RAW vs JPG: What’s the Story?

The debate between JPG and RAW is sometimes a hot one, with passionate endorsements from both sides of the fence. Here’s the skinny.

JPG
If you’ve never messed with the file formats in your camera, you’re shooting JPGs (the default setting). Because JPG files are compressed, they’re significantly smaller files, allowing for faster shooting, faster downloading, and the ability to store more images in less space on your memory card or on your hard drive.

On the same token, because they’re compressed—there’s less information (or “cushion”) to mess with in post-production if you need to make adjustments to things like exposure and white balance.

When you shoot in JPG, the camera records the image, processes or “cooks” it per your liking (based on your picture style settings for contrast, saturation, sharpness, etc.), then writes the baked JPG to your memory card. The images are ready to download and print/share immediately (you can still finesse them gently in post-production if you choose).

RAW
Compared to the nice tiny file size of a JPG, RAW files are huge. They can easily be 4x as big (or more). Their uncompressed (unprocessed) nature leaves them with all their information in tact, allowing for more dramatic adjustments in post-production later.

Because the camera doesn’t help with any of the “cooking” when you shoot RAW,  you’re responsible for processing the files yourself. Software like LightRoom makes it pretty painless, but nonetheless, it’s a step that can’t be skipped, as RAW files are unusable until they’ve been processed. (In other words, you can’t post a RAW file on Facebook, or upload a RAW file to your lab for printing.)

Bottom line?
Ultimately, there is no right or wrong answer to the question of RAW vs. JPG. It really comes down to personal preference. In the end, the files that are printed for your clients are sent to the lab as JPG, so the result is the same no matter what path you take to get there. The difference is who does the cooking—you or your camera.

For more details, check out my book Your Camera Loves You, Learn to Love it Back, and come back next week to find out which format I personally prefer and how I make it work. Until then, don’t let this topic weigh you down! ;) It’s not as scary as you think!

October 25, 2011 - 3:01 pm

Khara - Hi Carrie! The various quality settings for jpgs has to do with the amount of compression applied to each file. The highest quality (extra fine or super fine) has the least amount of compression, resulting in larger sized files. The lowest quality setting has the most amount of compression, producing smaller files. (Though the pixel dimensions/resolution are the same for each setting.) The question is, how much compression do you want your images to have? I think you’d be ok with either the extra fine or fine settings…. so it’s more a matter of personal preference. (My latest point-and-shoot, the Canon S95, doesn’t even include compression as an option… only allowing me to choose the resolution settings, if that helps you at all). Let me know if you have any more questions, and as always—happy shooting! :)

October 24, 2011 - 5:50 pm

Carrie - My question is; if you are using the JPEG what setting should you use? My camera has three JPEG quality settings. Not sure if I am using the right terminology. I have been using the extrafine setting (right below RAW on my camera) and am being told by “experts” that it is unnecessary. That I should be just using the fine setting, the mid setting. Confused.

October 31, 2011 - 8:25 am

RAW vs JPG: What’s the Story? Part 2 » Nebraska Wedding Photographer | KaBloom Studios - [...] (If you’re looking for Part 1 of this post, you can find it here.) [...]

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*

There was an error submitting your comment. Please try again.

O n   T w i t t e r