Pros and Cons of Shooting JPEG v. RAW Files

[George Tyndall]

Here is a nice summation of the pros and cons of shooting JPEG v. RAW files

04:17 Whenever you have the option, you typically want to shoot Raw, so you have the
04:21 flexibility and the power to be able to make choices after the fact and take advantage of that extra rich information.
04:28 If you have a low-end consumer camera that you just carry around in your pocket,
04:31 you may only have the option to shoot JPEG, and then the more expensive cameras you buy have usually the option to shoot Raw as well.
04:39 And when in a pinch, if you want to have the flexibility of not having to process every Raw file
04:44 and have JPEGs as well, a lot of cameras actually have the option to shoot both JPEG and Raw at the same time,
04:49 which is what we used here to get these two different versions captured at the same moment in time but one was
04:54 saved out as a JPEG for quick editing, and one was saved out as a Raw.
04:57 So I'll just close with saying one disadvantage of Raw is because it is a digital negative,
05:03 it has to be processed in order for you to be able to use it.
05:07 So while you get more power and more flexibility, it actually does end up creating more work for you

Source: "PS CS5 Essential Training" by Michael Ninness on the web site of the muvipix affiliate lynda.com (which can be accessed on the muvipix Home page)

Ninness' "mantra" is "Think Camera Raw for global and Photoshop for local editing." (PS CS5 actually consists of 3 separate programs: Adobe Bridge CS5, Camera Raw 6.0 and Photoshop 12.)

My interpretation: Make a well-exposed, well-lit, well-focused and properly-composed JPEG (no cropping necessary) that has no color cast or other flaws, and one can save a lot of time. With regard to the fact that processing with Camera Raw is "non-destructive" of the original image, always save your edited JPEGs either in a version set (which leaves the original untouched) or, possibly even better, do a Save AS of all your JPEGs as PSDs before performing any editing, which will also leave the original JPEGs untouched.

That having been said, it's also true that the Sharpening and Post Crop Vignetting features in Camera Raw processing (which can be used with JPEGs and TIFFs in addition to RAW files) are terrific, as is the Graduated Filter feature for outdoor images showing lots of overexposed sky. For quick retoucing of the skin and eyes, the Adjustment Brush is also fabulous. Still additional fabulous feature of Camera Raw processing include the ability to Copy Camera Raw Settings from one file to others (similar to Paste Attributes in Premiere) and the use of saved custom Presets (for example, Post Crop Vignetting) to quickly apply one's frequently-used edits to multiple files. So if there is no other reason to open Photoshop, one might wish to avail of these features as quick steps in one's editing before outputting the edited file as either a JPEG, TIFF or PSD directly from Camera Raw.

Comments from the Photoshop experts please!

[Bob]

I've become a big fan of shooting using raw rather than jpeg. I don't even shoot raw + jpeg even though my camera has the option to do that. It's a personal thing, really. I find it give me more control and latitude. If you prefer Jpeg, that's fine too. If you don't over compress the jpeg and know how to expose properly and establish your white balance you can get great results.

Both raw and jpeg start off life the same way as sensor data. The difference is that raw saves the sensor data unchanged and records the camera settings in metadata embedded in the file, while jpeg applies the camera settings to the sensor data and then saves the resultant image as a compressed jpeg file. That's an important distinction.

Sensor data is generally 12-bits per color or even 14-bit in some cameras. Jpeg is fixed at 8-bits per color. That's a little bit of a ringer in that sensor data is in a linear color space while the converted rgb pixel values are in a logarithmic color space (gamma 2.2 usually). So, we aren't exactly talking about the same thing, but when it comes to processing, more bits is better. In producing the image that will become the jpeg, the sensor data is converted to gamma 2.2; the exposure, white balance, contrast, and saturation are applied; and the image is sharpened. The resultant pixels are a result of all the calculations performed in the camera and you can't undo that. In addition, when the jpeg compression is applied, the compressing is lossy and you will lose some detail.

With a raw file, the calculations haven't been done yet and you can compute the resultant pixel values using either the settings recorded by the camera (provided the camera manufacturer hasn't encrypted them or stored them using a proprietary format) or use different ones. Why would you want to do that? One reason is that processing raw on a computer rather than in the camera allows for more sophisticated and more compute intensive algorithms. Another reason is that the camera settings are relatively course. You have more latitude tuning in the exact results that you want with raw files. Also, white balance is easily adjusted in the linear color space that raw uses, but is rather difficult to do properly in the converted gamma 2.2 color space. And, raw compression, when used, is lossless.

Even you you never shoot raw, the tools provided in Adobe Camera Raw are great. I feel it's worth adopting a "raw like" workflow to take advantage of them.

[John 'twosheds' McDonald]

Bob, can I try an analogy based on classic film based photography that might help with the difference?

The RAW process is like working directly from a negative so to obtain a print is a one step process.

The .jpeg process is like getting a print from a slide (diapositive). To get a print you first have to copy the positive slide to obtain an internegative image that you can then use to make the print, so a two stage process. But there will be some loss when creating the internegative from the slide.

(Now I know that in the 'dying years' of film based photograhy Ciba Geigy did market a direct 'print from slide to paper process' (Cibachrome) but prior to that the internegative was the only way to go).

[George Tyndall]

Even you you never shoot raw, the tools provided in Adobe Camera Raw are great. I feel it's worth adopting a "raw like" workflow to take advantage of them.

Bob, in the 21-chapter course on PS CS5 that I took recently, the trainer, Michael Ninness, devoted a full 6 chapters to the use of Adobe Bridge with Camera Raw for processing, and he did emphasize the usefulness of Camera Raw processing even when one's files are JPEGs. I've already used the Post Crop Vignetting feature in some of my slides, and I've been VERY happy not only with the results but also with the ease of use.