Comments on: RAW vs JPEG http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/ News and Reviews! Geek, Internet Entrepreneur, Hardware Addict, Software Junkie, Book Author, Once TV Show Host, Technology Enthusiast, Shameless Self-Promoter, Tech Conference Coordinator, Early Adopter, Idea Evangelist, Tech Support Blogger, Bootstrapper, Media Personality, Technology Consultant, Thicker Quicker Picker Upper. Thu, 16 Feb 2012 07:00:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3 By: Imadoofus123 http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-535470 Imadoofus123 Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:28:32 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-535470 I use raw 'cause it gives me more control. when I use jpg and it doesn't come out right, I can't fix it as well because it has a lower dynamic range. besides, I want the picture to look how I want it to look, not how the camera thinks it should look. I use raw ’cause it gives me more control. when I use jpg and it doesn’t come out right, I can’t fix it as well because it has a lower dynamic range. besides, I want the picture to look how I want it to look, not how the camera thinks it should look.

]]> By: Imadoofus123 http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-535471 Imadoofus123 Fri, 20 Jul 2007 04:28:32 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-535471 I use raw 'cause it gives me more control. when I use jpg and it doesn't come out right, I can't fix it as well because it has a lower dynamic range. besides, I want the picture to look how I want it to look, not how the camera thinks it should look. I use raw ’cause it gives me more control. when I use jpg and it doesn’t come out right, I can’t fix it as well because it has a lower dynamic range. besides, I want the picture to look how I want it to look, not how the camera thinks it should look.

]]> By: John Newton http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532670 John Newton Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:53:45 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532670 There is a place for each format. I use RAW to capture my important images (Canon EOS-10D). All images are saved to my NAS for later processing. I carry a Canon 630D everywhere I go, but it only captures JPG files. Now, the processing part is the tricky part. If I have a RAW image, no problem. I can use any number of tools that will read the Canon RAW format. Adobe being my first choice, at present. What's nice about the Adobe products is that they will Pull the data from the RAW file and make a PSD file with which you work. The original is not touched. Nice. Now, a JPG file has only limited information stored in it. so I have to be pretty careful as to what I do to them. I use PhotoShop CS2 for most of my processing. I will pull the JPG in and save it as a PSD file. Now I can work in layers and do all sorts of stuff to the image, even though it has a lot less information than does the RAW image. When finished I'll save it as either a JPG or PNG file for use on the web. So, is RAW better than JPS? For me yes, but not everyone can afford a higher end camera that supports RAW. JPG can be used, but you need to be careful if you plan on doing any sort of editing/processing on them but you can still get some pretty impressive images in the JPG format. Now, JPG vs PNG hmm... interesting question. I've been playing a bit with PNG format and it looks to be an excellent replacement for the GIF format. It does a pretty good job and has a file size comparible with the JPG format. I use both on web pages and users don't see any difference. PNG fornat does support transparentcy where JPG does not. There is a place for each format. I use RAW to capture my important images (Canon EOS-10D). All images are saved to my NAS for later processing. I carry a Canon 630D everywhere I go, but it only captures JPG files.

Now, the processing part is the tricky part. If I have a RAW image, no problem. I can use any number of tools that will read the Canon RAW format. Adobe being my first choice, at present. What’s nice about the Adobe products is that they will Pull the data from the RAW file and make a PSD file with which you work. The original is not touched. Nice.

Now, a JPG file has only limited information stored in it. so I have to be pretty careful as to what I do to them. I use PhotoShop CS2 for most of my processing. I will pull the JPG in and save it as a PSD file. Now I can work in layers and do all sorts of stuff to the image, even though it has a lot less information than does the RAW image. When finished I’ll save it as either a JPG or PNG file for use on the web.

So, is RAW better than JPS? For me yes, but not everyone can afford a higher end camera that supports RAW. JPG can be used, but you need to be careful if you plan on doing any sort of editing/processing on them but you can still get some pretty impressive images in the JPG format.

Now, JPG vs PNG hmm… interesting question. I’ve been playing a bit with PNG format and it looks to be an excellent replacement for the GIF format. It does a pretty good job and has a file size comparible with the JPG format. I use both on web pages and users don’t see any difference. PNG fornat does support transparentcy where JPG does not.

]]> By: Simon http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532672 Simon Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:31:34 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532672 I am using RAW with a canon 10D. Transfer the RAW file to PC, convert with PhaseOne to uncompressed JPEG. From there I can resize and compress for the web, picture printing, DVD etc... I always keep the raw and JPG so I can go back 1 year later and re process with a newer version of the converter with added capacity to get me more out of the same picture. I use faststone resizer to convert all my uncompressed JPEG, resize, add text and much more. Free... Doing RAW is like keeping your negative. Take more space but with today's 500Gig HD at 100$, there is no reason not to do it. I am using RAW with a canon 10D. Transfer the RAW file to PC, convert with PhaseOne to uncompressed JPEG. From there I can resize and compress for the web, picture printing, DVD etc… I always keep the raw and JPG so I can go back 1 year later and re process with a newer version of the converter with added capacity to get me more out of the same picture.

I use faststone resizer to convert all my uncompressed JPEG, resize, add text and much more. Free…

Doing RAW is like keeping your negative. Take more space but with today’s 500Gig HD at 100$, there is no reason not to do it.

]]> By: Mark http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532700 Mark Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:11:27 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532700 RAW no question about it. Not only do you get more detail, but you have the ability to fix things that you might not have exactly cared about while taking the picture. Never have to worry about getting that correct white balance. RAW captures it all. You can always set the white balance after the fact in a RAW editor. You get more detail and can recover pictures that were either taken to dark or to bright. Yes, the files are bigger. Yes, you can't just use any ole' software to view the files....but now lately, it has become so popular, that you're starting to see RAW support in pretty much every Picture viewer. RAW no question about it. Not only do you get more detail, but you have the ability to fix things that you might not have exactly cared about while taking the picture. Never have to worry about getting that correct white balance. RAW captures it all. You can always set the white balance after the fact in a RAW editor. You get more detail and can recover pictures that were either taken to dark or to bright. Yes, the files are bigger. Yes, you can’t just use any ole’ software to view the files….but now lately, it has become so popular, that you’re starting to see RAW support in pretty much every Picture viewer.

]]> By: Mark http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532699 Mark Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:11:27 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532699 RAW no question about it. Not only do you get more detail, but you have the ability to fix things that you might not have exactly cared about while taking the picture. Never have to worry about getting that correct white balance. RAW captures it all. You can always set the white balance after the fact in a RAW editor. You get more detail and can recover pictures that were either taken to dark or to bright. Yes, the files are bigger. Yes, you can't just use any ole' software to view the files....but now lately, it has become so popular, that you're starting to see RAW support in pretty much every Picture viewer. RAW no question about it. Not only do you get more detail, but you have the ability to fix things that you might not have exactly cared about while taking the picture. Never have to worry about getting that correct white balance. RAW captures it all. You can always set the white balance after the fact in a RAW editor. You get more detail and can recover pictures that were either taken to dark or to bright. Yes, the files are bigger. Yes, you can’t just use any ole’ software to view the files….but now lately, it has become so popular, that you’re starting to see RAW support in pretty much every Picture viewer.

]]> By: Bryan Wetton http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532809 Bryan Wetton Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:29:58 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532809 My new Lumix FZ50 automatically saves a JPG as well when using the RAW format. My new Lumix FZ50 automatically saves a JPG as well when using the RAW format.

]]> By: Bryan Wetton http://chris.pirillo.com/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532808 Bryan Wetton Thu, 14 Jun 2007 08:29:58 +0000 http://chris.pirillo.com/2007/06/13/raw-vs-jpeg/#comment-532808 My new Lumix FZ50 automatically saves a JPG as well when using the RAW format. My new Lumix FZ50 automatically saves a JPG as well when using the RAW format.

]]>