera slows from 5 FPS to 2 FPS - so when I'm shooting sports, I often shoot JPG only.

For a beginner I think it's best that they experiment with both - to find out which will work better in a given situation.   Generally any advice that starts with "always" or "you must" when it comes to photography is bad advice.  That was Manaheim's point, and one I happen to agree with.  I think it's great that you feel qualified to speak for Manaheim, but before you do you might want to go back and re-read some of what he's posted, for example, this:

"Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW? Again.. *NO."
*
So he's not saying what you think he's saying apparently, which was my point.   My advice to any beginners out there, use both.  Shoot some RAW, some JPG, and some RAW+JPG so you can see the differences in shooting speed, find out how fast your camera's buffer fills up using each, and experiment with post processing both file types.  Ignore anyone who tells you different, because honestly it's just bad advice.  JPG has it's advantages, so does RAW - so see for yourself what is going to work best for you in the kinds of shooting situations you find yourself in most often.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> ........ The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction,*.........*




...which is merely a _thumbnail_... *NOT* a full-scale JPEG.  The thumbnail is what you see when you scroll through your albums and file directories.  If you do actually 'extract' that thumbnail, it would be far too small to do anything with.






apaflo said:


> beginner[/B] should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge.......



OK, send your noob to a fact-paced event like their kid's basketball game.  Set their camera to shoot raw only, and tell 'em to have at it.

So they start taking images.  Click, click, click.............. then................... nothing.

The camera's locked up.  They pull their eye away from the viewfinder to look the camera over.  Hmmmm.  Nothing seems to be wrong. It works now.  Oh well, missed a few good opportunites there, but hey, apoflo tells me this is the way to do it.

Click, click, click............. um............... nothing again...............


What the he11?  Looking camera over again (and missing more great shots), it seems to work again.  Back to the action.

Click, click, click................................. you guessed it.


Oh, wait, it works again.  Well, what the heck is going on here?

Click, click................... nothing.



Not until they get back home and ask the forum why their camera does this do they find out why this was an exercise in frustration.  They only have a 3-shot buffer when shooting in raw. They don't have a top-end body that can fire off 20-30 frames of raw, process them lightning-fast and get 'em onto the card.  After the third shot, it takes 5-10 seconds to clear enough buffer memory to even take _one_ more frame.




Oh, the futility.








But, none are so blind as those who refuse to see.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> Wow, well the hostility is really unnecessary.  I have nothing against RAW files, never have - and you will note that beginners should use both has been repeatedly stated by both sides, not just by you.



Then you should not be hostile.   Instead, stick to points that apply to what the OP asked about!  Arguing points that are not controversial doesn't help either.

Some people in this thread have repeatedly told a beginner not to shoot RAW.  That is the point of contention.  It is a flawed concept primarily because those who suggest it are unaware of the signficance of choosing one or the other as it pertains to what the OP asked about.  (We don't care if there are differences for a professional photographer, or amateur photographers, or for someone who doesn't want to edit images, or for you or for me!)   



robbins.photo said:


> And no, I don't always generate a RAW file, because in certain situations using JPG only gives me better results.  With my equipment I can only get a burst of about 16-17 RAW files in a burst before my camera slows from 5 FPS to 2 FPS - so when I'm shooting sports, I often shoot JPG only.



 Wonderful, but that is for a different thread.  This thread is advice for a beginner.  The question was "I'm going to try to "self teach" myself how to really use my DSLR and get myself off of Auto mode. I'm also planning on learning how to really edit and not just use iphoto on my Mac. With that being said, is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW before I start learning?"  Clearly the OP necessarily must shoot RAW in order to learn how to edit RAW files.  JPEG files are never appropriate for editing, it is not an intermediate format, it is a display format...  the final product.



robbins.photo said:


> For a beginner I think it's best that they experiment with both - to find out which will work better in a given situation.   Generally any advice that starts with "always" or "you must" when it comes to photography is bad advice.  That was Manaheim's point, and one I happen to agree with.  I think it's great that you feel qualified to speak for Manaheim, but before you do you might want to go back and re-read some of what he's posted, for example, this:
> 
> "Am I saying an amateur cannot shoot RAW? Again.. *NO."*



  This thread is not about what amateur photographers might do.  It is about what one photographer who is a beginner and wants to learn about "how to really edit" images.  That is an endevour which excludes shooting in JPEG mode literally by definition. 



robbins.photo said:


> So he's not saying what you think he's saying apparently, which was my point.   My advice to any beginners out there, use both.  Shoot some RAW, some JPG, and some RAW+JPG so you can see the differences in shooting speed, find out how fast your camera's buffer fills up using each, and experiment with post processing both file types.  Ignore anyone who tells you different, because honestly it's just bad advice.  JPG has it's advantages, so does RAW - so see for yourself what is going to work best for you in the kinds of shooting situations you find yourself in most often.



Perhaps the people the OP should ignore are those who won't read his original question and instead provide answers to unrelated questions.  The OP wants to learn to "really edit".  He also wants to avoid auto modes.  He didn't ask about when RAW is better and when JPEG is better.  You say "JPG has it's [sic] advantages", but there are no advantages to shooting JPEG when the purpose is to learn how to "really edit" images.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> ......  He didn't ask about when RAW is better and when JPEG is better.........



Yet your response is always the same: Shoot raw no matter what; there is no other choice; raw is where it's at. Raw is be better. In all cases. Case closed.


Perhaps the OP should simply take some shots in raw and try editing them to see what it's about.  Not only what you need to do, but what raw is capable of providing.  Then, the OP can learn how to edit raw files, and _then make the decision as to shoot raw, raw+JPEG, or JPEG... and which choice is best suited for the situation._


----------



## table1349 (Jan 1, 2014)

robbins.photo said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > robbins.photo said:
> ...



Nothing new , this isn't the first forum that the poster has come to, done the same exact thing and then gotten banned for.  Sadly now it starts here at the Photoforum.

I would suggest that if certain post and posters are ignored they will find a new home as it is all about the argument.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 1, 2014)

Heated remarks aside... and apaflo... I'm going to come right out and say that you've unnecessarily added an edge to this thread, and I'd suggest you back off a bit.

apaflo.... I'm not sure what your basis of knowledge is or where this position is coming from. Let me tell you where _I _am coming from.

I have been a photographer for about 10 years. I have shot as both a professional and an amateur. My work has won several awards in (admittedly) local/regional competitions. I have shot twelve weddings, three of which as primary photographer. I have made a career as a successful commercial real-estate photographer, providing pictures of about a hundred commercial buildings in the Boston area. I have also professionally shot sporting events, conventions and portraiture. I'm not a full time pro by ANY means, but I'm far from clueless.

Let me rephrase my previous statements as such:

* Shooting a RAW has drawbacks. (as 480 pointed out... speed and storage space)
* Storing a RAW has drawbacks. (storage space, time to transfer)
* Processing a RAW has drawbacks. (time to transfer, complexity of making color, exposure, tint and other choices)
* All of these things introduce complexities into a process.
* If you are an amateur, making an existing complex thing even MORE complicated can lead to frustration.
* There are, of course, many benefits to RAW as well, but you have to know how to take a picture before you can benefit from them. In other words, learn to walk before you try to run.
* You have to make your own choices.

MY advice is for amateurs to not shoot RAW UNTIL they reach a point where they realize an image that they have taken fell down because of the lack of it. There's simply no need to invest all the time, effort and storage space on RAW images until you know why you're doing it. This will allow them to focus on what is really important- the composition and artistry. Without these things, the RAW vs JPEG debate is pointless.

Which brings me to my next point...

You seem to be advocating that you should have the RAW because you can "go back" years later and "fix" the image. I can't help but laugh at this. Trust me, all my early RAW images did me very little good in later years, because the problems I had with my pictures had NOTHING to do with whether or not they were taken as RAW. They couldn't be fixed. They just sucked. This is the case for most people who are new to photography... and typically when they hit the point that they realize they _need_ RAW, is also typically the point at which some of their images have a hope of being useful compositionally to be worthy of the effort.

Is this the case for everyone? No. Certainly not. I pushed my mom to start shooting raw after only a few months of shooting because she was just naturally good at composition and was starting to bump into problems that could have been fixed or helped by having the RAW. The norm, however, is still the same. RAW is a waste of time and effort for nearly everyone new to the craft.


----------



## runnah (Jan 1, 2014)

You guys are silly.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

480sparky said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > ........ The JPEG image is embedded in every RAW file and if that is all that will be used to start with the only additional step required is extraction,*.........*
> ...



 Most cameras, specifically including Canon and Nikon, embed a *full sized JPEG* that is *identical* to the JPEG file.  There may well be some models that don't, in which case a RAW+JPEG  mode will exist



480sparky said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > beginner[/B] should always shoot in RAW until they have enough knowledge.......
> ...



This thread is not about learning how to shoot a fast paced event such as basketball.  That is a topic for an advanced forum, not for beginners asking about how to get away from auto modes and how to learn editing.


----------



## manaheim (Jan 1, 2014)

Lots of amateurs shoot pictures of their kids playing basketball.


----------



## Tinderbox (UK) (Jan 1, 2014)

Have you guys watched these video`s be warned the the first is the last, and the last i the first. 

RAW vs JPEG vs Ken Rockwell ?Interview? | Fro Knows Photo

John.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

manaheim said:


> apaflo.... I'm not sure what your basis of knowledge is or where this position is coming from. Let me tell you where _I _am coming from.
> 
> I have been a photographer for about 10 years.



You have wonderful experience.  I've been a photographer for over 50 years.  But this thread is not about my experience or yours, it is about the question the OP asked.  Answers for other questions simply muddy the water and make it hard to see.  So do gratuitous personal comments.

Regardless, if this thread degerates to nothing but personal insults because people are unable to argue the logic of it, I will not be part of it. I'm not inclined to continue participation in forums where that is encouraged.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> Most cameras, specifically including Canon and Nikon, embed a *full sized JPEG* that is *identical* to the JPEG file.  There may well be some models that don't, in which case a RAW+JPEG  mode will exist



I think that is news to everyone else.  Apparently, you're the only one with this knowledge.  Perhaps you could expound on this and provide us with your source for this astounding information.



apaflo said:


> This thread is not about learning how to shoot a fast paced event such as basketball.  That is a topic for an advanced forum, not for beginners asking about how to get away from auto modes and how to learn editing.




What?........You expect noobs to shoot nothing but landscapes and architecture? Isn't something like their kid's basketball game something a newbie would like to shoot? That's not a valid reason they bought a camera.... to record their childrens' lives?


Oh, wait.  Let's not let _real-life situations _muddy the waters here.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

manaheim said:


> Lots of amateurs shoot pictures of their kids playing basketball.



Lots of amateur photographers have very advanced skills.   Shooting basketball effectively is a very advanced subject.  It isn't just the size of the camera's buffer, it's low light vs. stop action shutter speeds, it's old lights that never have the same white balance twice, it's camera angles, it's focal lengths, it's tripods/monopods/handheld issues, it's not a beginners subject and is not what the OP asked about.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> manaheim said:
> 
> 
> > Lots of amateurs shoot pictures of their kids playing basketball.
> ...




So, now we're assuming the OP is not only an amateur, but by default an amateur with NO advanced skills.  With no basis for this, you've automatically misclassified the OP as one who is not capable of performing a simple task like shooting a basketball game.


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

480sparky said:


> apaflo said:
> 
> 
> > Most cameras, specifically including Canon and Nikon, embed a *full sized JPEG* that is *identical* to the JPEG file.  There may well be some models that don't, in which case a RAW+JPEG  mode will exist
> ...



 Everyone who has enough background to provide the OP with valid information about the distinction between RAW and JPEG files is aware the Nikon DSLR's that *you* own embed a full sized JPEG in every RAW file.

In fact Nikon embeds three JPEG images into every NEF file.  There is a full sized JPEG and a smaller one in the Exif data.  The thumbnail that you mentioned is actually in the MakerNotes.

  In fact there is one more JPEG image, embedded as a "comment" in one of the others.  I don't recall, but it is probably embedded in the preview image, and is a very small preview image used when multiple images are show in a list on the camera's LCD screen.

You can use any good tool that extracts Exif data to find them.   I'd recommend Phil Harvey's *exiftool*, which is free.

Here is the way to extract them:

    >exiftool -previewimage -b dsc_xxxx.nef > previewimage.jpg

Change "previewimage" to "jpgfromraw" for the full sized JPEG, to "otherimage" for the small JPEG version.  Using "previewimage" produces a 570x375 pixel thumbnail.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> Everyone who has enough background to provide the OP with valid information about the distinction between RAW and JPEG files is aware the Nikon DSLR's that *you* own embed a full sized JPEG in every RAW file.
> 
> In fact Nikon embeds three JPEG images into every NEF file.  There is a full sized JPEG and a smaller one in the Exif data.  The thumbnail that you mentioned is actually in the MakerNotes.
> 
> ...





Easier way:  Use Nikon's VIEW NX2 software that comes with the camera, or can be downloaded free from their site.

Anyone with *ANY* amount of experience will know this, not just those thumping their chests about how worldy-experienced they are.


Now, back to the task at hand: What do you expect the OP to do?  Only shoot certain things because others are too complicated to shoot in raw?  Wait until their editing capabilities get up to speed with raw files before they can go forth and use the camera for the tasks they intended?


----------



## apaflo (Jan 1, 2014)

480sparky said:


> Anyone with *ANY* amount of experience will know this,



I agree, and note that you didn't know it.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> 480sparky said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone with *ANY* amount of experience will know this,
> ...



Are you done thumping your chest?  Why are you now degrading this thread into a _apoflo knows all and everyone else is a dolt_ session?

Um, if i didn't know it, _how come I posted it_?


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 1, 2014)

It's great when the tech geeks start to drag out all this crap about what is and isn't right.  I just take pictures and don't really spend any time thinking about how I achieve what I achieve, but rather concentrate on the content of the image.  Digital to me is simply "new" film, I didn't spend hours trying to convince people that shooting Fuji was better than Kodak, they both had great film for different uses.   

Get over it kids, most of the amateurs and a great deal of professionals don't give a ****.


----------



## robbins.photo (Jan 1, 2014)

apaflo said:


> Then you should not be hostile.   Instead, stick to points that apply to what the OP asked about!  Arguing points that are not controversial doesn't help either.



Odd, didn't think I had been hostile.  Could you perhaps give me an example?



> Some people in this thread have repeatedly told a beginner not to shoot RAW.  That is the point of contention.  It is a flawed concept primarily because those who suggest it are unaware of the signficance of choosing one or the other as it pertains to what the OP asked about.  (We don't care if there are differences for a professional photographer, or amateur photographers, or for someone who doesn't want to edit images, or for you or for me!)



Well I haven't seen anyone tell them not to shoot RAW ever - admittedly I may have missed it but if someone did I missed it.  I saw a few people take exception to the fact that someone told them not to shoot anything but RAW. 



> Wonderful, but that is for a different thread.  This thread is advice for a beginner.  The question was "I'm going to try to "self teach" myself how to really use my DSLR and get myself off of Auto mode. I'm also planning on learning how to really edit and not just use iphoto on my Mac. With that being said, is it better for me to stick with JPEG or make the switch now over to RAW before I start learning?"  Clearly the OP necessarily must shoot RAW in order to learn how to edit RAW files.  JPEG files are never appropriate for editing, it is not an intermediate format, it is a display format...  the final product.



I must have also missed the part where you were named the official thread monitor for what does and does not belong as part of the discussion - lol.  The point is that different shooting situations often call for different solutions, something that was very on point for this thread.




> This thread is not about what amateur photographers might do.  It is about what one photographer who is a beginner and wants to learn about "how to really edit" images.  That is an endevour which excludes shooting in JPEG mode literally by definition.



Really starting to wonder if were even reading the same thread to be honest with you.  



> Perhaps the people the OP should ignore are those who won't read his original question and instead provide answers to unrelated questions.  The OP wants to learn to "really edit".  He also wants to avoid auto modes.  He didn't ask about when RAW is better and when JPEG is better.  You say "JPG has it's [sic] advantages", but there are no advantages to shooting JPEG when the purpose is to learn how to "really edit" images.



Ok, well not to be hostile, but I'm sorry to say that statement is total hogwash.  RAW does give you more image editing capabilities, but JPG's can still be edited as well.  And the reason this thread has degenerated from the original question is precisely because of such horrific misinformation being disseminated.  Being able to edit a JPG is just as necessary a skill as being able to edit a RAW file for a well rounded photographer.  Both have their place.


----------



## Majeed Badizadegan (Jan 1, 2014)

To put it simply:
I would shoot JPEG if I wanted my photos to irreversibly suck. 
I shoot RAW because I WANT the extra room if I make a mistake.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 1, 2014)

I shoot raw when I durned well want to.  I shoot JPEGs when I durned well want to.

I have a choice because I purchase cameras that allow me to have that choice.  And I base my choice on the ultimate use of the images I'm taking.


----------



## terri (Jan 1, 2014)

This thread has outlived its usefulness - the OP got what he considered a satisfactory answer on page 1 - and he hasn't been back.   The thread has only heated up needlessly since page 1.   Closed.


----------

