RAW or JPG

[EveningStar]

Am sure there are as many opinions on this as there are photographers. Nevertheless ...

For my more creative photography still using film with my venerable Nikon plus a collection of quite decent primes and latterly scanning the better images as TIFF output. However, dipping my toe into digital, getting a DSLR and chosen one of the Nikon's (devil I know and I can use my primes) with two memory card slots. I therefore have the options of simultaneously writing RAW to one and JPG to the other, using the second card as an overflow or writing the same output to both cards in case of failure. Presumably RAW and JPG is the most sensible option, leaving me the option of processing, using Capture NX-D, the better RAW images to TIFF. Thoughts? Advice?

 

[najaB]

Thoughts? Advice?

For 99.9% of shots, JPEG is going to be fine. That said, as long as you have fast enough memory cards there's no harm in also storing the RAW image, but I reckon you'll rarely use them.

 

[Bevan Price]

RAW files retain more information about the image, whereas JPEGs compress the data, losing a little of the finer detail, in order to produce smaller files. As najaB says, JPEG will be fine for most purposes.

However, RAW images do sometimes make it easier to correct poorly exposed images -- but as the files are larger than JPEGs, it can be difficult to save a sequence of photos of approaching trains if your camera cannot transfer each RAW file to the memory card before the next exposure is made.

 

[ComUtoR]

If you want any form of post processing then always save a RAW. If your happy to point and shoot then JPEGs will be fine.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I am a Canon user so can't speak for Nikon I'm afraid

The short answer is, like for many things: it depends.

If you are anal about detail and quality, shoot RAW
If you are obsessed with speed and quantity, and not too bothered about quality, shoot hi-res JPEG
If you don't mind spending time post-processing, shoot RAW
If you don't want to faff around post-processing and want "instant" pictures, shoot JPEG

What are you intending to do with your pictures?
If you are posting on websites, flickr etc, then JPEG is fine. If you plan on publication in magazines etc, I would shoot RAW and post-process/convert to hi-res JPEG

RAW is essentially your "digital negative". It will retain all the fine detail and colour nuances and comes into its own in tricky lighting conditions. However, the downside is larger file sizes and slower write speeds to camera especially if you are using burst mode, shooting many shots in quick succession. Years ago, storage space was an issue but memory cards have got larger and cheaper over time and storage isn't an issue any more

Remember too that there is a limit to how much in-camera JPEGs can be post processed.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

However, RAW images do sometimes make it easier to correct poorly exposed images -- but as the files are larger than JPEGs, it can be difficult to save a sequence of photos of approaching trains if your camera cannot transfer each RAW file to the memory card before the next exposure is made.

This will depend on camera/memory card/read/write speed etc. Never been a problem for me

I have a professional camera and only use Sandisk or Lexar professional memory cards which have fast transfer times

 

[najaB]

If you are anal about detail and quality, shoot RAW
If you are obsessed with speed and quantity, and not too bothered about quality, shoot hi-res JPEG

That's not really fair. Maybe a decade ago when cameras were CPU limited, that was true but these days almost nobody is ever going to be able to tell the difference. The only time that RAW really comes into play is if you're trying to fix a capture time mistake or if you're shooting images that are going to be printed billboard size. If you get your exposure and colour balance right in the first place then there is no reason for most people to shoot in raw.

Something to consider is if you're even going to be able to open the raw files in the first place - JPEG is a standard, raw files are anything but.

 

[AM9]

Am sure there are as many opinions on this as there are photographers. Nevertheless ...

For my more creative photography still using film with my venerable Nikon plus a collection of quite decent primes and latterly scanning the better images as TIFF output. However, dipping my toe into digital, getting a DSLR and chosen one of the Nikon's (devil I know and I can use my primes) with two memory card slots. I therefore have the options of simultaneously writing RAW to one and JPG to the other, using the second card as an overflow or writing the same output to both cards in case of failure. Presumably RAW and JPG is the most sensible option, leaving me the option of processing, using Capture NX-D, the better RAW images to TIFF. Thoughts? Advice?

Virtually all cameras that offer RAW image storage can do them both (i.e. JPEG and RAW on the same card) in in eefectively real time. My first DSLR was a Canon 550D, an entry model with a single card slot. I had it set to save both images for most of the 6 years that I used it. Sometimes I would take continuous shote and there the rate was 5-6 images per second on both whereas JPEG only fired away at around 15 frames per second.

 

[AM9]

This will depend on camera/memory card/read/write speed etc. Never been a problem for me

I have a professional camera and only use Sandisk or Lexar professional memory cards which have fast transfer times

I agree. SD cards of any usable size are only available in faster speeds as SDHC or SDXC. For stills, I always used Transcend 10x cards, and burst speeds were the only thing that were effectively slower by storing RAW files.

 

[AM9]

That's not really fair. Maybe a decade ago when cameras were CPU limited, that was true but these days almost nobody is ever going to be able to tell the difference. The only time that RAW really comes into play is if you're trying to fix a capture time mistake or if you're shooting images that are going to be printed billboard size. If you get your exposure and colour balance right in the first place then there is no reason for most people to shoot in raw.

Something to consider is if you're even going to be able to open the raw files in the first place - JPEG is a standard, raw files are anything but.

All major camera manufacturers either offer a processing application that allows their particular RAW file format to be converted to .TIFF or .BMP so there isn't reallhy a problem.

I am a Canon user so can't speak for Nikon I'm afraid

The short answer is, like for many things: it depends.

If you are anal about detail and quality, shoot RAW
If you are obsessed with speed and quantity, and not too bothered about quality, shoot hi-res JPEG
If you don't mind spending time post-processing, shoot RAW
If you don't want to faff around post-processing and want "instant" pictures, shoot JPEG

What are you intending to do with your pictures?
If you are posting on websites, flickr etc, then JPEG is fine. If you plan on publication in magazines etc, I would shoot RAW and post-process/convert to hi-res JPEG

RAW is essentially your "digital negative". It will retain all the fine detail and colour nuances and comes into its own in tricky lighting conditions. However, the downside is larger file sizes and slower write speeds to camera especially if you are using burst mode, shooting many shots in quick succession. Years ago, storage space was an issue but memory cards have got larger and cheaper over time and storage isn't an issue any more

Remember too that there is a limit to how much in-camera JPEGs can be post processed.

All cameras Shoot RAW all the time. The RAW data is used to do a quick and dirty JPEG when saving JPEG only is selected, then the additional data are dumped from RAM. So if the JPEG didn't get it right, there's no way of improving the quality of the only saved images.

 

[najaB]

All major camera manufacturers either offer a processing application that allows their particular RAW file format to be converted to .TIFF or .BMP so there isn't reallhy a problem.

Until you try to open files from ten years ago and realise you don't have the application any more...

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Until you try to open files from ten years ago and realise you don't have the application any more...

This is a problem if you change to a different camera manufacturer. Each manufacturer should support its own proprietary RAW software for many years. I "went digital" in 2006 and still using Canon's own RAW conversion software

To the original OP: ensure that you back up all of your images away from your PC. External storage is cheap however, never ever assume an external hard drive will last for ever. I have had hard drives fail on me with the loss of many thousand RAW files. Fortunately, I back up all my images to second drives. I am very apprehensive about backing up to the Cloud, plus I don't want to have to pay a subscription for the privilege

My retirement "job" is to convert all of my RAW images to JPEG or small TIFF - I just haven't got the time these days

 

[Islineclear3_1]

That's not really fair. Maybe a decade ago when cameras were CPU limited, that was true but these days almost nobody is ever going to be able to tell the difference. The only time that RAW really comes into play is if you're trying to fix a capture time mistake or if you're shooting images that are going to be printed billboard size. If you get your exposure and colour balance right in the first place then there is no reason for most people to shoot in raw..

I confess to being a "pixel peeper" and have an eye for detail. OK, so in a lot of cases, I can tell the difference between a RAW/TIFF and JPEG image - but not all. Years ago, some in-camera JPEGs were awful but I'm sure they've come a long way now. The problem remains however with "too many pixels", aka cameras that boast 21MP or more for example. The smaller the camera sensor, the smaller and more densely packed are the pixels and the less light gathering properties they have. This results in "dirty JPEGs" with too much noise.

Another reason why I shoot RAW

 

[EveningStar]

Thank you everybody for your thoughts. Got the camera and been exploring what I can do, albeit only a limited amount of experimenting before the lockdown.

Decided on the RAW+JPG capture that my camera (Nikon D7200) allows, although it is interesting how I am only downloading the RAW, treating the files as a digital negative on the computer and 'printing' to JPG those I want to use. Camera allows export of onboard JPG by wifi to my mobile, which seems to be the only reason to keep on capturing JPG in the field.

Did not consider implications of writing speed to card, in part because grew up with film and still seem to have the mentality of one chance at the vital moment. Looking at the instructions, in theory can write several images at full resolution RAW without overloading the buffer capacity of the D7200, and suspect in reality will never push that theoretical limit.

Comments about software well taken and I am using Affinity besides the propriety Capture NX-D, so have an element of future proofing. Mind, technology always marches on ... ask me when I last looked at chemical developing equipment and scanning my analogue film images proceeds fitfully.

Always back up everything on my computer to Time Machine and also simply copy scanned image files to a further external hard drive. Important stuff also gets copied to the cloud. And still I fret.

With the limited amount of experimenting so far, must say really pleased with the DSLR. Not quite wishing had done so before, yet was obvious that holding out any longer was going to be silly. Finding the workflow processing of RAW easier than correcting scanned images and swiftly getting images that capture what I want. Attached taken at Newcastle Central for a lecture on railway architecture of the early 19th Century.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

A very nice shot

And I forgot to mention; the resolution of the captured image also depends on the resolving power of the lens.

I know that Nikon make excellent lenses and I'm sure you know, primes are (usually) better than zooms

 

[Giugiaro]

I use both RAW+JPEG when taking a small number of photos or when the photos I'm taking are very important.
Normally I use the JPEG to quickly view what I have on the PC before choosing the RAW files to process through Camera RAW.

I notice that the digital viewfinder often lies about the colour and contrast of the photos taken.
So I end up always having to readjust several things in Camera RAW, like the colour aberration, lens distortion (these two very common in zoom lenses), white balance, exposure, shadows, clarity, dehaze, vibrance, saturation and noise reduction.

If taking a boatload of photos, say in a holiday or a family activity, I don't even bother with RAW.

 

[EveningStar]

A very nice shot

And I forgot to mention; the resolution of the captured image also depends on the resolving power of the lens.

I know that Nikon make excellent lenses and I'm sure you know, primes are (usually) better than zooms

Glad you like it. Only ever use primes for the same reasons you say. This image using a Nikkor 50 mm f/1.8, thus giving a de facto 75 mm on the DX sensor, at f/5 ... just wish I had closed it down a couple more stops.