10 Reasons Why You Should Be Shooting RAW

Youve probably heard over and over that you should be shooting in RAW. But do you know why its so important? And what it really means for your images? Lets sort it out! First off, what is RAW? RAW is a file format that captures all image data recorded by the sensor when you take a photo. When shooting in a format like JPEG image information is compressed and lost. Because no information is compressed with RAW youre able to produce higher quality images, as well as correct problem images that would be unrecoverable if shot in the JPEG format. And happily many cameras these days shoot RAW, including point and shoots! So even if youre using a little camera, you might still be able to take advantage of the RAW file format (just check your camera manual to see!). So, the benefits. Lets list em out.

1. Get the Highest Level of Quality This is one of the biggest benefits. When you shoot in RAW you record all of the data from the sensor. This gives the highest quality files. And when it comes to your awesome images, you want high quality. Look at it this way: all cameras technically shoot RAW. Yes, its true. The difference when you shoot in JPEG format is that the camera does its own processing to convert the RAW information into a JPEG. However, your camera is nowhere near as smart as your brain, nor is it as powerful as your computer. When you shoot RAW, youre able to do that processing yourself. You can make the decisions on how the image should look, and produce way better results. 2. Record Greater Levels of Brightness Levels of brightness are the number of steps from black to white in an image. The more you have, the smoother the transitions of tones. Smooth is good. JPEG records 256 levels of brightness, and RAW records between 4,096 to 16,384 levels! This is described with the term bit. JPEG captures in 8bit, and RAW is either 12bit or 14bit. Thats what that bit business means! The effect this has on your images is huge. Those additional steps of brightness let you make more adjustments (exposure, blacks, fill light, recovery, contrast, brightness) to your image without a significant reduction of quality, because theres more levels to work with! Its also easier to avoid or correct posterization in your images when you shoot in RAW. Posterization is the banding that you often see in bright skies, which really doesnt look good in prints! 3. Easily Correct Dramatically Over/Under Exposed Images Obviously you want to get the best exposure in camera, but sometimes things move fast (especially with weddings!) and you wind up with a dramatically over or under exposed image. With RAW you have additional information in the file, so its much easier to correct the image without a drastic reduction in quality. You can also recover more blown highlights and clipped shadows. Good stuff.

4. Easily Adjust White Balance When you shoot JPEG the white balance is applied to the image. You cant just easily choose another option. With RAW the white balance is still recorded, but because you have way more data, its easy to adjust. Great white balance and colour are essential to an awesome image, and shooting RAW lets you make the adjustments easier and faster, with better results. 5. Get Better Detail When you shoot RAW you have access to sharpening and noise algorithms in a program like Lightroom that are way more powerful than those found in your camera. Plus, these sharpening and noise algorithms are always improving, so in the future youll be able to re-visit your RAW files and take advantage of these improvements. And jetpacks. 6. Enjoy Non-Destructive Editing When you make adjustments to a RAW file, youre not actually doing anything to the original data. What youre doing is creating a set of instructions for h ow the JPEG or TIFF (another file format) version should be saved. The awesomeness of this is that you never ever have to worry about ruining an image, accidentally saving over, or being unable to go back and make changes. You can always reset your adjustments, and start over again. JPEG files lose quality every time you open them, make adjustments, and save again. True story. Its what is known as a lossy file format. So if youre making edits to JPEGs you always have to be duplicating the image and saving out a new version if you dont want to lose file quality. Hassle. 7. Get Better Prints Because of the finer gradation of tones and colours youll get better prints from RAW files. Even though more and more people are shooting digital, great prints are as important as ever (maybe even more so, due to their relative rarity!) Youll also get less banding, which is really yucky on a print. 8. Select Colour Space on Output Colour space is a bit of a complex topic, but heres a quick tip. With RAW you can choose from any colour space when you are exporting it out, so you can adjust depending on the situation!

Is the image going on to the web? Then output in the sRGB colour space to ensure maximum compatibility among web browsers. Are the files heading to a client? Save it in the common Adobe RGB (1998) colour space. Do you want the widest colour space possible? Use ProPhoto RGB. Basically there are different colour spaces that work best for different situations, and when you shoot RAW you can export a single image in multiple spaces! Sweet! 9. Have an Efficient Workflow Its easier to work through large batches of images when youre using a workflow centric program like Lightroom or Aperture. Theyre designed to easily process groups of RAW images. Photoshop is not meant for that kind of thing, its built to handle one image at a time. In order to take full advantage of all the benefits of Lightroom and Aperture you should be shooting RAW! 10. Its the Pro Option Professionals should be providing their clients with the highest quality possible. Issues like banding and blown highlights are big deals when youre offering your clients printed products. Achieving proper colour balance and choosing the right colour space for the situation are critical as well. By shooting RAW you take control, and are able to manage these problems to create the best results possible. Now that some point and shoots are capable of shooting RAW, hobbyists and amateurs can also take advantage of this pro level option, and get better files and prints! Good deal.

DOWNSIDES AND SOLUTIONS Now, there are always pros and cons to every option, and RAW does have a few downsides. Well chat about those, as well as some potential solutions! NEED TO BE PROCESSED A common argument against shooting RAW is that because the files need to be processed, it takes more time to shoot RAW than JPEG. If you dont do any processing to your JPEGs that might be true. However, most photographers do some level of processing to their JPEGs so already the argument is getting flimsy.

Then, when you add in the fact that adjustments like white balancing, and recovering highlights and shadows are way faster with RAW files, and it actually begins to looks like processing RAW can be faster than JPEG!! Then, with RAW, you can easily export to JPEG, as well as convert to various sizes (like web res) at the same time. If you really wanted you could even shoot RAW + JPEG simultaneously! RAW gives you way more options, and can be processed just as fast, if not faster, than JPEG. TAKES UP MORE SPACE Since RAW files have more uncompressed information they can be 2-3 times larger than JPEG files. This is definitely a concern for many shooters, especially those who create a lot of images. But over the past few years, the cost of hard drives has really d ropped, and theyre incredibly affordable! Lets consider a 1TB hard drive. A 1TB drive costs about $55 If a large JPEG file is about 8MB, youll fit 125,000 images on the drive, at $0.00044/image If a RAW file is about 30MB, youll fit 33,333 images on the drive, at $0.00165/image Obviously you can store fewer RAW files, but the number of images that you can cheaply store is so large for both formats that its not really an issue! Its also probably a good idea to not place so many images on a single hard drive. Dont put all your photographic eggs in one basket! Memory cards are the same deal. Theyre constantly dropping in price. Remember when a 2GB card was over $200?? Nowadays you can hardly even buy one that small, and 4GB is as cheap as $15. Madness! Yes, RAW files are bigger and take up more space. But thats because theyre of higher quality. Go with high quality for the extra $0.00121/image. SLOWS THE CAMERA DOWN RAW files are larger than JPEGs, so theyll fill up the buffer of your camera faster. The camera will still shoot the same frames per second, regardless of whether it is RAW or JPEG, but you may have to wait for the camera to write to the memory card if the buffer fills up. If shooting fast sequences if critical for you, and you want to shoot RAW, you can purchase faster memory cards, or a more expensive camera with a larger buffer.

IN A PROPRIETARY FORMAT RAW files are often recorded in a proprietary format, which means that the camera manufacturers havent officially disclosed how the raw data can be converted. Companies like Adobe either need to license software to decode the RAW files or reverse engineer how the files should be converted. (For Canon cameras the RAW format looks like .CR2 and for Nikon its .NEF). The problem here is that you cant be certain that in 5, 10 or 20 years youll be able to easily open that RAW file if you dont have the proper software to decode it! A new open source RAW format has been developed in order to overcome this obstacle. It was developed by Adobe and is known as DNG (Digital Negative). Using a program like Lightroom, you can convert your proprietary RAW files into the open source DNG format. Its an extra step, but it will ensure your files are readable far into the future! Already the Leica M9 shoots in the DNG format, so look for more camera manufacturers to support this open source format in the future! Wrap It UP! Hopefully this looks at RAW and its benefits have cleared things up a bit! Suggestions that RAW takes too long, or is too much work, dont really hold water anymore. These days, its super-duper easy (and fast!) to process RAW files, and youll be able to get the absolute best quality out of those images that you put so much time, effort and love into!

Should you be shooting RAW?

You can find many articles online discussing the benefits of shooting in RAW and probably an equal number full of counter arguments stating that it is possible to obtain equally good results shooting in JPEG. Whilst that is definitely true, I want to discuss the reasons that pushed me to exclusively use RAW in the hope that it can persuade others to do the same. I liken RAW processing to taking the camera off auto and shooting in manual mode. When people are starting out in digital photography, it can seem like another area full of technical jargon that forms a barrier preventing its uptake. However, once you have an small understanding of the processes involved and how different settings can impact your results, you will find that letting your camera do the processing can be the limiting factor in achieving your photographic vision. What is RAW? A RAW file is an uncompressed image file that records the data fr om the sensor as is, with minimal processing. Depending on your camera, this file will most likely contain either 12bit or 14-bit data. When shooting in JPEG, the camera will take the RAW file, process it with a number of generic actions (typically contrast/saturation adjustments, correcting for white balance and sharpening) before compressing the image down to an 8-bit JPEG file. That difference in bit depth is the key here. The 12 -bit image will contain 2^12=4096 tones per channel. Given that there are three channels per pixel (red, green and blue), that equates to 4096x4096x4096= 69 billion possible tones per pixel. If we compare that to the other bit depths, you will see the difference: Bit depth 8-bit 12-bit 14-bit Tones per channel 2^8 = 256 2^12 = 4096 2^14 =16384 Possible tones per pixel 16.8 million 68.7 billion 4.4 trillion

Now those numbers are almost too large to comprehend, however it is quite simple to consider in context. When you take a JPEG file from your camera into Photoshop to process, there are only 256 possible tones to define the colour for each red, green or blue channel, which means that when you start apply changes to contrast or brightness, there are a very limited number of possible tones for each pixel, which can result in obvious image degradation if pushed too far. With a RAW image, the number of possible tones is that much greater that more significant changes to can be made without any impact on the final image quality.

This doesnt come without a cost though. Due to the increased bit depth of RAW files, they are anywhere from 2-6 times larger than the corresponding JPEG when recorded in camera. This will make your vast memory card seem very limited. Additionally, where as a JPEG is typically printer-ready straight out of the camera, a RAW file will need to be manually processed in your digital darkroom. So, to answer the obvious question of is it worth it?, lets consider the benefits The benefits of RAW As mentioned above, when shooting JPEG, the camera processes the image internally, before compressing it to a lower bit depth. The processing applied by the camera is generic, and uniform across the entire image. In contrast, when you capture RAW images, you have full control over how much processing is applied to an image, and where in that image you apply it. Given the increased bit depth of the RAW files, any image you capture is much more forgiving than the corresponding JPEG would be. For example, if you didnt nail your exposure, and you over-exposed the sky of a landscape photograph, leaving it nearly white, you will be able to recover much more tonal data in the RAW file and potentially save what, otherwise, may be an image destined for the recycle bin. Similarly for shadow data, much more information is retained meaning under-exposed regions of an image can be recovered to show detail that would otherwise have been lost.

On the left is the image presented straight out of camera. Exposing to contain the bright sky caused the trees to be under-exposed, and appear and a dense block of dark colour. The image on the right shows the same image processed to boost the shadows to reveal detail that may otherwise have been lost Similarly, one image can contain enough tonal detail to create an HDR-style image from one file. The exposure of the image can be increased / decreased during post processing to give 3 images, as if bracketed, and can be combined to give that effect of increased dynamic range, but all from just one image. When shooting in RAW, you no longer need to set your white balance in camera. The increased bit depth of RAW files means that the white balance can be defined, by precise colour temperature (in Kelvin), during post processing rather than by a limited number of defined pre-sets in camera before the shutter is pressed. Due to the increased bit depth, significant white balance shifts do not have a negative impact on the final image quality. No longer do you fire off a few frames before remembering that you left the white balance on incandescent even though you are now outdoors.

The top image shows Bruges, captured at night, straight out of camera. The white balance of the bottom image has been processed to reduce the colour temperature in order to give a more realistic representation for the colour of the stone buildings, without any impact on the image quality. Sharpening can be applied as much as you want and even where you want, without oversharpening a pre-sharpened JPEG image. This can be used to emphasise details in one section of an image, or just generally give you control over the final image output.

This image on the left shows a cheetah that has undergone some sharpening to increase detail. The image on the right is the mask applied to the sharpening effect. Imagine that black and white image superimposed over the top of the cheetah; the area of white represents the portion of the image to which the sharpening effect has been applied and the area of black represents the portion of the image to which the sharpening effect is not applied. Therefore, in this instance, the sharpening has been applied only to the eyes/nose of the big cat, to further emphasise the sharp focus in this area, and increase the impact of the close portrait.

The added bonus As if the above points werent enough, what has to be one of my favourite reasons for shooting in RAW is that all image editing is non-destructive. Unlike a JPEG file, where any changes made to the image are permanent, all changes made to a RAW image are stored in a metadata file associated with the RAW file, leaving the original file untouched. This means you can never irreparably ruin an image by saving some mistaken changes and also you can go back to an image a few weeks, months or years later and reprocess it, from the original RAW, as your processing skills improve. Now, I would be lying if I said there was not a learning curve associated with RAW processing. You will need dedicated RAW processing software to manipulate your images, but typically cameras that support shooting in RAW should ship with the manufacturers own software for doing so. There are also a large number of alternative free programs out there, as well as software packages from well know image editing giants, such as Adobe. With a little bit of research, you will see how easy it is to squeeze the most out of your images, and you will soon wonder why you werent shooting in RAW sooner. Given that most cameras should give the option of shooting in RAW+JPEG, where the camera records both the RAW file and processed JPEG file to the memory card, you havent got an excuse to not give it a go the next time you are out with your camera.

Raw image format

A camera raw image file contains minimally processed data from the image sensor of either a digital camera, image scanner, or motion picture film scanner. Raw files are named so because they are not yet processed and therefore are not ready to be printed or edited with a bitmap graphics editor. Normally, the image is processed by a raw converter in a widegamut internal colorspace where precise adjustments can be made before conversion to a "positive" file format such as TIFF or JPEG for storage, printing, or further manipulation, which often encodes the image in a device-dependent colorspace. There are dozens if not hundreds of raw formats in use by different models of digital equipment (like cameras or film scanners).[1] Raw image files are sometimes called digital negatives, as they fulfill the same role as negatives in film photography: that is, the negative is not directly usable as an image, but has all of the information needed to create an image. Likewise, the process of converting a raw image file into a viewable format is sometimes called developing a raw image, by analogy with the film development process used to convert photographic film into viewable prints. The selection of the final choice of image rendering is part of the process of white balancing and color grading. Like a photographic negative, a raw digital image may have a wider dynamic range or color gamut than the eventual final image format, and it preserves most of the information of the captured image. The purpose of raw image formats is to save, with minimum loss of information, data obtained from the sensor, and the conditions surrounding the capturing of the image (the metadata). Rationale Raw image formats are intended to capture as closely as possible (i.e. at the best of the specific sensor's performance) the radiometric characteristics of the scene, that is, physical information about the light intensity and color of the scene. Most raw image file formats store information sensed according to the geometry of the sensor's individual photo-receptive elements (sometimes called pixels) rather than points in the expected final image: sensors with hexagonal element displacement, for example, record information for each of their hexagonally-displaced cells, which a decoding software will eventually transform into the rectangular geometry during "digital developing". File contents Raw files contain, by necessity, the information required to produce a viewable image from the camera's sensor data. The structure of raw files, including the ISO standard raw image format ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP, often follows a common pattern, that is:

A short file header which typically contains an indicator of the byte-ordering of the file, a file identifier and an offset into the main file data

Camera sensor metadata which is required to interpret the sensor image data, including the size of the sensor, the attributes of the CFA and its color profile Image metadata which is required for inclusion in any CMS environment or database. These include the exposure settings, camera/scanner/lens model, date (and, optionally, place) of shoot/scan, authoring information and other. Some raw files contain a standardized metadata section with data in Exif format. An image thumbnail Optionally a reduced-size image in JPEG format, which can be used for a quick preview In the case of motion picture film scans, either the timecode, keycode or frame number in the file sequence which represents the frame sequence in a scanned reel. This item allows the file to be ordered in a frame sequence(without relying on its filename). The sensor image data

Many raw file formats, including IIQ (Phase One), 3FR (Hasselblad), DCR, K25, KDC (Kodak), CR2 (Canon), ERF (Epson), MEF (Mamiya), MOS (Leaf), NEF (Nikon), ORF (Olympus), PEF (Pentax), RW2 (Panasonic) and ARW, SRF, SR2 (Sony), are based on the TIFF file format.[2] These files may deviate from the TIFF standard in a number of ways, including the use of a non-standard file header, the inclusion of additional image tags and the encryption of some of the tagged data. Panasonic's raw converter corrects geometric distortion and chromatic aberration on such cameras as the LX3,[3][4][5] with necessary correction information presumably included in the raw.[citation needed] Phase One's raw converter Capture One also offers corrections for geometrical distortion, chromatic aberration, purple fringing and keystone correction emulating the shift capability of tilt-shift in software and specially designed hardware, on most raw files from over 100 different cameras.[6][7] The same holds for Canon's DPP application, at least for all more expensive cameras like all SLRs and the G<n> series of compact cameras. DNG, the Adobe digital negative format, is an extension of the TIFF 6.0 format and is compatible with TIFF/EP, and uses various open formats and/or standards, including Exif metadata, XMP metadata, IPTC metadata, CIE XYZ coordinates, ICC profiles, and JPEG.[8] Sensor image data In digital photography, the raw file plays the role that photographic film plays in film photography. Raw files thus contain the full resolution (typically 12- or 14-bit) data as read out from each of the camera's image sensor pixels. The camera's sensor is almost invariably overlaid with a color filter array, usually a Bayer filter, consisting of a mosaic of a 2x2 matrix of red, green, blue and (second) green filters. One variation on the Bayer filter is the RGBE filter of the Sony Cyber-shotDSC-F828, which exchanged the green in the RG rows with "emerald"[9] (a blue-green[10] or cyan[11] color). Other sensors, such as the Foveon X3 sensor, capture information directly in RGB form

(using three pixel sensors in each location). These RGB raw data still need to be processed to make an image file, because the raw RGB values correspond to the responses of the sensors, not to a standard color space like sRGB. These data do not need to be demosaiced, however. Flatbed and film scanner sensors are typically straight narrow RGB or RGBI (where "I" stands for the additional infra-red channel for automatic dust removal) strips that are swept across an image. The HDRi raw data format is able to store the infrared raw data, which can be used for infrared cleaning, as an additional 16-bit channel. The remainder of the discussion about raw files applies to them as well. (Some scanners do not allow the host system access to the raw data at all, as a speed compromise. The raw data are processed very rapidly inside the scanner to select out the best part of the available dynamic range so only the result is passed to the computer for permanent storage, reducing the amount of data transferred and therefore the bandwidth requirement for any given speed of image throughput.) To obtain an image from a raw file, this mosaic of data must be converted into standard RGB form. This is often referred to as "raw development". When converting from the four-sensor 2x2 Bayer-matrix raw form into RGB pixels, the green pair is used to control the luminance detail of the processed output pixel, while the red and blue, which each have half as many samples, are used mostly for the more slowlyvarying chroma component of the image. If raw format data is available, it can be used in high-dynamic-range imaging conversion, as a simpler alternative to the multi-exposure HDI approach of capturing three separate images, one underexposed, one correct and one overexposed, and "overlaying" one on top of the other. Benefits Nearly all digital cameras can process the image from the sensor into a JPEG file using settings for white balance, colour saturation, contrast, and sharpness that are either selected automatically or entered by the photographer before taking the picture. Cameras that produce raw files save these settings in the file, but defer the processing. This result in an extra step for the photographer, so raw is normally only used when additional computer processing is intended. However, raw has numerous advantages over JPEG such as:

Many more shades of color compared to JPEG files - raw files have 12 or 14 bits of intensity information per channel (4096-16384 shades), compared to JPEG's gammacompressed 8 bits (256 shades). Higher image quality. Because all the calculations (such as applying gamma correction, demosaicing, white balance, brightness, contrast, etc...) used to generate pixel values (in RGB format for most images) are performed in one step on the base data, the resultant pixel values will be more accurate and exhibit less posterization.

Bypassing of undesired steps in the camera's processing, including sharpening and noise reduction JPEG images are typically saved using a lossy compression format (though a lossless JPEG compression is now available). Raw formats typically use lossless compression or high quality lossy compression. Finer control. Raw conversion software allows users to manipulate more parameters (such as lightness, white balance, hue, saturation, etc...) and do so with greater variability. For example, the white point can be set to any value, not just discrete preset values like "daylight" or "incandescent". As well, the user can typically see a preview while adjusting these parameters. The colour space can be set to whatever is desired. Different demosaicing algorithms can be used, not just the one coded into the camera. The contents of raw files include more information, and potentially higher quality, than the converted results, in which the rendering parameters are fixed, the colour gamut is clipped, and there may be quantization and compression artifacts. Large transformations of the data, such as increasing the exposure of a dramatically under-exposed photo, result in fewer visible artifacts when done from raw data than when done from already rendered image files. Raw data leave more scope for both corrections and artistic manipulations, without resulting in images with visible flaws such as posterization. All the changes made on a raw image file are non-destructive; that is, only the metadata that controls the rendering is changed to make different output versions, leaving the original data unchanged. To some extent, raw-format photography eliminates the need to use the HDRI technique, allowing a much better control over the mapping of the scene intensity range into the output tonal range, compared to the process of automatically mapping to JPEG or other 8-bit representation.

Drawbacks Camera raw file size is typically 26 times larger than JPEG file size.[12]While use of raw formats avoids the compression artifacts inherent in JPEG, fewer images can fit on a given memory card. However, the large sizes and low prices of modern memory cards mitigate this. Burst mode shooting tends to be slower and shorter due to the larger file size.

Most raw formats implement lossless data compression to reduce the size of the files without affecting image quality. But some others use lossy data compression where quantization and filtering is performed on the image data.[13][14] Several recent Nikon

cameras let photographers choose between no compression, lossless compression or lossy compression for their raw images.

The standard raw image format (ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP) is not widely accepted. DNG, the potential candidate for a new standard format, has not been adopted by many major camera companies. (See "Standardization" section). Numerous different raw formats are currently in use and new raw formats keep appearing, while others are abandoned.[15] Because of the lack of widespread adoption of a standard raw format, more specialized software may be required to open raw files than for standardized formats like JPEG or TIFF. Software developers have to frequently update their products to support the raw formats of the latest cameras but open source implementations like dcraw make it easier. The time taken in the image workflow is an important factor when choosing between raw and ready-to-use image formats. With modern photo editing software the additional time needed to process raw images has been greatly reduced but it still requires an extra step in workflow.

Software support Cameras that support raw files typically come with proprietary software for conversion of their raw image data into standard RGB images. Other processing and conversion programs and plugins are available from vendors that have either licensed the technology from the camera manufacturer or reverse-engineered the particular raw format and provided their own processing algorithms. Free and open source software Darktable is a raw-workflow tool for Linux and other open Unix-like operating systems. Features native 32-bit floating point processing and a plugin architecture. dcraw is a program which reads most raw formats and can be made to run on operating systems not supported by most commercial software (such as Unix). Libraw[16] is an API library based on dcraw, offering a more convenient interface for reading and converting raw files. HDR PhotoStudio and AZImage[17] are some of the commercial applications that use Libraw. Jrawio is another API library, written in pure Java code and compliant to the standard Java Image I/O API. digiKam is an advanced digital photo management application for Linux, Windows, and MacOSX that supports raw processing. ExifTool supports the reading, writing and editing of metadata in raw image files. ExifTool supports many different types of metadata including Exif, GPS,IPTC, XMP, JFIF, GeoTIFF, ICC Profile, Photoshop IRB, FlashPix, AFCP and ID3, as well as the maker notes of many digital cameras.

ImageMagick, a popular software suite for image manipulation and conversion, reads many different raw file formats.[18] ImageMagick is available for Linux/Unix, Mac OS, Windows, and other platforms. Photivo is a raw processor with a 16-bit processing pipeline. It runs on Linux, Mac OSX and Windows and integrates tightly with GIMP. Rawstudio is a raw format developer. RawTherapee is a raw developer supporting Linux, OS X and Windows operating systems. It features a native 32-bit floating point pipeline. UFRaw is a frontend which uses dcraw as a backend. It can be used as aGIMP plugin and is available for most operating systems. In September 2013, Google+ introduced RAW to JPEG conversion software for over 70 cameras (as initial) from Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony. The software will automatically converts RAW file to JPEG for viewing, but still retain the original RAW file. Google+ claimed that the conversion file is better than the other softwares existing.[19] Proprietary software ACDSee Pro is photo management and editing software that supports the raw formats of 21 camera manufacturers.[20] Picasa is a free editor and organizer that supports raw files. IrfanView is a freeware/shareware basic editor with support for raw files. Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Photoshop Lightroom support raw formats (as of version CS2). Capture One supports a range of raw image files from both DSLRs (Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony etc.) and medium-format cameras (Phase One, Leaf, Mamiya etc.).[21] LightZone from Light Craft is a photo editing program provided the ability to edit many raw formats natively. Most tools are raw converters, but LightZone allowed a user to edit a raw file as if it were TIFF or JPEG. The project was discontinued in September 2011.[22] Paint Shop Pro contains raw support, although as in the case of most editors updates to the program may be necessary to attain compatibility with newer raw formats as they are released. Microsoft supplies free software for Windows XP to integrate viewing and printing into the system's other photo tools; however, this software was last updated in 2005 and does not support many raw files from cameras released subsequently.[23] The Windows Camera Codec pack allows native viewing of raw-format files from 120 digital SLR cameras from multiple manufacturers in Windows Explorer and Windows Live Photo Gallery, in Windows Vista and Windows 7.[24]

Microsoft's Digital Image 2006 recognizes and organizes raw image formats such as .crw, .cr2, and .nef, which are file formats produced by Canon and Nikon,[citation needed] but that product was discontinued in 2007.[25] Windows XP and Vista both support the WIC codec standard. Products such as Konvertor, Windows Photo Gallery, Windows Live Photo Gallery and FastPictureViewer Professional[26] can view raw formats for which the necessary WIC codecs are installed. Camera manufacturers Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus and Pentax have released WIC codecs, although some manufactures are only providing codec support for the 32-bit versions of Vista.[27] A commercial DNG codec is also available from Ardfry Imaging,[28]while the makers of FastPictureViewer have released a WIC codec pack, adding support for 22 raw formats to Windows in both 32-bit and 64-bit versions, as donationware.[29] In 2005, Apple Computer introduced several products which offered raw-file support. In January, Apple released iPhoto 5, which offered basic support for viewing and editing many raw file formats. In April of that year, Apple introduced a new version of its operating system, Mac OS X v10.4, which added raw support directly to the operating system, as part of the ImageIO framework, which adds raw support automatically to the majority of Mac OS X applications both from Apple (such as Preview, Mac OS X's PDF and image viewing application and Aperture, a photo post-production software package for professionals) as well as all third party applications which make use of the ImageIO frameworks. Semi-regular updates to OS X generally include updated support for new raw formats introduced in the intervening months by camera makers. There are many other "raw workflow applications" designed to provide efficient processing and post-processing of raw images, including Helicon Filter, DxO Labs' DxO Optics Pro, Hasselblad's Phocus and Bibble Labs' Bibble Pro. Like Apple Aperture, Adobe Photoshop and Lightroom, LaserSoft Imaging's SilverFast, and PhotoLine, these programs provide sophisticated controls for processing the information stored in the raw file and converting raw files to JPEG or TIFF. Picasa, a free image editing and cataloging program from Google, can read and display many raw formats, but like iPhoto, Picasa provides only limited tools for processing the data in a raw file. The new class of Raw processing tools appears with the development of HTML5 - Rich Internet applications. Pics.io is the first of its class. It is capable to render and apply basic adjustments to DNG right in a browser. [30] Standardization Providing a detailed and concise description of the content of raw files is highly problematic. There is no single raw format; formats can be similar or radically different. Different manufacturers use their own proprietary and typically undocumented formats, which are collectively known as raw format. Often they also change the format from one camera model to the next. Several major camera manufacturers, including Nikon, Canon and Sony, encrypt portions of the file in an attempt to prevent third-party tools from accessing them.

This industry-wide situation of inconsistent formatting has concerned many photographers who worry that their valuable raw photos may someday become inaccessible, as computer operating systems and software programs become obsolete and abandoned raw formats are dropped from new software. The availability of high-quality open source software which decodes raw image formats, particularly dcraw, has helped to alleviate these concerns. An essay by Michael Reichmann and Juergen Specht stated "here are two solutions the adoption by the camera industry of A: Public documentation of RAW formats; past, present and future, or, more likely B: Adoption of a universal RAW format".[32] "Planning for [US] Library of Congress Collections" identifies raw-file formats as "less desirable file formats", and identifies DNG as a suggested alternative.[33] DNG is the only raw image format for which industry-wide buy-in is being sought. It is based upon, and compatible with, the ISO standard raw image format ISO 12234-2, TIFF/EP, and is being used by ISO in their revision of that standard. The ISO standard raw image format is ISO 12234-2, better known as TIFF/EP. (TIFF/EP also supports "non-raw", or "processed", images). TIFF/EP provided a basis for the raw image formats of a number of cameras. For example, Nikon's NEF raw files are based on TIFF/EP, and include a tag which identifies the version of TIFF/EP they are based on.[34] Adobe's DNG (Digital Negative)raw file format was based on TIFF/EP, and the DNG specification states "DNG ... is compatible with the TIFF-EP standard".[35] Several cameras use DNG as their raw image format, so in that limited sense they use TIFF/EP too.[36] Adobe Systems launched this DNG raw image format in September 2004. By September 2006, several camera manufacturers had started to announce support for DNG in newer camera models, including Leica, Samsung, Ricoh, Pentax, Hasselblad (native camera support); and, Better Light (export).[37] The Leica Digital-Modul-R (DMR) was first to use DNG as its native format.[38] In September 2009 Adobe stated that there were no known intellectual property encumbrances or license requirements for DNG.[39] (There is a "Digital Negative (DNG) Specification Patent License",[40] but it does not actually state that there are any patents held on DNG, and the September 2009 statement was made at least 4 years after this license was published). TIFF/EP began its 5-year revision cycle in 2006.[41] Adobe offered the DNG specification to ISO to be part of ISO's revised TIFF/EP standard.[42][43] A progress report in October 2008 from ISO about the revision of TIFF/EP stated that the revision "... currently includes two "interoperability-profiles," "IP 1" for processed image data, using ".TIF" extension, and "IP 2" for "raw" image data, ".DNG" extension".[44] It is "IP 2" that is relevant here. A progress report in September 2009 states that "This format will be similar to DNG 1.3, which serves as the starting point for development."[45] DNG has been exploited by open-source developers.[31] Use by camera makers varies: the largest companies such as Canon, Nikon, Sony, and some others, don't use DNG; but smaller companies, and makers of "niche" cameras who might otherwise have difficulty getting

support from software companies, frequently use DNG as their native raw image format. (Or in the case of Pentax, as an optional alternative to their own raw image format). There are of the order of 15 or more such companies, even including a few that specialize in movie cameras.[36] In addition, most Canon point & shoot cameras can support DNG by using CHDK. Processing See also: Color image pipeline To be viewed or printed, the output from a camera's image sensor has to be processed, that is, converted to a photographic rendering of the scene, and then stored in a standard raster graphics format such as JPEG. This processing, whether done in-camera or later in a raw-file converter, involves a number of operations, typically including:[46][47]

decoding image data of raw files are typically encoded for compression purpose, but also often for obfuscation purpose (e.g. raw files from Canon or Nikon cameras) [citation needed] . defective pixel removal replacing data in known bad locations with interpolations from nearby locations white balancing accounting for color temperature of the light that was used to take the photograph demosaicing interpolating the partial raw data received from the color-filtered image sensor into a matrix of colored pixels. noise reduction trading off detail for smoothness by removing small fluctuations color translation converting from the camera native color space defined by the spectral sensitivities of the image sensor to an output color space (typically sRGB for JPEG) tone reproduction[48][49] the scene luminance captured by the camera sensors and stored in the raw file (with a dynamic range of typically 10 or more bits) needs to be rendered for pleasing effect and correct viewing on low-dynamic-range monitors or prints; the tone-reproduction rendering often includes separate tone mapping and gamma compression steps. compression for example JPEG compression performed for CFA sensors; it is not required

Note that demosaicing is only for3CCD or Foveon X3 sensors.

Cameras and image processing software may also perform additional processing to improve image quality, for example:

removal of systematic noise bias frame subtraction and flat-field correction dark frame subtraction

optical correction fringing correction

lens

distortion correction, vignetting correction,

and

color

contrast enhancement increasing visual acuity by unsharp masking dynamic range compression lighten shadow regions without blowing out highlight regions

When a camera saves a raw file it defers most of this processing; typically the only processing performed is the removal of defective pixels (the DNG specification requires that defective pixels are removed before creating the file[50]). Some camera manufacturers do additional processing before saving raw files; for example, Nikon has been criticized by astro-photographers for applying noise reduction before saving the raw file.[51] Some raw formats also allow nonlinear quantization.[13][14] This nonlinearity allows the compression of the raw data without visible degradation of the image by removing invisible and irrelevant information from the image. Although noise is discarded this has nothing to do with (visible) noise reduction.[citation needed] Annotated list of file extensions[edit]

.3fr (Hasselblad) .ari (ARRIFLEX) .arw .srf .sr2 (Sony) .bay (Casio) .crw .cr2 (Canon) .cap .iiq .eip (Phase_One) .dcs .dcr .drf .k25 .kdc (Kodak) .dng (Adobe) .erf (Epson) .fff (Imacon) .mef (Mamiya) .mos (Leaf) .mrw (Minolta) .nef .nrw (Nikon) .orf (Olympus) .pef .ptx (Pentax) .pxn (Logitech) .R3D (RED) .raf (Fuji) .raw .rw2 (Panasonic) .raw .rwl .dng (Leica)

.rwz (Rawzor) .srw (Samsung) .x3f (Sigma)

RAW Images
A big problem in 2008 is that people are shooting raw and not knowing why. Raw requires dedicated software to read. If you just bought a new camera, you won't be able to open the files until you update your computer's software. Worse, many new cameras come out a week before the camera maker's software is updated, and if you use software by Adobe, Apple or others, may have to wait weeks (or much longer) until there is an update. That means you may not be able to open your files today with your new camera if you didn't shoot JPG! If you use Photoshop and Adobe Camera Raw, you just might have to buy the newest version of Photoshop, since Adobe doesn't update older versions to read the files from new cameras. Ha Ha! Photoshop is so good I've seen no need to update from CS2, and not shooting raw, I don't have to. If you're shooting action, raw doesn't work. You'll fill an 8 gig card faster than you can imagine. I never shoot raw. Why would I? Raw is a waste of time and space, and doesn't look any better than JPG even when you can open the files. INTRODUCTION Cameras all start with raw data and convert this data to JPG images with hardware in the camera. They then throw away the raw data since it's no longer needed. Saving this raw data is exactly like people who save twenty years of newspapers in piles around their house. They know they might need the information sometime, but it sure gets in the way! Other people think they are crazy. Some fancier cameras save this raw data so you can use software to do the same thing the camera's hardware did, later. Software takes much longer to do the same thing the camera's hardware does, but gives less confident people the chance to try to fix mistakes later. Image quality is the same in JPG and raw. See my D200 Image Quality Setting Examples. See also my explanation of File Formats. This page generates controversy because fact doesn't always agree with old wives' tales circulated by newcomers to digital photography in chat rooms. I'm sharing what works for me gathered across three decades of continuous full-time paid professional experience in

digital imaging. In addition I was studying digital imaging for ten years before I got my engineering degree and started as a professional working with the guys with Ph.Ds in mathematics who invented all this. A reader's response to those who take issue with the observations I share below ishere. WHICH SHOULD YOU SHOOT? If you have to ask then just shoot JPG. This is pretty simple and I'll get into way too much detail later. If you shoot hundreds or thousands of images in a day shoot JPG and don't worry. The quality is the same for almost all intents and purposes as raw, and the raw files would take gigabytes or tens of gigabytes and resultant hours to download, convert, catalog and burn to backup CDs. In fact, if you shoot this much then JPG can give better quality since attempting to shoot this much raw will constipate your workflow and you could miss making some images entirely as your cards fill up. You'd always be running out of memory cards or time waiting for the access light to stop blinking. If you love to tweak your images one-by one and shoot less than about a hundred shots at a time than raw could be for you. In fact, if you prefer the look you can get from raw (it may be different from JPG in some cases depending on software) you can let your computer batch process images and save the results as JPGs, too. I almost never shoot anything in raw, and when I do I never see any difference for all the effort I wasted anyway. (I can see differences if I blow things up to 100% or bigger on my computer, but not in prints.) That's about all there is to it. It's sad that some people actually get so excited by all this that they put up hate sites like one that used to be here. It's sad because I completely agree with Petteri's Pontifications. I think he moved that hate page here. One's preference for JPG or raw depends on what you're trying to do. Each format has no absolute goodness; it's all in how appropriate they are to your particular work at hand. Everyone's needs vary and I just happen to prefer JPG. With that said, here's more in my "usual opinionated, cranky style." If you understand the basics above you can safely skip it. JPG Basics JPGs (same as JPEGs) are normal digital camera images. Cameras create JPG images from raw image sensor data based on your settings like Sharpness and White Balance. The camera makes the JPG and then the raw data evaporates as soon as the JPG is recorded.

Beware JPEG 2000 which you only find in some advanced software. It was a newer proposed version of JPG that has been forgotten today for still photography. It is COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH the current JPG systems. JPEG 2000 has found application in the Digital Cinema Initiative and will be used as their standard for the movies many or most of us will be seeing in theaters today and in the near future. Raw Basics Raw files are just the raw sensor data. It isn't a picture until it is processed further. Most fancy digital cameras allow you to save the raw data instead of the actual JPG picture. If you do, you still have to do the processing in your computer to make an image (JPG or otherwise) that you actually can see. Cameras do this processing in hardware much faster than your computer can do it in software. Some cameras have a handy raw + JPG mode which saves both the raw data and the JPG picture. Raw files are just like raw olives: you need to cook or otherwise process them before you can use them. They also go bad fast if left in the raw state and can keep forever once processed to something like olive oil or JPGs. Horror of horrors, I've heard that the latest Nikon software can't even read the NEFs from older cameras and that you need to load older software to read them. Just like raw eggs, unless you process it into something like an egg-albumen print or a JPG, the raw files may go bad if left unprocessed. It's not the file that goes bad, silly, it's the potential ability of future software to read it. Since raw data is entirely unique to each camera, and different even for different firmware revisions for the same camera, raw isn't even a format, even though the different files have the same suffix like .CRW or .NEF. Raw files themselves don't go bad. What goes bad is that in 10 or 20 years, whatever software we're running on whatever sort of computer we'll be using may not be able to open a long-forgotten 20-year old proprietary file. JPGs are universal. Raw is proprietary to camera make and model and even camera firmware version. Without solid manufacturer support you won't be able to use your raw files again. Can you find a computer to open word processing files from 10 or 20 years ago today in Lotus Notes or PFS Write or Brother Style Writer? I can't; that's why I converted my files from these programs to the universal .TXT format back when I could. Do you trust Canon, Nikon and Adobe to support 10 or 20 year old cameras? How about 30 or 40 year old

cameras? If you do, go ahead and leave your raw files as raw. I convert all my raw files to JPGs or TIFFs for archiving. The JPG processing in the camera can be better than what you may be able to do later in software from raw. In the September 2004 issue of "Outdoor Photographer" magazine, page 25, Rob Shepard says "...the high quality JPEG images looked far superior to the raw files when both were opened directly." Cameras create their JPGs from the 12 bit or more raw data as it comes off the sensor. Your contrast, white balance, sharpening and everything are applied to the raw data in-camera, and only afterwards is the file compressed and stored as a JPG. You'll see no additional artifacts since that's all done before the JPG conversion. Using raw files obviously takes a lot more time and patience, like refrying beans, since you could have had all that processing done right in the camera for free. You only want to go through this trouble if for some reason you're unsure of what settings to use. The raw data, since it includes everything, also takes up a whole lot more space and takes more time to move around. It's sort of like either having a complete car that runs (JPG), or a science project in a million pieces that still needs assembly before you can drive it (raw). You can't really change exposure after a raw file is shot, although the software that opens this data gives one the option to rescale the data and give the impression of changing exposure. You can get this same synthetic lightening from JPGs, too, although only raw allows some ability to correct overexposure. I take a lot of heat from tweakers because I, like other photographers, prefer to make my adjustments in-camera and use the JPGs directly. Others prefer to spend even more time later twiddling in raw, but that's not for me. I get the look I need with JPGs and prefer to spend my time making more photos. If you're the sort of person who likes to twiddle and redo than by all means raw is for you. Everyone's needs vary. For many hobbyists tweaking is part of the fun and I don't want to spoil that. Please just don't take it personally that I prefer to get my shots right the first time instead of having to tweak them later. If I need to correct a goof I just do it from the JPGs. JPG Details JPG (same as JPEG) is the standard used by prolific shooters. It gives great quality and offers the fastest speed for everything. It is the most popular and compatible image format on the planet. It is especially popular for the things for which digital cameras are best suited in the first place, like news, sports and events. With JPG you can shoot hundreds or thousands of images at a time and the files are ready for release with no further processing. JPGs done properly, as digital cameras do when set to NORMAL or FINE, give great results you can use

immediately. Of course you need a professional digital camera that provides the exact incamera adjustments, like subtle white balance control and immediate, easy access to them, to be able to do this. Pros skip many of the cameras that excite amateurs if those cameras require adjustments to be made through menus or have limited WB capabilities. Professional journalists like Karl Grobl who need to produce results shoot JPG. Karl just returned from a two month series of assignments in Asia. He brought back 20 Gigabytes of JPGs, and those were just the keepers. Karl no longer has the time to piddle with anything in Photoshop: if the image isn't perfect as shot it gets deleted. Life is too short to piddle with sloppy images if making images is what you do for a living. Of course if photography is your hobby and you find the piddling enjoyable or if you're in a studio with time to burn then that's another story. Karl has a ton of images he needs to get to a ton of clients, and then he's off on the next assignment. There is just no time to wait for things like raw file processing. I've seen Karl's 20 x 30" prints from his JPGs and they are spectacular. Sometimes raw will look different from JPG depending on the differences between sharpening algorithms used in-camera (JPG) and in different versions of software (raw.) I find every raw opener (Adobe Photoshop CS, Adobe Camera raw, the camera maker's version, iView, etc.) processes the image a little bit differently in terms of sharpness, curves and colors, so you never really have a definitive look until after you've opened and saved the file as a standard JPG, PSD or TIFF. You may prefer one or the other. If you don't like the in-camera options, shoot unsharpened JPGs and sharpen elsewhere. Likewise, if you set the wrong white balance or underexposed you can always correct it later using, for instance, Photoshop's Levels, Curves and/or Color Balance features, among others. I have no problem adding two stops of exposure to a dark JPG in Photoshop's Levels or Curves command. Many people who shoot raw, which I consider to be a big waste of time, don't realize that white balance can be adjusted in Photoshop even from JPGs. No, Photoshop doesn't yet have a "dummies" panel actually marked with common white balance monikers, but skilled photographers have always been able to do it. I prefer using the "Set White Point" and "Set Neutral Gray" eyedroppers in the Levels command. Seehere for how to do it. Some cameras, like the Casio EX-Z750, allow correction of JPGs for White Balance and exposure after they've been shot as well. I've made deliberate comparisons on my D1H (and so can you) by shooting a scene in both JPG and raw at ISO 200, ISO 800 and then underexposing two stops (set exposure compensation to -2) at ISO 200. There now are six shots. Open the underexposed raw by adding +2 stops while opening and apply correction to the dark JPG with Levels or Curves. Now look at these two vs. the shots made at ISO 800. They look pretty much the same,

which if you really get into the camera's signal processing and external math you'll realize that you're doing the same thing to the same data; just the different processes are doing these identical algorithms in different places. Of course how you lighten the dark JPG will probably alter the look of the image; I forget what curves I used best to simulate adding two stops. Hee hee, I only made the normal ISO 200 shots to show that pushing two stops from ISO 200 gives the same grain as shooting directly at ISO 800. Actually it's better to shoot at ISO 800 in the first place since the camera does a better job by increasing the analog gain of the CCD amplifiers. Also the very best image of that indoor/outdoor contrasty scene was made by using the underexposed image (which retained the outdoor part) and using a filter to lighten the dark indoors. I got the same result from the JPG and raw files. If you're a tweaker you'd be interested to learn raw and JPG also have the same effective bit precision. JPG has 8 bits per color per pixel and raw may have 12 bits, but here's the big catch: raw is 12 bit linear, and JPG is 8 bit log, gamma corrected or some other non-linear transform derived from the 12 bit linear data. Thus in the shadows where this might matter the two are the same, since the full 12 bit resolution in the dark areas is preserved by the non-linear coding. Even if the two formats differed in dark resolution the sensor noise is still greater than one LSB anyway making it a moot point. Raw Details Raw is designed for people who intend to spend a lot of time twiddling with one image at a time. For these applications I use large format 4x5" film instead for much better quality, thus you see why I don't use raw. Raw is very popular for people shooting landscapes with digital cameras, which is not what digital cameras are for. Unfortunately this is becoming popular among amateurs, but remember that for amateurs the fun is in making the photo, and for fun digital is king. Personally I focus on the final image, for which big film excels. This goes to explain all the heat I get from hobbyists, who of course love raw and shoot Yosemite on their digital SLRs which is very different from what I do. Raw is also for people who don't yet get perfect exposure right when they make the image, although of course JPEGs also allow these adjustments. Raw is needlessly tedious if you can get the right image to begin with. Raw always requires extra steps to process from the camera into a usable format, the files can only be opened with very special software, requires far more time for everything and therefore slows workflows. In fact, raw is not any sort of a standard format: .CRW or .NEF or whatever files are actually very different from each model of camera, and you constantly need to be updating your conversion software just to be able to read files from whatever camera you just got. I had NEF files from an advance sample of a Nikon D70 I couldn't open since the software had not been released. In the professional arena workflow efficiency is the difference between waiting for a batch convert to complete and working on a new paying project. Raw looks the same anyway as a good JPG. I will admit that on the D70 the

differences in default sharpening are such that the raw images do look sharper than the JPGs if you're looking zoomed in to 100% on a computer, but were still invisible to me in 12 x 18" prints. Don't pay too much attention to sales demos showing how you can restore details in highlights for a shot that was overexposed by a critical half stop. First off, no one really is so bad a studio photographer that they'd actually overexpose a series of studio shots by a half a stop and not know it on a digital camera. That reminds me of comedian George Carlin's line about he thinks that the stupidest thing a human being can do is to run out of gas in a car with a working gas gauge. You can see overexposure on the LCD of the digicam. Yes, raw is great to catch this last half a stop if you goofed, but that's about as far as it can correct depending on your camera. Today I find that unlike earlier cameras the Nikon D70 seems to offer a good deal more ability to catch lost highlights, which again I have yet to see that the efforts involved with raw justified any improvement in the final image. Even though I could see the improvement, my girlfriend still preferred the 12 x 18" print of the BASIC JPG image to the 12 x 18" print made from the raw file on which I spent an hour correcting all the levels and lens distortion and chromatic issues. Such is art! If you intend to spend hours twiddling with individual shots or have enough time to waste piddling in chat rooms like this then go ahead and shoot raw, just remember to save them as something standardized so you can read them later. If you need loads of great images now then shoot straight to standard JPGs. Raw looks no better than JPG for real photos. It just takes up space, wastes your time and runs the risk of not being able to be opened now and in the future. Raw is OK if you only shoot a few dozen images and you want to play around with each of them in Photoshop; JPG is best if you need hundreds or thousands of images each day and get them right in the camera to begin with. The latest trick of making dual-exposure composites from single raw files actually can be done just the same from a JPG; just open the JPG (exposed for the highlights) in Photoshop and apply the LEVELS or CURVES command to the layer representing your shadows. Example 1 : a friend of mine on his first day out with his D1X shot a foot race. He had no idea he would shoot so much and his single 256MB card was filling up quickly. He had to set the camera down to SMALL resolution (1,312 x 2,000) and BASIC JPG (256kB) so he could keep shooting. He then licensed one of those image files to a shoe company for use on a poster. It looked great in print and he got $1,200 for the temporary use of the file. (No, he did not sell the image outright for such a low price.) Sure, he could have shot raw, but if he did he would have missed the shot completely since he would have been out of memory giving him no image at all instead of a great looking one.

Example 2: While everyone was in chat rooms yesterday I spent the day consulting on a shoot of a $7,000,000 home. We shot raw + JPG on a Canon 1Ds so my client would have both kinds of files from which to learn afterwards. It took a half hour to download the images from the 1 Gig flash card, and we never even used the raw files. The JPGS were all we used, and we had the files prepped, profiled and ready to go to press that night at 355DPI for use in a very high-end publication. None of the raw files were used, but they did waste our time. There also is some weirdness in how the 1Ds records these in the raw + JPG mode, see here. JPG - More Prolific shooters shoot JPG because time is money and we are able to get things right the first time. JPGs, especially the larger JPGs, offer the same image quality as raw or TIFF, with much less time and effort if you can set your camera correctly to begin with. JPGs work the fastest in file transfers, CD backups, reprocessing for automated web galleries, ability to drop off for printing at a lab, file opening, ability to send files to clients and everything really. Therefore, since time is money in every profession, JPG is the format of choice for photography. JPG is the world's most popular format for digital images. It is the format most likely to be legible to any piece of equipment, in fact, even many DVD players can read JPGs from a CD. The ability to get a shot right the first time is one of the things good shooters get from practice. One needs a camera that can be adjusted instantly for ISO, White Balance (WB), exposure compensation and sharpening. This is why I complain if a camera requires menus to make adjustments. Good cameras like the Nikon D1H allow one to make most of these adjustments instantly with dedicated buttons, no menus required.The best delineator between a pro camera and a tyro's toy is whether or not you need menus to adjust it from shot to shot. In any shoot I am constantly adjusting all these things as my light and subject change, so there is no time to wait around for menus. More pedestrian cameras, like my point-and-shoot digital A70, require me to stop and twiddle through menus to adjust any of these things. This makes it much harder to get a perfect image immediately. A well-done JPG is all I ever need. If I didn't have a camera that allowed me to get the right results the first time I might be tempted by the tedious raw format. Oddly, the simpler cameras that might need raw don't offer it, and the better cameras that do usually don't need it!

Some people worry that JPG implies poor quality. This is because JPEG files can be made at any quality level, high or low, and we've all seen bad JPGs. Photoshop users know that you have a huge range of quality settings when you "SAVE AS" or SAVE FOR WEB." Smaller JPGs, especially what you see formatted for the internet on my and other websites for easy download over telephone lines, will have artifacts often visible as slight noise around a sharp line against a flat background, or potential blockiness of a smooth area like the sky, or slight muddling of textured areas. This is not a problem with the JPG format, it's just that those JPGs were deliberately made to be have small file sizes and thus unfortunately look crummy. The JPG format is adjustable for quality vs. file size. Larger JPGs, which is what cameras record, record enough data, especially at the milder compression settings (FINE on Nikon and Canon) so that these artifacts don't occur. JPGs at the correct quality settings have no visible artifacts. Play with this yourself as I have: make a bunch of photos at the different settings (including raw) and put them all up on your screen at 100%. You'll see for yourself. Thus there is no quality disadvantage to using JPGs correctly, and many logistical advantages. Raw - More Raw are proprietary nonstandard formats just for getting images to your computer before saving or processing. They always require a special step just to open them after which you can save them in a useable format. Each camera maker has its own incompatible format. Even worse, some camera makers want to ensure you have to buy special software from them and only them in order to read your files. See here about how Nikon is encrypting the raw files from the D2X to ensure that only their software will work properly. This means that if Japanese industrial giant Mitsubishi, parent of Nikon, wanted to raise profits they may already have set the current software to time-out your ability to read today's raw files in a few years, and then the only way you could see your photos is to buy new software. If you have time to burn and don't mind the incompatibility aspect by all means go raw. If you are only shooting a few images at a time don't worry too much and use raw if you want. Raw formats, like Nikon's NEF and Canon's CRW, are aimed at people who have the time to piddle around after a shoot to make up for what was not set correctly in the first place. Theses folks are the ones who also have the time to spend in chat rooms likethis instead of actually photographing.

The biggest quality advantage of raw is the ability to correct for some of your mistakes after the fact, so if you can get it right the first time most of the raw advantage evaporates, but all the disadvantages remain. Raw is free from visible compression artifacts, just like JPG at the milder compression levels. It also can record with a couple of more bits of z-axis precision (12 bits instead of 8 bits) , which is invisible unless you have a very poorly lit image and need to do horrendous curve adjustments. In this case your problem is not file format; it's your lighting. But no! Raw records usually with 12 bits, but a linear 12 bits. JPG uses only 8 bits, but these are after the log and gamma conversion, and thus preserves the 12 bit precision at the shadow levels where it's important! Raw is NOT a digital negative. Unlike a real negative, it still has restricted resolution and dynamic range, and most importantly, cannot be read or seen except with very special software. JPGs are far more universally read, and closer to a negative in terms of being visible to everyone over time. Raw is like a color negative since each piece of software you might use to open it yields different colors! Disadvantages of Raw: 1.) Time is money to people who need to make money from photography. We simply don't have the time to waste for all the files to download and then especially to wait while hundreds of raw files open up the hard way before we can see them, much less do anything with them. Raw takes too long: too long to record to the card, especially with compressed versions, takes up too much space on the card so more cards are required, takes longer to transfer to a computer, longer to back up to CDs and takes more CDs, etc. Not only is there a big disadvantage due to the bigger file sizes, but also: 2.) The formats are not standardized. With Nikon and Canon at least the latest version Photoshop CS can open the raw formats, but otherwise you have to revert to using each manufacturer's proprietary software. This may be something you are willing to flog through today, but what if a fringe manufacturer like Sigma, that as far as I know is not supported in Photoshop CS and certainly not likely supported in Breeze Browser or iView as far as I know, decides not to supply upgraded software in the coming years that can run on the computers of the future if Sigma is no longer choosing to make or support digital cameras? If you can't run today's reader software in the future then you won't be able to read your image files and they are lost forever.Thus you see why raw files are not at all like a negative that you can read in 50 or 100 years.

3.) Because it's not standardized, you can't send these files to clients or anyone and expect them to open. Also if you do, and they can read them, then you have lost control over how your file looks, since they may choose to open it differently. (Of course if your client asks for raw give it to them.) If you shoot raw you have to open each file and convert it to something like JPG or TIFF before you can send it out. This costs time you simply don't have to spend if you had shot JPG to begin with. This is one thing for just a few shots, especially if you are going to play with them in Photoshop anyway, but if you are doing this for money you are probably dealing with hundreds and hundreds of files everyday and there just is not enough time. Personally I try to create hundreds of JPGs I can send directly to my client so I can get onto the next project immediately. I only open things in Photoshop if I goofed the first time. 4.) Each camera maker has its own incompatible format. One cannot save files in raw format either, thank goodness. 5.) Different software opens up the files differently. The same files look different! I see one thing with Photoshop's Camera raw plug in, one thing with Nikon's plug in, and different things on different versions of iView even in different screens! In this way raw is like a digital negative: the colors and sharpness look different every time you try to print it! Pros need images that always look the right color; the color we captured in the first place, which is why slide film is far more popular than negative film professionally. 6.) Did I say it takes a long time? I had one camera maker's plug in take 30 seconds to open a raw file, and that's after you manually chose all the settings with which you want the file to open. The preview was crummy, so that you might have to try a few times until you get it right, just to open a file. Multiply this by 500 shots made at a wedding and you can see why it's just not happening. 7.) Today's versions of software may not be able to open older raw files, losing your images forever. My prognostication of this photographic apocalypse is nigh: as of July 2005 a reader writes that he couldn't get Nikon Capture 4.3 or Photoshop to open older NEF files, getting "unexpected end of file" errors. While waiting for Nikon support to tell him what historical combination of Nikon Capture and Nikon View versions would enable to see his images he tried Bibble Pro, which worked. I always make TIF archive copies of anything about which I care shot in raw. Raw means raw, which means it's not cooked and very perishable. Just like raw meat, raw files become worthless as time progresses unless they are processed into something with a long life, like a standard TIF or JPG image. So by all means shoot raw if you want, just don't expect any visible quality difference, and do be prepared for a lot of time spent twiddling and the possibility of not being able to open files occasionally now or ever in the future. I gave up on raw since every program I use

opens them differently, and every different version of a program, like iView, deals with them differently in every release. Personally, when I want quality and have the time to mess with things I shoot on film and scan it. This way I also have a color standard, the transparency, against which to compare the files and prints. If you shoot raw I prefer the built-in plugin with Photoshop CS for opening all these files.Here's a great article on how to calibrate color if you insist. Others speak very highly of Nikon's extra-cost Capture program. I've never tried it. If I shot raw I would certainly try it out. I think there are free demos available, too. If you do shoot raw of course you can go get the program in the future if you're unhappy with other openers. CHILDISH TOILET HUMOR Now that you've read this far here's a summary of what it's like waiting around for big raw files to transfer and burn and process. Sorry if this offends adults; we children find this hilarious.

Raw + JPG Modes As of 2004 many cameras allow you to record both. This is great, since you 1.) Have the JPGs for immediate use 2.) Have the raw files if you need or want them, and most importantly, 3.) Have a back-up file in case either is corrupted. The disadvantages are that you wind up recording even more data that you probably don't need. Data transfer and storage and archiving and backup takes time, which is money to a professional or anyone else who values their finite time on this planet.

TIFF TIFFs (also called .TIF) are very large files used for saving processed images. TIFFs are used only in tethered studio applications, if ever, for camera capture. Tiffs don't have any of the post-processing advantages of raw and have enormous file sizes that will completely clog up any workflow if you are shooting many images on cards. TIFF (or PSD, the format native to Photoshop) is perfectly fine for archiving files after you've played around with them or for sending to a client on CD. Just don't set your camera to this format for recording on cards since it's so cumbersome. ARCHIVING If you shoot JPG, just archive the camera original JPG files. If you shoot raw you should also archive everything in a standard JPG or TIFF format so you'll be assured of having the best chance of being able to open and use the files in the future.