Jpeg or RAW?

[neil_davidson2]

I store the pics on my digital camera at the highest rating for jpg which works out on average at about 2mb per pic.

I also have the facility to store pics as RAW, which looks like working out at 7mb per pic. Does anyone out there use the raw format and if so what does it get you beyond jpeg? (Apart from having to buy more/bigger cf cards!)

[MolsonBoy]

Some info to consider regarding your question:

JPEG is "lossy," meaning that the decompressed image isn't quite the same as
the one you started with. (There are lossless image compression algorithms,
but JPEG achieves much greater compression than is possible with lossless
methods.) JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye,
notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than
small changes in brightness. Thus, JPEG is intended for compressing images
that will be looked at by humans. If you plan to machine-analyze your
images, the small errors introduced by JPEG may be a problem for you, even
if they are invisible to the eye.

A camera’s RAW format is the truest digital negative it can muster, since it contains the full range of tone and color information captured by the camera. Preserving this version of your photos in an image archive is important.

[KC]

The key to using jpegs without data loss after it has been taken is how you use them. If you like to make changes to your pics and resave them then the software will continue to degrade the image every time it gets saved. Always save a new version of your original to make changes to to avoid degrading the original. If you can shoot entirely in RAW, I would do it, but the files are larger and take longer to save and can reduce your frame rate and number of shots your camera can buffer.

[PaulSands]

The problem I have found with RAW is the sheer size of the files. I have a Siggma SD9 which will only save files as RAW and when using the highest resolution my 1gb Microdrive cant handle more than 167 images which is dissapointing, I gotta by more storage already

[Tim Falce]

I tried taking pics in RAW format but my camera, Nikon D100, seems to take forever to buffer them.

[KC]

I cannot shoot in TIFF mode on my Olympus for the same reasons. I always shoot in frame repeat mode and the camera cannot handle multiple TIFF images like it can SH-JPEG images.

I reserve the TIFF mode for landscapes and portrait photos. Not sure on the size, but I go from 90 images in SH-JPEG to 21 TIFF images on a 128MB card. Quite bit larger for sure.

[djb]

there are many aspects to your question. Depends on the camera, the buffer, the speed of the card, what you are shooting, and then we get to the topic of what is you consider quality. RAWs have latitude for under/over, white balance and depending on the software dealing with them, other things as well.

The speed of a given cameras buffer really is a big factor, combined with card speed, and most "amateur" cameras will suffer a lot in the buffer area. Two "pro" cameras with similiar pixels can have different behaving jpeg algorithms. A D1X jpeg fine is a good deal sharper than a D100 large jpeg, but again, it depends on what you are shooting for and what your expectations and what you consider sufficient quality. If you only look at your photos on a screen, its a whole different kettle of fish if you want to make a 16x20 and expect a given quality.

On this note, it is for exactly this reason that larger and faster cards are becoming available and becoming less and less expensive.

[neil_davidson2]

Thanks for the info folks. The camera in question is a Canon D60 and is used for a wide range of subjects from motorsport to landscapes.

I think that Raw is fine for still shots (portraits and landscapes as already mentioned) but high res Jpeg seems more applicable to more dynamic subjects.

So far I've printed up to about 16inches with decent results from jpeg, which is why I asked the question.