RAW vs. JPEG

As you know I’m still at the book fair in Gothenburg. And while I’m here, I’m liveblogging for an internal website, an intranet (meaning I can’t link to it, since it’s internal and you can’t log in).

Anyway, liveblogging means several updates per day. That, plus the fact that I’m working with other stuff as well at the exhibition means that there’s not much time to process the pictures I’m taking for the blog.

This leads to the headline of this post: RAW vs. JPEG. Normally I always shoot in RAW. Always. Beucase it gives me so much more possibilities to work with the picture, after the actual exposure. But in this situation, when ‘fast’ is more important than ‘perfection’, JPEG actually fits my needs better. It feels strange though, since I haven’t taken a picture in JPEG-format for about two years. All of the sudden I have to think about white balance and those sort of things. But the pro’s (fast, smaller files, processed pictures right out of the camera etc.) are more than the con’s, so JPEG it is for another couple of days. Then I’ll go back to my beloved RAW-format again.

I’d like to dig deeper into the actual differences between RAW and JPEG, but I’ll have to save that for a later post. Work is calling.

Happy Saturday!

show hide 3 comments

Cole - I’m boycotting all this technical jargon and getting a roll of film. Until you dig deeper that is you kooky Finn ;)

Jonas Granvik - Perhaps you, while your at the technical stuff, could give some insight into the storage management issues for a photographer and how you store your work.

Jakob - Good idea. That’s another pro for JPEG, the files are so much smaller in MB’s. Shooting a wedding, for example, and coming back with some 2000 RAW files or so fills up the hard drive pretty fast.
But again, good idea for a post, thanks!

Your email is never published or shared. Required fields are marked *

*

*

There was an error submitting your comment. Please try again.

F o l l o w
N o r d i c a