RAW VS JPG the Information You Need to Settle an Age-Old Argument

Conway Bridge in East Tennessee - This is not SOOC, and involved a few hours of editing to bring out every bit of the beauty I saw with my eyes when I took the shot.

It's an argument you will see on almost every photography forum at some time, even launching some nasty discussion and comments. It is a pet peeve, I'll admit, and what bothers me most is that the whole argument is often based, on misinformation or lack of information. So, I am writing this article in an effort to enlighten and inform, so that whatever path you choose, you will be doing it with full knowledge of what is really taking place inside your camera and computer.

Before we get started, here is a bit of relevant information about me. Along with being a professional photographer, I am also a computer tech. These two things go marvelously well together because photography, itself (unless you still shoot film), has morphed into a mostly technical world. Having a solid computer background helps me to understand the technical aspects of what happens to the data that eventually transforms into art.

Summer Sorrow - Being in full control of processing allows me, as the artist, to turn what would be everyday, typical images, like this sunflower, into something special.

First, let's take a look at what these terms mean.

RAW - RAW is the digital version of a negative. It is literally RAW data, just 1s and 0s, binary code, nothing else. Raw image files often look flat and dull because the camera has only collected the data, not processed it.

JPG (or JPEG) - stands for Joint Photographic Experts Group, the group that created the standard. It is a lossy compression method for digital images. JPGs from your camera means the camera has taken the RAW data and auto adjusted it to what it thinks is best.

Lossy Compression - simply put for this explanation is that colors in an image that are very similar are combined into one color (compressed) to create a smaller file size. Note that every time you open, change a jpg image, and save it, it gets compressed again. You lose quality (data) every time you
change and save a jpg.

SOOC - straight out of camera. I have seen this referred to as a jpg from the camera or RAW images converted to jpg with software without any changes.

Processing / Editing - the digital version of a darkroom (why Adobe calls their software, Lightroom) where images can be properly adjusted and tweaked for optimum quality.

Now that you know what the terms mean, you may already see some of the positive and negatives of each. I think everyone should be able to choose what works best for them and what they are happy doing. The part that pushes me over the edge is when photographers berate (especially new) photographers for whatever they are doing, and have no idea themselves what is really going on technically. Here are, what I consider, to be the most important positive and negative points of using each.

__________________________________

THE POSITIVE POINTS FOR SHOOTING RAW

• Complete control of the data of your image

• More range in over and underexposed areas (because it has not been compressed)

• Does not lose data or compress every time you open and save it

• Can always be reprocessed as you learn more/better editing techniques

__________________________________

THE NEGATIVE POINTS FOR SHOOTING RAW

• Photos have to be processed into jpg or some image type file

• Have to have software to process

• Takes time to process

• Looks flat and dull if you don't process correctly

__________________________________

POSITIVE POINTS FOR SHOOTING JPG

• Camera does the work for you, you don't have to know how to process

• Faster because it is already in a useable form

• Don't have to have/learn processing software

__________________________________

NEGATIVE POINTS FOR SHOOTING JPG

• Camera does the work for you, you give up control of your image

• Image is compressed (part of your data is lost before it ever gets out of the camera)

• Every time you open, edit, and save you lose data (lossy compression)

__________________________________

Sunset Switchtrack - Learning to process your RAW digital images is the modern day version of being in the darkroom. It is another skill that is complimentary to your photography, if you want to control more aspects of your art.

Personally, I will be the first to admit that I process all my images. 100%. Why? Because I shoot RAW and I have to in order to create the jpg (or whatever image format) for sharing/printing/etc. Since RAW is 1s and 0s (full data only) and I get complete control (and a much wider range of control) when I process the image myself. Because, as I mentioned, RAW images are digital negatives, the real magic for me is in the development or processing.

JPG is allowing the camera to "auto-adjust" your photo to what it thinks is correct, and you are handing over the "darkroom" aspect of photography to the camera. So the Straight Out of Camera (SOOC) argument is really silly when you think about it. It would be the equivalent of Ansel Adams taking his film to K-mart to develop it, instead of doing it himself. He is the creator of dodge and burn, by the way.

That said, the better photo you take, the more potential it has. Properly composed, exposed, focused, and balanced goes a long way into creating a stellar image. The more magic I capture, the more magic I can create. As I said in my book, Garbage In is Garbage Out meaning that some photos cannot be saved by any amount of Photoshop magic. If you have a terrible quality photo, and put it through editing software, you will still have a terrible quality photo. Sure, you might be able to disguise it, bit it's going to be limited. The better you begin with, the better the results.

Golden Hour on Big Creek, Rogersville, TN - Learn to find the "wow" inside your photos.

I strive to take my photos to the max of whatever I can do with them. I believe that every photo (that is well composed and in focus) has a "Wow" in it, some take longer and more effort to get it, and some are almost there when you start. But, I am an artist, and have access to the tools, so why not use them? It would be like telling a painter not to paint it as well as he could because it would no longer look "realistic." Van Gogh's sunflowers don't look like the ones in my garden, and that's ok. (The exception to this is photojournalism/editorial images where there would be an ethical concern for keeping story and content true to the situation.)

On the other hand, if you enjoy taking pictures and you don't like the processing aspect, or you don't ever plan to process your images, then shooting JPG is certainly easier. Some cameras have the ability to shoot RAW and JPG (be aware that it takes up quite a bit of data space), but experimenting with that can give you a chance to play with RAW images or save them for later processing as you learn and grow as a photographer. 

The main point is that you can make a much better decision about how you want to shoot with a full understanding of the aspects of RAW and JPG, and what their effect will be on the data of your image (and you can disregard any bullying from others who are clueless about what really happens).

Happy Shooting!