RAW vs. JPG (again)
The RAW vs. JPG is a constant debate amungst the photogeeks and something I had hoped to takle some day. As time is short, I haven’t been able to do the tests myself. However, photodoto.com did! Conclusion?
But what’s it like looking at the actual print? When viewing these at a distance of about 5 feet they are completely identical. I think that’s important because it applies to how most people will view prints like this in real life. Most people aren’t going to get out loupes and examine them as closely as I have in this article (especially if they’re hanging on a wall).
And that pretty much sums up what I’ve felt about it. It is absolutely a fact that RAW photos will be sharper than JPG. But it doesn’t mean a thing for most people, most of the time. And since speed is of the essence over here at SyncSpeed, and JPG’s are much quicker to work with, JPG trumps RAW 99% of the time. I’ll use RAW with only very tricky lighting with photos I HAVE to get. Other than that, my D70 stays stuck on JPG fine for everything else.
Responses and Conversations
I’ve actually been thinking about changing recently from RAW to JPG. One of the whole “exciting” things for getting a DSLR though was being able to shoot in RAW. Now I’ve realized it takes up a ton more space (almost double) and many times, doesn’t offer more then you can do otherwise with a JPG.
I’m yet to decide if I’ll switch.
Comment by Mike on August 9th, 2006 at 4:09 am
I usually shot RAW only these days. I just uses RAW+JPEG when I know I want to upload something very quickly. I realized actually that I use the RAW for any picture I do upload anyway. The reason is not more detail, I think the differences there are just marginal, but more control of white balance and gradation. A standard conversion is done very quickly anyway. And storage space is so cheap cheap nowadays…
Comment by Carsten on August 9th, 2006 at 9:04 am