My Photographic Journey: RAW or JPEG?
So there is a debate in the world of photography... Well, some may consider the debate to be done and over. I'm talking about RAW vs. JPEG. If you are reading this and you don't know what those are, don't worry, I'll try to briefly explain, but this is coming from a very non technical level, I'm no computer wiz.
When you take a photo, at least with a DSLR or most higher end consumer cameras, one of two things happens. Either all of the information that was recorded on the sensor was taken and processed by the camera and then converted and compressed into a JPEG file, an older but universally standard image file type, then the excess information is tossed, gone forever.
Or the camera creates a file that retains all of the information without any processing whatsoever. This is a RAW file, and gives the user the most latitude in regard to tonal range, color, sharpness, and anything else like that, as nothing or maybe very little has been processed, removed, or compressed.
So why would you NOT want to shoot RAW then? Well firstly, you need to convert it to a usable file type. A RAW file is not generally recognized universally, not to mention each manufacturer has their own proprietary file type (.DNG, .CR3, .NEF, etc.), and even if it were , the basic file will appear very bland and unappealing straight from the camera, compared to the JPEG or a finished file. This is because as stated before, no processing has been applied.
So you have to apply even at least basic edits to give the photo the 'life' you probably want it to have. Generally a RAW file will not look even as crisp or colorful as reality, so these basic edits are pretty much a need.
Secondly is file size. I understand in our modern era that this is not really a major issue for most pro's, as computers are coming with multi-terabyte hard drives and memory cards come in a multitude of GB's. But for some, it is still a consideration.
JPEG on the other hand are considerably smaller file sizes, and they are finished, straight from the camera, unless you want to do something like focus stacking or HDR, etc.
The downside to JPEG is that all of the RAW information is gone forever (unless you shoot in RAW+JPEG, but again the RAW file will need processing). So there is much less latitude for correction or changing of things. You still can, but the result will probably be less quality than if you used RAW.
So we're left with a decision. RAW or JPEG?
But for me personally there's one other area that I think we should give credence to, perhaps two.
The first is time.
I'm not very fond of editing photos. It takes a while, especially if you want to get it 'just right'. And a lot of times I end up with something that looks less than ideal, generally because I was too lazy to get it right in camera.
I'd rather be doing many other things than spending all day in front of my computer editing photos.
And if I'm on a trip, a lot of times I have many photos which will takes weeks or longer to get to and edit. I have photos from past trips that I probably have never touched!
And yet, until I do, I can't share or use these photos. Lame!
But I think for me there's another reason and this is honesty. Now this isn't really tied to RAW or JPEG per say, but with RAW there is much more of a tendency to push what the scene really looked like. Ok I really don't see that as a huge deal, as I do understand that cameras are limited when compared to our eyes in regard to dynamic range (the range between shadows and highlights), not to mention photography is an art and so there is some leeway in regards to the final outcome of the image. I'm not against all processing, however I do like a somewhat more minimalist approach.
But the direction photography is going, people that look at calendars and photos online are in for a big dissapointment when they get to a beautiful place and realize that no, the sky is not neon orange and the trees are not the color of toxic sludge. I've been to some amazing places, and while sometimes colors are spectacular, what I see pushed in some images is hallucinagenic at best. RAW does allow for some pushing in those areas, and in an easier way than JPEG, in my personal opinion, given the ease of using sliders in RAW processing software.
But a JPEG, if I got it right in camera, is ready to go, just maybe resize it and resharpen for the size and boom, upload!
Ok so I'm kind of rambling at this point, and haven't reached a conclusion. RAW or JPEG?
That's kind of the point, I really want to wean off of RAW. I want to get it right in camera, and I want to spend more time doing other things like working on this website. I know, any pros that might read this are probably saying this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and perhaps that's true, or that maybe I'm lazy. But each photographer needs to come to their own style, and I feel that given my life and desires, I'd rather shoot JPEG. But will it work? Will I change my mind? Maybe, I'm not gonna be all dogmatic about it. Everyone has their own choice in this. I'll have to keep you posted.
For now though, I think I will be trying it, at least some, and see if I can achieve the results that I would like. Let's see where this goes.
When you take a photo, at least with a DSLR or most higher end consumer cameras, one of two things happens. Either all of the information that was recorded on the sensor was taken and processed by the camera and then converted and compressed into a JPEG file, an older but universally standard image file type, then the excess information is tossed, gone forever.
Or the camera creates a file that retains all of the information without any processing whatsoever. This is a RAW file, and gives the user the most latitude in regard to tonal range, color, sharpness, and anything else like that, as nothing or maybe very little has been processed, removed, or compressed.
So why would you NOT want to shoot RAW then? Well firstly, you need to convert it to a usable file type. A RAW file is not generally recognized universally, not to mention each manufacturer has their own proprietary file type (.DNG, .CR3, .NEF, etc.), and even if it were , the basic file will appear very bland and unappealing straight from the camera, compared to the JPEG or a finished file. This is because as stated before, no processing has been applied.
So you have to apply even at least basic edits to give the photo the 'life' you probably want it to have. Generally a RAW file will not look even as crisp or colorful as reality, so these basic edits are pretty much a need.
Secondly is file size. I understand in our modern era that this is not really a major issue for most pro's, as computers are coming with multi-terabyte hard drives and memory cards come in a multitude of GB's. But for some, it is still a consideration.
JPEG on the other hand are considerably smaller file sizes, and they are finished, straight from the camera, unless you want to do something like focus stacking or HDR, etc.
The downside to JPEG is that all of the RAW information is gone forever (unless you shoot in RAW+JPEG, but again the RAW file will need processing). So there is much less latitude for correction or changing of things. You still can, but the result will probably be less quality than if you used RAW.
So we're left with a decision. RAW or JPEG?
But for me personally there's one other area that I think we should give credence to, perhaps two.
The first is time.
I'm not very fond of editing photos. It takes a while, especially if you want to get it 'just right'. And a lot of times I end up with something that looks less than ideal, generally because I was too lazy to get it right in camera.
I'd rather be doing many other things than spending all day in front of my computer editing photos.
And if I'm on a trip, a lot of times I have many photos which will takes weeks or longer to get to and edit. I have photos from past trips that I probably have never touched!
And yet, until I do, I can't share or use these photos. Lame!
But I think for me there's another reason and this is honesty. Now this isn't really tied to RAW or JPEG per say, but with RAW there is much more of a tendency to push what the scene really looked like. Ok I really don't see that as a huge deal, as I do understand that cameras are limited when compared to our eyes in regard to dynamic range (the range between shadows and highlights), not to mention photography is an art and so there is some leeway in regards to the final outcome of the image. I'm not against all processing, however I do like a somewhat more minimalist approach.
But the direction photography is going, people that look at calendars and photos online are in for a big dissapointment when they get to a beautiful place and realize that no, the sky is not neon orange and the trees are not the color of toxic sludge. I've been to some amazing places, and while sometimes colors are spectacular, what I see pushed in some images is hallucinagenic at best. RAW does allow for some pushing in those areas, and in an easier way than JPEG, in my personal opinion, given the ease of using sliders in RAW processing software.
But a JPEG, if I got it right in camera, is ready to go, just maybe resize it and resharpen for the size and boom, upload!
Ok so I'm kind of rambling at this point, and haven't reached a conclusion. RAW or JPEG?
That's kind of the point, I really want to wean off of RAW. I want to get it right in camera, and I want to spend more time doing other things like working on this website. I know, any pros that might read this are probably saying this guy doesn't know what he's talking about, and perhaps that's true, or that maybe I'm lazy. But each photographer needs to come to their own style, and I feel that given my life and desires, I'd rather shoot JPEG. But will it work? Will I change my mind? Maybe, I'm not gonna be all dogmatic about it. Everyone has their own choice in this. I'll have to keep you posted.
For now though, I think I will be trying it, at least some, and see if I can achieve the results that I would like. Let's see where this goes.