Is there are any difference in quality between Large Fine JPG and converted NEF?

Question

Assume that I do not want to do any post-processing, such as white balancing, etc. I would like to preserve the best resolution (for possible cropping). So the question is: Are there any quality differences between shooting in-camera JPG, versus converting NEF to JPEG using ViewNX, Picasa, etc.?

Asked by yura

Answer

If you aren't interested in post-processing, then an in-camera jpeg will have the same resolution as a RAW image and the amount of detail in the image should be roughly the same. There is more flexibility in the RAW format in terms of post-processing and color corrections.

As an example, here is Digital Photography Review's review of the Nikon D800 showing the difference between high-quality jpeg and RAW -- http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d800-d800e/22

Answered by David Rouse

Check more discussion of this question.

Why can I adjust the white balance of a RAW file but not a JPEG file?

Question

I recently started setting my DSLR to save RAW files, and using Adobe Lightroom to process them. I still, however, use my little point and shoot camera a lot which does not have an option to save RAW files. I've also noticed that in light-room the white balanced options are different with RAW files vs JPEG files. With RAW files you have the option of choosing from a number of white balanced settings (florescent, halogen, auto etc..), whereas with JPEG you do not. Why is this?

Answer

The quick and short answer:

All images start as RAW files that must have colour balance applied to them.

For jpeg images this transformation is done in the camera using the camera white balance settings. As mentioned above, Lightroom does not have enough information to undo this transformation.

Saved RAW files have no transformations applied by the camera, allowing you, the photographer, to decide later which white balance transformation you wish to apply.

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I use RAW or JPEG for wedding photography?

Question

I am about to shoot in a wedding ceremony and would like to know, Should I shoot in RAW or JPEG?

I asked a photographer (outside the US) and he said converting RAW into JPG changes color (or something like that) so they always shoot in JPG. I won't buy it unless someone convinces me here. I see the convenience of shooting in JPG: no conversion, smaller size — and, adjust lighting and the photo is ready.

I have a Nikon D5100 and a 16 GB card, so I can take plenty of RAW pics. My RAW file size is +22MB vs JPEG is 1.3-4 MB.

Is RAW always required or is RAW for some times and JPG is fine too?

I know there are related question but this question is related to wedding photography only. Thanks. Let me clarify. I think in Pakistan photographers never shoot in RAW.

Answer

JPEG offers two advantages (other than how many images you can fit on a card) that may be extremely significant under the right circumstances: the speed of workflow after the shoot (assuming you've gotten things right in camera) and the speed at which you can shoot.

RAW files take a lot longer to write to the card than JPEGs do (and RAW+JPEG takes longer still), so in the genres of photography where you need to take a lot of pictures quickly, a given camera will almost always perform better when shooting JPEGs. That is important to sports and wedding photographers as well as to photojournalists. The absolute last thing you want is to have your shutter release locked or delayed because your camera's buffer is full. And it doesn't matter whether that means getting the 9-10 FPS of a high-end speed demon like the Nikon D3s or the Canon EOS 1D Mk. IV or squeezing 3-4 FPS out of an older or entry-to-mid-level camera, having to wait for the buffer to write out to the card may mean missing the only shot that counts.

And while JPEGs limit you in what you can do in post-processing, they also limit what you have to do in post-processing. That difference in turn-around time can make a big difference to the amount of work you are able to take on, especially when you're working at the lower-priced, more cut-throat end of the industry. It may take (on average) a thirtieth of a second to take a picture, but it takes a lot longer than that to review, cull, and refine them afterwards. Even an extra ten seconds per picture (or series) can mean giving up another shooting day, so the financial advantages to shooting RAW and getting it right in-camera are very real at that level. Most of the better cameras will let you set custom picture settings (more than one) so that your "signature look" can happen primarily in the camera.

Of course, if you get it wrong in-camera shooting JPEGs, you can't hide your mistakes nearly as easily or as well. So you need to balance the business risks of missing the shot, taking too long in post and having the ultimate control in post. A best-case compromise might be to shoot the formals (the ones that you can take some time over, and that have to be absolutely perfect) in RAW and the spontaneous action in JPEG. But it is a business decision, not a photographic one.

Check more discussion of this question.