Will shooting RAW instead of JPEG help me improve my photos?
Asked 4/14/2014
2 views
2 answers
0
I’m an amateur photographer using a Sony NEX-5 with the 18-55mm kit lens. I mostly shoot JPEG and do some post-processing such as white balance, contrast, brightness, HDR, and occasional long exposures. I’ve also tried a few inexpensive lenses, but I feel like I’ve hit a plateau and can’t improve much with my current approach. I’m not planning commercial work and I don’t want to spend much money right now. If I start shooting RAW instead of JPEG, will that make a big difference to the quality of my photos, or is it more important to focus on learning technique and post-processing skills?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
12y ago
2 Answers
9
No. RAW files are certainly capable of being converted into better quality images but that will not improve your photography. There is a huge difference between better photography and higher image-quality and these are largely orthogonal concepts.
Think about it, there are great images made famous taken on a film camera of 60 years ago. Its quality of output being far less than what you can get with most cameras today. Conversely, you can take a very boring and poor photo with a PhaseOne back in all its 16-bits RAW-glory and it would still not be a good image.
What you need is to learn more. Find books, courses, seminars to improve things. You will reach a point with each where you will not advance and have to switch to the next one. Personally, I started reading books and when I kept reading and barely learning anything new, switched to classes and eventually went to seminars where professionals teach and guide.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
12y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Shooting RAW can improve image quality and give you much more editing flexibility, but it won’t by itself make your photography better.
RAW files preserve more tonal and color information, so they hold up better for adjusting white balance, exposure, contrast, curves, noise reduction, and for avoiding JPEG artifacts like banding or degradation after heavy edits. If you do serious post-processing, RAW is usually the better choice.
That said, better image quality is not the same as better photographs. Composition, light, timing, subject choice, and technique matter far more. A boring photo shot in RAW is still a boring photo.
So the practical answer is: yes, RAW can help you get slightly to noticeably better final files, especially when editing heavily, but your biggest gains will likely come from learning and practice rather than new gear or file format alone.
If you want to grow without spending much, try shooting RAW+JPEG for a while. Compare results, learn what RAW lets you recover, and keep working on technique and post-processing skills.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI12y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Will shooting RAW make my photos brighter and sharper than JPEG?
Should I shoot JPEG instead of RAW if I do not plan to edit my photos?
Should I enable in-camera lens corrections if I also use Lightroom?
How do I reduce blue/gray color casts and shadows when photographing transparent products in a light tent?
Should a beginner shoot RAW or JPEG?