Choosing between raw and JPEG can feel overwhelming if you're new to photography, but your decision significantly impacts the quality and usability of your wildlife photos. It’s crucial to understand the practical differences rather than focusing purely on technical specifications.
Coming to you from Danielle Carstens with C4 Photo Safaris, this insightful video examines the practical implications of shooting in raw versus JPEG, specifically tailored for wildlife photography. Carstens emphasizes that there's no universal best choice—it's about your specific circumstances and goals. For instance, if you prefer minimal editing or primarily share images casually through social media or messaging apps, JPEG may suffice. JPEG files are edited in-camera, appearing sharper and more vibrant straight out of the camera, making them ideal for quick sharing without extensive editing. However, this convenience comes at a cost, particularly when fine-tuning is required later.
Raw files preserve all the original data captured by your camera's sensor, offering greater flexibility during editing. If you plan to print large formats, sell your work, or enter competitions, raw is the better option. It allows extensive adjustments to exposure, white balance, and color without losing image quality. Carstens highlights that for wildlife photography—especially when capturing intricate details such as feathers, fur textures, or dealing with high contrast scenes—raw provides significantly superior results. The dynamic range of raw files ensures you can recover details in shadows and highlights that JPEG would otherwise discard.
Carstens also discusses the often overlooked aspect of file storage. Raw files are considerably larger, requiring substantial storage space and investment in external hard drives or cloud backups. If you're unwilling or unable to manage these storage demands, JPEG remains a practical choice. Additionally, Carstens raises critical questions about your shooting conditions. Photographing wildlife frequently involves mixed lighting scenarios, where shade and sunlight blend, complicating color accuracy. In these instances, raw's adjustable white balance capabilities far surpass JPEG's limited color correction.
Carstens further explains the value of raw when shooting distant subjects, emphasizing how compression in JPEG files can intensify atmospheric distortion like heat haze, negatively impacting image sharpness and clarity. For wildlife subjects captured from afar, raw captures finer detail, essential for enhancing images through noise reduction and sharpening during editing. Lastly, if you're prone to shooting at high ISO settings due to challenging light conditions, raw files allow superior noise reduction without compromising detail.
Carstens concludes the discussion with a newer alternative—Canon's "C-Raw," a compressed raw format balancing image quality and manageable file sizes. For Nikon, Sony, Fuji, and Olympus users, various compressed raw options are available within camera settings to mitigate storage concerns without significantly compromising image integrity. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Carstens.
It's been proven that there is no discernible difference between C-Raw and Raw, so it's a no-brainer to switch to C-Raw. It should just be default. There has been numerous videos on this subject. With the added benefit of using less space on your card, so you can just shoot more.
Cards are relatively cheap. There is a detectable difference, particularly in deep shadows. As always, it all comes down to what your particular use case is whether option A or option B makes more sense for you.
If cards were so cheap can you buy me some 128 or 256 v90 cards? Cards are cheap until you want the fastest ones. 300+mb/s ones. I've read those articles and watched those videos, and I'm ok with C-Raw. Basically you gotta blow-out the images to see the effects. Like this one: https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/Camera-Software/EOS-1D-X-Mark-III-C-R...
As to RAW VS jpeg, a raw file can always be converted to a jpeg, but a jpeg can never be converted to a raw file, so raw makes the most sense for "keepers".
As to RAW VS C-RAW, it depends upon Memory-card size, and typical shooting habits.
If shooting hundreds of Frames Per Minute with even a "mega" card, C-Raw may be the way to go, whereas with more "conservative" shooting with a "lesser" size card, it would offer no significant advantage.
Generally speaking, my advice to novice photographers is to defer using more complicated software until you understand and recognize the limitations of what you're using presently. Like many beginners, I was frustrated trying to make RAW files look as good as JPGs. It took a few years of shooting JPG before I even understood what I was trying to accomplish with editing a photograph, and where the JPG was limited. Fully understanding what's wrong with a picture provided the motivation to learn RAW editing.
And it's not easy. Tutorials encompassing all sorts of photo editing techniques can be exhausting. In my early days of digital photography dating back to 2003, I had to read one book and magazine after another. Some people will never be suited for it. I've seen photographers become totally exasperated trying to edit RAW files too soon in their photography career, only because they had been told that good photographers shoot and edit in RAW. Nonsense. Granted RAW files provide greater latitude in editing, but the final image file for print won't make any difference whether you're printing a PSD/TIF or a maximum quality JPG. And the large majority of people won't see or appreciate the subtle differences in editing either.
In the beginning the cameras were not as good at it. Now the modern cameras have AI built in that builds your Jpeg. That said: I would still suggest the RAW route, and learning and spending the time to really edit your photos However, if they can stomach it: That is data-wise, you can set your camera to do both at the same time. (RAW+Jpeg)
I shoot raw as I found recovery of shadows to be better with raw than JPEG. Actually with highlights as well .
I used to shoot JPEGs only and now truly regret it. I post on line but the shadow recovery makes a huge difference in what I post and other tweaks. This was done in a dark coal mine. JPEG sucked all around.