[Newb Q's]

Discussion in 'Digital Photography, Home and Portable Electronics' started by Chess, Jun 5, 2017.

  1. Chess

    Chess Master Guru

    Likes Received:
    ASUS GTX1080Ti Stri
    Hi there,

    I'm very very new to photography, although I own a Nikon D3300 with kitlens for around 3 years now. I'm experimenting and noticing a few things.
    Here goes the first:

    I'm using RAW image (*.NEF ) and compressed (*.JPEG) at the same time to save images to my SDCard.

    I noticed Jpeg being more vibrant and having deeper colours but RAW being err... more light sensitive? The shadows shown with Jpeg are simply a deep black area whereas RAW still has a lot of colour and details in it.

    Personally I think Jpeg is prettier, but could it be that RAW is just simply more accurate and colours simply ARE that flat, or is there some post-processing going on with Jpeg?
    I'm using a TN screen, non-calibrated.
  2. toniglandyl

    toniglandyl Member

    Likes Received:
    8800GT 512
    Hi there,

    the difference is unsurprising. Here is basically what happens when you take a picture with RAW + JPEG :
    - the camera generates a RAW image : it has all the data that the sensors gathered
    - the camera then takes the RAW image and does some preset post-processing to "improve" the image and then compresses it.

    the end result is that you have a nice JPEG image out of the camera, which is what a lot of people want : a point and shoot camera that gives nice pictures "out of the box".

    the advantage of RAW is that it is uncompressed, so you can edit the picture to your personal satisfaction (much more than the JPEG).

    if you don't do any post-processing and are satisfied with the JPEGs from your camera, then I would suggest you simply don't shoot in RAW. Shoot in JPEG, have fun, and if you want to get into post-processing, start shooting in both RAW + JPEG again.
  3. Glidefan

    Glidefan Don Booze Staff Member

    Likes Received:
    GTX 1070 | 8600M GS
    The JPG is just like taking the RAW file and processing it through photoshop or lightroom.
    If someone knows how to properly process stuff in photoshop, then they'll get better images than the camera JPG file.
    And that goes for almost every camera that has JPG and RAW.
    The downside is that you'll have to spend some time in photoshop.
    I just use JPG for everything, unless the photo is going to bring in money, as indeed, RAW has more dynamic range.
    I would worry more on composition first.

Share This Page