RAW or JPEG on my D50?

[buffalo]

Should I be taking my photographs in RAW or JPEG mode? My D50 is currently set to take the highest quality JPEG photos which allows for about 290 photos on my 1GB card. If I set it to RAW, I can get around 130 pictures on one card. I never take more than 130 photos at a time, so memory card space isn't an issue. I'm just wondering which is the most pratical setting...


Thanks!

[asherman13]

It depends what program you plan on using to organize and/or edit them with. If you use Aperture or Adobe's Lightroom (currently a free beta), go with RAW. If you use iPhoto, use JPEG (iPhoto does, however, have good support for RAW, so it's really up to...)

...how much space you have on your computer, and how much time you will really spend editing the pictures. Personally, I say if you have the room, go with RAW, because you can change nearly anything about the picture on your computer, and that will be really helpful at least once in the future.

So, I vote RAW, but only if you don't mind photos taking up 15-20MB or so (I think).

Hope that helps! :)

[law guy]

Get a 2 GB card and shoot raw plus fine JPEG (both) and use your 1GB card as a back-up for another 70 shots. I use my fine JPEGs most of the time - like with fillm, I like to have the shot captured at the shutter actuation. I have my saturation, contrast, etc. set up to mimic my favorite films. I do shoot a RAW copy in addition to the fine JPEG as a digital negative. If space is an issue and I'm card limited, I go with fine JPEG because that's what works for me. On my 8MP 30D, with a 2GB card RAW + fine JPEG, that's around 134 shots or so. A 6MP Nikon D50 should take up less room.

Your D50 is set up in Nikon's color mode three as a default to produce some nice saturated colors (which you can bump up even more using your camer's vibrant setting). If you just shot RAW, you might be left with a stack of photos where you're going to have to photoshop each and everyone. RAW files are going to look very bland, and you're going to want to play with color saturation, sharpness, contrast with each because no camera settings have been applied. The upside is that you can do a lot with a RAW file - adjust white balance, change all sorts of parameters as if you were back at the time of taking the photo - for this reason I keep a RAW negative in addition to my fine JPEGs just in case.

[buffalo]

I use iPhoto and occasionally Photoshop Elements 4. I've got a 160GB HDD on my iMac with 104GB available. I don't take tons of photos... 1499 over the last two years, but the number has increased lately since we have switched almost completely from film to digital.


[EDIT] If I'm not very good with PSE and like to have good photos without doing lots of work on the computer, should I just stick with JPEG? The D50 also has a setting for RAW plus a basic JPEG. How much would a good 2GB card cost? I'm thinking that I'd rather invest in a telephoto lens before purchasing a new card, but depending on the cost, the card could come first.

[jessica.]

Get a 2 GB card and shoot raw plus fine JPEG (both) and use your 1GB card as a back-up for another 70 shots. I use my fine JPEGs most of the time - like with fillm, I like to have the shot captured at the shutter actuation. I have my saturation, contrast, etc. set up to mimic my favorite films. I do shoot a RAW copy in addition to the fine JPEG as a digital negative. If space is an issue and I'm card limited, I go with fine JPEG because that's what works for me. On my 8MP 30D, with a 2GB card RAW + fine JPEG, that's around 134 shots or so. A 6MP Nikon D50 should take up less room.

Your D50 is set up in Nikon's color mode three as a default to produce some nice saturated colors (which you can bump up even more using your camer's vibrant setting). If you just shot RAW, you might be left with a stack of photos where you're going to have to photoshop each and everyone. RAW files are going to look very bland, and you're going to want to play with color saturation, sharpness, contrast with each because no camera settings have been applied. The upside is that you can do a lot with a RAW file - adjust white balance, change all sorts of parameters as if you were back at the time of taking the photo - for this reason I keep a RAW negative in addition to my fine JPEGs just in case.
I've never noticed on my d70 that I can shoot raw and fine jpeg at the same time. I know some canons had been able to do this, but where is this setting on the d70? I have options, but not an option to choose both.
Then again I use my large format and f4 more often because why mimic my favorite films when I can use them? :)

[law guy]

I've never noticed on my d70 that I can shoot raw and fine jpeg at the same time. I know some canons had been able to do this, but where is this setting on the d70? I have options, but not an option to choose both.
Then again I use my large format and f4 more often because why mimic my favorite films when I can use them? :)

Jessica - I'm shooting a EOS 30D where I can make any combination selection of JPEG level plus RAW (so I shoot the large/fine JPEG plus RAW), but it's a common option on the whole EOS line - XT/350 and up.

The D70s is limited to shooting just RAW (NEF - Nikon RAW) + Basic JPEG (low quality). This is at Page 41 of your Nikon users manual. Shame on you for not looking this one up. ;) But a helpful Canon user located it for you on-line in case you've lost your copy: http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D70S_en_noprint.pdf

If you can only select RAW + JPEG Basic, then my suggestion to shoot both is not so helpful for a Nikon user because you can only select a lower level JPEG quality when shooting with RAW - at least on a D70s.

The D50 has the same RAW + JPEG Basic limit - page 31 of the D50 manual. http://www.nikonusa.com/pdf/manuals/noprint/D50_en_noprint.pdf

D200 users can shoot RAW + JPEG fine - page 28 of that manual.

[jsfpa]

I use RAW when the photos are important to me. Photos that you will not be able to go back and retake. You don't have to worry about white balance on the RAW photos, you can always fix it later. Dose the Nikon come with software for the MAC to handle raw?

[HckySo]

I use RAW when the photos are important to me. Photos that you will not be able to go back and retake. You don't have to worry about white balance on the RAW photos, you can always fix it later. Dose the Nikon come with software for the MAC to handle raw?

The newest iPhoto handles RAW.

I use RAW, no question, never JPEG compression.

[buffalo]

another question:

Should I download the software the came with the D50 or is the iPhoto + PSE combination fine.

[jsfpa]

I went to the Nikon School earlier this summer. The 2 photographers giving the coarse really seamed to like the software that Nikon provided. I just wasn't sure if they had Mac versions. Here is a link to one of the photographer's web page that has some Nikon resource links.

http://www.michaelschwarz.com/digital/

[HckySo]

I never installed anything that came with the Nikon D50. iPhoto and Adobe can handle it fine RAW or JPEG.

[YS2003]

I have started reading RealWorld Camera Raw with Adobe CS2. If you are serious about learning and understanding how raw files work, I think this is a good book. Camera raws are like a negative for the traditional film camera. Even though JPEG files are smaller, Raw files can contain more data you can use when you do editing.

[Pistol Pete]

KEEP IN MIND: iphoto doesnt actually edit the raws, the pic you are actually editing is a tiff or a jpeg.

[mjstew33]

Simple. RAW.

You should buy Aperture, totally worth the expense. I have the exact same camera and I have Aperture and iPhoto. And, of course, Aperture is better, duh, but OMG it's just so awesome and much more options to work in with RAW images. :)

My photos usually take 30-40mb. :eek:

[ipacmm]

My photos usually take 30-40mb. :eek:

^ is that for each photo? because my photos are between 10-20mb each.




I always shoot in RAW and I use Aperture which I also recommend picking up.

[JFreak]

Shoot RAW and you'll have more options when you process the image. Just remember that RAW image does NOT sharpen the image so you'll get different results for RAW or JPEG image; iow, JPEG is ready to go, but you'll need to process the RAW images pic by pic to suit your needs.

[Gwardys]

By shooting RAW with iPhoto, it's a pain in the ass to be honest.
RAW images have no adjustments applied to them, so you have to manually white balance, sharpen, and apply other effects to make a picture look good.
Using iPhoto, the feature set for handling these images is reduced. You cando the above mentioned things, to each and every one of your pictures. But it will take a very long time.
I use Aperture and love it. Lift and stamp is a life saver. You can edit one photo to the way you want it to look, and with a few more clicks, apply it to photos that look similar. The organization into stacks is another great thing, and I love being able to make multiple copies of an image I'm adjusting, and compare them side by side.
Using Aperture, right now I'm running off a 15'' MBP, and a 19'' Dell CRT. Using two monitors is one of the perks about using Aperture. Being able to select and edit pictures on my MBP and see them blown up to full size on the second monitor has made it a lot easier.
In the end, it's a personal choice. By shooting RAW, you have to do more work to get the pictures you want. By shooting JPEG, your photos are done except for minor adjustments. Using iPhoto with RAW, it will take you a while. If you shoot hundreds of images at a time, prepare to be playing with your photos a bit more. Aperture is the way to handle RAW photos, I love it, and I highly recommend it to anyone wanting to shoot raw.

[Gwardys]

Doublepost.

[buffalo]

Would you still recommend Aperature for the family event photos that comprise most of the photography.

[Grimace]

Would you still recommend Aperature for the family event photos that comprise most of the photography.
Definitely. It's a great all-around program. Just make sure you have the hardware to run it.

[monkeydo_jb]

Shoot RAW because memory is cheap, but memories are priceless.

[mjstew33]

^ is that for each photo? because my photos are between 10-20mb each.

Per shot... :cool:

[law guy]

Would you still recommend Aperature for the family event photos that comprise most of the photography.

For family event photos - keep shooting your fine JPEGs and use iPhoto. The advice you're getting is from serious hobbiests and perhaps some making their living using a camera and for you it sounds counter productive. There are pros - Vincent Laforet for example (a canon shooter who uses Apperture), who shoot mainly if not exclusively JPEG, and JPEGs aren't a bad thing. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6454-6928

It sounds like you got your D50 to have a good camera - correct? And now you want to shoot nice looking photos and want to know the best setting for that. Fine JPEG and iPhoto are exactly what you need.

Here's a test - if you were shooting film, would you set up a dark room in your basement or use a professional finish shop where you could do consultations about color preferences and the like, or would you scan your negatives in and spend time manipulating the image?

Or would you shoot on your film SLR and take them to the local camera / 1-hour photo shop to get developed? If this is more likely, I'd go JPEG.

[buffalo]

Definitely. It's a great all-around program. Just make sure you have the hardware to run it.

G5 iMac with 512mb RAM...??? Might be pushing the requirements a bit


Here's a test - if you were shooting film, would you set up a dark room in your basement or use a professional finish shop where you could do consultations about color preferences and the like, or would you scan your negatives in and spend time manipulating the image?

I never knew you could do stuff like this...

Or would you shoot on your film SLR and take them to the local camera / 1-hour photo shop to get developed? If this is more likely, I'd go JPEG.

...so I will go with this option.

[fireball jones]

I have a D50 and a 1gb card, given the option of shooting 80RAW pics or 300odd JPEGs of the same subject(s), I'd rather shoot 300 and try different things than worry about having to adjust them after the fact. As far as that goes, most of my favorite photos were not tweaked at all after they were shot.

On the other hand, there are a few that I wish I had in RAW, because I definately messed up the WB. IMO, if you're shooting in straight daylight, or conditions you are familar with, go for JPEG. If it's indoors, strange lighting, or say a family portrait you really really really want to get right, change it to RAW just for those pics.

Also, if you use RAW+JPEG Basic, don't plan on using the JPEGs for much besides e-mailing them or previews, the quality really drops at basic.

[NoNameBrand]

KEEP IN MIND: iphoto doesnt actually edit the raws, the pic you are actually editing is a tiff or a jpeg.


Actually, I believe it uses the RAW on the first edit - when you save the first batch of changes, you're then working on a tiff/jpeg, as when you hit 'edit' on a RAW image, there is a 'RAW' badge at the bottom of the iPhoto window, and on subsequent edits, that badge is gone, unless you "revert to original" first.

[triotary]

Raw files are just the raw sensor data. It isn't a picture until it is processed further.

RAW allows you to fix white balance, sharpening, saturation, errors after the shot is taken.

Unless you have the programs to edit and process raw, you should stick to JPG.

But I highly recommend you to shoot in RAW. It is like shooting with film, processing it and printing it, but without all the expensive, troublesome and time comsuming of film processing. You have full control of the picture from start to end. :D

[buffalo]

I just watched a Apple seminar about Aperture, thought it was interesting but probably more power than I need. Still...

Is there going to be an update to Aperture anytime soon, and will it be the same price as the current Aperture ($299) or the original $500? I haven't been following the Aperture news and rumors.

Is there any way to get it for any less than the $299? After I stick another GB (or two) of memory into my iMac (currently have 512) just to make Aperature run, I'm not going to want to spend another $300 on the program. I'm a HS student and $$ doesn't come easily.

[jsfpa]

I'm glad I shoot in the RAW format. I just went to Florida to see my daughter and new grandson. After multiple shots of my grandson doing the cute things that babes do, I loaded them on to my laptop only to find the white balance was off. I had my Canon Rebel XT set for incandescent light.It turns out every light in the room had a Compact Fluorescent bulb. As I shoot in Raw I will be able to fix them all when I load them into Aperture when I get home.

[ejb190]

From the JPEG side of the fence, I was on Ken Rockwell's site that he shoots all JPEG. His line of thinking is that he wants to take photos, not sit in front of a computer editing photos. So he is going to get the camera set up right the first time and capture a good image that can be used rather then capture an image and hope he can tweek it later.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

[jsfpa]

From the JPEG side of the fence, I was on Ken Rockwell's site that he shoots all JPEG. His line of thinking is that he wants to take photos, not sit in front of a computer editing photos. So he is going to get the camera set up right the first time and capture a good image that can be used rather then capture an image and hope he can tweek it later.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/raw.htm

Even if you shoot in Raw you still try to get the camera setting right and not do a lot of fixing on the computer. It's just nice that you can when you have to.

[ChrisA]

Is there any way to get it for any less than the $299? After I stick another GB (or two) of memory into my iMac (currently have 512) just to make Aperature run, I'm not going to want to spend another $300 on the program. I'm a HS student and $$ doesn't come easily.

First off why shoot RAW format? I think there are only two reasons

1) You know that you will be doing a lot of work on the computer using Photoshop or Gimp.

2) Yo see that the lighting is somehow "tricky" either the color is going to be hard to balance, (mixed types of light sources) or the range is wider then you can capture. Say a bright sky and dark shaded forground

If you don't have any of these then there is no reason to use RAW format.

You don't need Aperature to shoot raw format. iPhoto handles it just fine and Photoshop Elements handles RAW very well and only costs about $80. Apple sell most of it's software with a 1/2 price acidemic discound and so does Adobe. If you have a student ID card ssoftware is much cheaper.

But don't buy Aperature for it's raw conversion abilllty.

Also look at Nikon's "NX" if you shoot nikon

[BanjoBanker]

I do some free lance photgraphy, mostly outdoor portraits and I have been shooting RAW with my Nikon D70s. I am being paid for these shots, and the clients want them PERFECT. When I am shooting my daughter's track meets and family gatherings, I use the highest quality jpeg settings. I have a 4gb CF II card, so space is not an issue. I believe that the advice on Aperture is dead on, but you will have to upgrade your RAM considerably. My opinion is that 4gb is about right. I have ordered a D2xs Nikon and when it comes, I will continue to shoot primarily jpeg except for the times I am shooting for a client. Unless you are willing to put in a lot of effort, there is no real benefit to RAW. Also, ignore what anyone says about using RAW with iPhoto. PhotoShop Elements too. To truely get the maximum benefit from a RAW image, you need Photo Shop, preferably CS2, neither of which are available in Unviversal Binary at this time. I run Adobe CS2 on a dual 2.5gz Power Mac with 4gb of RAM, 30 and 23 inch monitors and a 500gb external hard drive. I always archive my photo files to DVD as well, you can never have too much back up for pictures. Enjoy taking the pictures of your family and friends, and shoot more. Shoot a lot more. You can always delete the real dogs, but when you fire off a burst, I believe 2.5 per second for the D50, you sometimes catch great pictures. Enjoy your digital photography for awhile before you take the financial and time commitment to shoot RAW.

[revfife]

If you have to ask you should be shooting in JPEG fine. RAW is for the people who have way-way too much time on their hands or they are being paid for their work. Photoshop Elements will still do 90% of whatever after effects you want to do to the picture in a jpeg. Shoot JPEG and take more pictures of the same thing. I know if I have 30 pictures from 6 different angles that I might get 3 pictures I love. Unless you are printing posters out you will not know the difference.

[ChrisA]

Would you still recommend Aperature for the family event photos that comprise most of the photography.

Aperature is what they call a "workflow program". It is designed to speed the job of selecting and post processing a large number of images. So ask yourself do you typicaly shoot 100 or 500 images at an event ad then need to select the 20 or so best images?

Aperature is not really an image editor, like iPhoto, Aperature allows you to specify an external editor. Most people will specify Photoshop. But by itself Aperature can only do gross level changes to the entire frame like adjust the exposure or white balance

If you do not have the problem of needing to reduce the time you spend post-shoot then you don't need Aperature.

[Chip NoVaMac]

Look at RAW vs JPG as being like having a negative verses a print in the film days. You have a greater degree of enlargement from a RAW file. You also have have greater latitude of exposure adjustment, as well ad other adjustment.

[EastCoastFlyer]

This thread has been EXTREMELY valuable for me -- I recently purchased my first DSLR -- a D50 -- my 1st Mac (iMac)-- and a copy of Photoshop Elements 4. What a great creative outlet it all is! I look forward to learning much from you more exprerienced digital wizards...