Raw or JPG? Is it worth always taking pictures in Raw? When to shoot in JPG?

Among the photographers is the age-old war: RAW or JPG? Undoubtedly the RAW format allows for more – photos in this format can be subjected to any loss-free processing in the corresponding program. JPG does not allow this, changing even the white balance can drastically change the entire color of the picture. Is it still worth doing JPG?

RAW: journey into the unknown

fot. fotoManiaK

fot. fotoManiaK

When we are in a new place, we do not know the conditions or if we have problems with setting the correct white balance, it is worth doing RAW . This format gives you some freedom so you can make any changes without worrying about the quality of the picture. RAW also sees more, we can pull more out of the shadows or the lights. In JPG we are going to be on camera in the camera, which unfortunately does not always know how to properly call a photo. Unfortunately, RAW is also devoting time to the work of each photo. Raw RAWs are usually unsaturated with no contrast. Each image should be processed in the RAW program. Of course Adobe Lightroom will be here, but you can use one of Lightroom's suggested alternatives.

JPG: Look at the vending machine

fot. fotoManiaK

fot. fotoManiaK

When you know the conditions in which you came to be photographed, you can think about JPG when you've been photographing a place. Of course you should realize that this is a slightly limited format, but it offers something completely different than RAW. First and foremost, JPG is speed . RAWs weigh a lot, a dozen or several dozen megabytes. JPG is lightweight – in my camera the difference is about 15-17 MB! You can see that JPG is a compressed file, but it allows you to save more images. With that in mind, it's his advantage – JPGs do more, both in the series as well as in the whole. Many cameras offer impressive rate of fire, while in RAW format the buffer is clogged, and JPG can do the card to fill up. Unfortunately, JPG is also a risk . In heavily contrasting scenes, it does not quite cope well, and compression may (but does not) need to take some quality pictures. In today's cameras, the processors offer really good quality, but we still have a slot machine.

Raw or JPG?

I sincerely admit that I mostly choose Raw . I like to have control over everything. There are, however, situations where I can not afford to spend too much time processing. Then I have no resistance against JPGami, and in order not to be solitary I decided to put in the article made in JPG. And without any treatment! On JPG you can bet on sports photography – they offer speed first of all, and the conditions in halls and pitches are usually uniform and enough to choose the right balance of white. Reporters most often use JPG format because this simply takes up little space and there is no problem with archiving such files. I would not dare use JPG to photograph a concert. I do not trust the machines in the camera enough to live in such dynamically changing scenery. The high contrast that prevails on the stage also does not make it easy to work with automats. Therefore, at the concerts I always choose Raw. So when you are not sure how to select parameters for the conditions, choose RAW. When little can surprise you and speed is important, choose JPG. More? See other maniac guides for photographers.