Discussion
Well, it's a very controversial subject that is debated often. Simply: for a digital image to be viewable, the raw information gathered by the camera's sensor has to be converted to a format like JPG. This can be done in camera, so the files are written to the card as JPGs or the camera can leave it alone and write the files to the card as RAWs (the actual file extension varies from manufacturer to manufacturer; NEF for Nikon, CRW for Canon and so on). Doing it the latter way gives you more flexibility but at the cost of higher workload. Even if you don't want to make any adjustments to the files, you'll still have to convert them before you can use them. If you find you're coming up against the limitations of what you can do when processing JPGs, then use RAW files. If not, then stick to JPGs.
If you do a web search for 'RAW JPG' you'll find masses of information and debate.
If you do a web search for 'RAW JPG' you'll find masses of information and debate.
RAW is basically what it says on the tin - When you're camera takes a photo it automatically makes some adjustments to make the image look better. It might alter the balance or colouring or tones. Even in manual mode it will always try and do it's best guess alterations to make the photo come out a bit better. As well as the alterations is also converts it to JPG which is, by virtue of it's format, compressed to make the file size smaller. In this compression process you can lose detail and depth in your images.
RAW on the other hand is exactly what you're sensor picked up. There is no secondary editing from the camera's engineering. You're not subject to the settings and processes that were made up my a few men in Japan several years ago. You get the raw data which will have a lot more depth in it. When you import it into your editing program, for example photoshop, it will come up with a limited editor giving you the controls similar to what your camera has inside it to pre-edit your photo. Instead of the camera guessing the effect you were after, you get the controls put in your hands.
I'd say that if you are a beginner, you probably shouldn't worry about RAW to start off with. Just get some experience by shooting JPGs and learning the fundamentals. Like the change from the creative modes to the manual modes on your camera, moving from JPG to RAW is done when you know the effect that you want to achieve rather than letting the camera use it's best guess.
If you camera has the option, shoot JPG+RAW and compare the results. Particularly good for examples are landscape shots.
(Hope that makes some sense!?)
RAW on the other hand is exactly what you're sensor picked up. There is no secondary editing from the camera's engineering. You're not subject to the settings and processes that were made up my a few men in Japan several years ago. You get the raw data which will have a lot more depth in it. When you import it into your editing program, for example photoshop, it will come up with a limited editor giving you the controls similar to what your camera has inside it to pre-edit your photo. Instead of the camera guessing the effect you were after, you get the controls put in your hands.
I'd say that if you are a beginner, you probably shouldn't worry about RAW to start off with. Just get some experience by shooting JPGs and learning the fundamentals. Like the change from the creative modes to the manual modes on your camera, moving from JPG to RAW is done when you know the effect that you want to achieve rather than letting the camera use it's best guess.
If you camera has the option, shoot JPG+RAW and compare the results. Particularly good for examples are landscape shots.
(Hope that makes some sense!?)
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff