Open

by damned truths

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Tag Info

New answers tagged

3

I'm guessing that you are envisioning that the information displayed by metadata viewers is extracted by analyzing the image in some way, creating descriptive information from the pixels which make up the image. That's not the case. It's written to the files by the digital cameras (or scanners) that create them, according to several standards, including the ...


0

JPEG is a compressed format, as has been pointed out by several others here, but what they haven't mentioned is that it is not a totally "lossless" compression. Every time you open a JPEG file for editing, it's being uncompressed, then compressed again when your edits are stored. Ergo, you're potentially losing a few bits every time. I started out as a "wet" ...


0

There will always be pros and cons for each side of this question- RAW or JPG, for my personal experience it depends on the 'venue'. But I mostly shoot JPG for the simple reason of efficiency in storage and work-flow. The single best response for this question, in my opinion.. from dpollit...JPEG can force you to become a better photographer. I believe ...


1

The only time I'd opt for JPEG a over RAW, was when I'd be shooting all day and needed to maximize my card storage and battery life. JPEGs write faster to the card, which saves battery life. And, it's obvious they take less space, so I could shove a lot more images into a few chips. Of course, shooting JPEGs means you don't have the leeway available for ...


2

In some scenarios, you just simply doesn't need RAW files. A good example is daily press: JPGs are rarely edited for more than basic level and constrast adjustements, they have more than enough quality for web and press paper, are faster to transmit to the newsroom, can be directly used on layout software, and speed the general process both for photographer ...


3

Here is a good reason why RAW+JPEG is a good idea - tethering. If you use WiFi of a third party device like Cam Ranger, transferring a raw image to the tethered device can take a while. Transferring the JPEG should only take a few seconds in contrast.


0

It is no longer an issue today, but until just a few years ago many people were still using computers with insufficient memory to smoothly work with RAW files. On my old XP computer I had to split up a picture into small parts, process them separately and then stitch them back together when doing memory intensive computations.


25

Beyond the very obvious memory card requirement differences between RAW and JPEG images as noted in the question: JPEGs are compressed and typically have much smaller file sizes. For example a RAW file from a Nikon D800 can be 50MB and the JPEG may be a fraction at 10MB. This benefits not only memory card capacity but also editing workflow speed, archival ...


2

I doubt there are any hidden advantages, it is more or less obvious: the file is immediately ready for sharing (JPEG can be used everywhere) will usually look better out of the box, because of the automated in-camera treatment and "intelligent shooting modes", including quick-and-easy HDR (while for RAW files, we expect the experienced user should process ...



Top 50 recent answers are included