RAW, JPEG, or Both

[kenevenpar]

How many are shooting in raw, JPEG, or both? Just curious as I am starting to shoot both, and considering raw only.

 

Thanks

 

Ken

[Jeepenfun]

I've been shooting in jpg & raw since owning a DSLR but now thinking of just shooting in raw. I use Lightroom 6 to process my photos and never even touch the jpg files anymore I've always worked with the raw files and once I get everything tweaked the way I want I Dom a batch develope and export to final JPG files. Think my upcoming cruise I'm going to shoot RAW only, save space on the memory card for more photos. I take lots of the same shot. A day of hiking in Rocky Mountain national park I'll snap 400-500 photos.

[pierces]

Both. But that is shifting.

 

I'm historically a 95.4% JPEG shooter (yes, I did filter the directory stack for that stat) mostly because of the minimal advantage of a RAW file over a well-exposed JPEG. With the advent of Lightroom's streamlined, format-agnostic workflow's improvements over the past couple of years, I have started shooting more RAW but still mostly shoot daily stuff and family gatherings in JPEG for convenience in sharing.

 

My A6000 doesn't really have a performance penalty for using RAW but walkabout shooting with the 16-50 benefits greatly from in-camera corrections which are JPEG-only The camera/lens profile in LR will correct this, but I haven't gotten into the all-RAW habit yet. Another reason I will shoot both for the foreseeable future is the list of JPEG-only features that are really useful. Sweep Panorama, In-camera HDR and Multi-shot Noise Reduction are pretty amazing tools and can produce terrific results straight out of the camera.

 

Bottom line is: Both. Your mileage may vary.

 

Dave

Edited November 6, 2015 by pierces

[Maligator]

If the camera shoots RAW, I do so 100% of the time. Even with family snapshots or other instances when I'm not particularly shooting for quality. I tried RAW+JPEG once, but found it ate up too much space on my card. I now have much, much larger cards, but still find there's no need for both.

 

My reasoning is that RAW - in my opinion - gives the photographer greater latitude when it comes to editing. And the end result of my editing workflow is a JPEG, so it seems redundant to me.

 

This reminds me of the thread (I'm not even sure it was on this forum, now that I think about it) where someone accused those who edit photos of "cheating." :D

[GUT2407]

I shoot both.

 

90% of the time JOeg is fine for what I want.

 

But then some get the full treatment in RAW.

[Cabansail]

Except in very very rare occasions I shoot RAW all the time. My workflow is based around RAW files and it is quicker to process them than JPEG files.

 

The way I process is not like most people. My aim is not to get the image right in camera, gave up that a long time ago too. What I try to achieve is the best data set with which to make a photo. My files will often look well overexposed and with Colour Temp always set to Flash. What I am interested in is Focus, DoF and Composition.

[pierces]

Except in very very rare occasions I shoot RAW all the time. My workflow is based around RAW files and it is quicker to process them than JPEG files.

 

The way I process is not like most people. My aim is not to get the image right in camera, gave up that a long time ago too. What I try to achieve is the best data set with which to make a photo. My files will often look well overexposed and with Colour Temp always set to Flash. What I am interested in is Focus, DoF and Composition.

 

Film must have been hell for you! ;)

 

Dave

[Jeepenfun]

My phone I shoot both JPG and RAW. I cant really just shoot RAW on my phone cause if i want to send a photo text, Facebook messenger or email a photo and I cant really send a RAW file. recipient wouldn't know what it is let alone be able to open it.

One of the biggest reasons I got the LG G4 phone was cause it has an amazing camera with nearly full manual controls and records RAW too.

[framer]

Really the bottom line is do you like or want to spend time in post processing all the RAW's. If no then keep the JPEG's. If yes then skip the JPG's. If you just want what the camera gives and spend zero time in post processing then skip the RAW's.

 

I still shoot both, process the RAW's to print when I'm done delete the JPG's and save all the RAW's.

 

 

When on a cruise I use sea days to go through the photo and post process the RAW's.

 

 

framer

[Cabansail]

Film must have been hell for you! ;)

 

Dave

 

 

Film was fine! I used to shoot transparencies back then and it was a different discipline. You had to get it right in the camera. I have actually tried shooting digital and film together. I ended up putting the DSLR away as I found it too hard to shift mindset that fast.

[ab21au]

For me both raw and jpg. Drag the jpg's straight into iPhoto and the raw into LR for processing the nice ones. Export these keepers into iPhoto as finals. The non-keepers get deleted from LR and deleted from disk. That way I am not keeping a multitude of 20mb raw images which need to be backed up.

[c230k]

Found this very interesting for those that are not sure about Raw photos.

http://photographyconcentrate.com/10-reasons-why-you-should-be-shooting-raw/

 

 

Tom :cool:

[sharod]

Used to shoot both, now only RAW. I would rather only have to sift through/delete 1 batch of images.

[pierces]

Film was fine! I used to shoot transparencies back then and it was a different discipline. You had to get it right in the camera. I have actually tried shooting digital and film together. I ended up putting the DSLR away as I found it too hard to shift mindset that fast.

 

You may have missed my weak attempt at ironic humor. :)

 

Back on topic.

 

I went the other way when I went to digital and still shoot with a lot of attention to composition, light and proper exposure. "Getting it right" was always part of the fun of photography for me and I still like to be able to look at the image in the field and see if I caught it as I saw it rather than guessing if a muddy, oddly exposed RAW image can be tweaked enough later. Even when I shoot RAW, I try to nail the image at the moment of capture to give myself the widest range on either side to work with if needed.

 

RAW is not a magic bullet that can cure all photographic errors or transmute a dull, lifeless shot into a color-rich masterpiece. Camera sensors have a finite limit on dynamic range and at some point, you won't be able to recover that blown highlight if you expose too high or unblock that shadow if exposed too low. Similarly you won't be able to bring perfect white balance to an image shot under bad fluorescent lighting where the red end of the spectrum simply wasn't there to record. The ability to recover a shot from a mistaken white-balance setting is a plus but the impression that there is a night and day difference between RAW and JPEG is really just a myth.

 

Another consideration is the reason that we take pictures, displaying them. A RAW image can record Billions of color shades. However, most people display and share their photos online in some way and are viewed on devices that at best, display a large fraction of the colors within the gamut covered by JPEG. Online hosting services usually require or prefer JPEG images to display and with very few exceptions, recompress the images further to conserve space and reduce load time. Even at home, If you view your images on a monitor or TV, you are still viewing them at color depth below JPEGs range (unless you have a $2000+ Eizo 10-bit pro monitor). Prints have an even narrower gamut and still manage to look great. Regardless of the source and the presentation, the 16.7M colors available in the 8-bit JPEG format exceeds even the most generous estimate of the human eye's ability to discern shades of color by 50%.

 

RAW is a great tool and it is good to have as an option for tough situations but the advances in in-camera JPEG processing have made its use a preference, not a necessity when it comes to capturing excellent images.

 

I am in no way belittling or disagreeing with anyone who wants to shoot RAW. Shoot and let shoot, as they say. I just don't want someone who shoots JPEG because they don't have the tools, the need to work with RAW or simply don't want to hassle with it to feel like they are getting shut out of a bright shiny imaging utopia that doesn't really exist.

 

Happy Shooting! (RAW or JPEG)

 

Dave

[kenevenpar]

Thanks everyone. Good stuff! I had a feeling their would be opinions on all the options available.

 

For the time being I think I'll continue both, primarily because "I know what I know about JPEG, I'm not sure what I don't know about raw"

 

Add to that, I am colorblind, which is a royal pain when trying to post process a picture to get the color the way I think I remember it when I took the picture.

[Glaciers]

I transitioned from just jpg, then both and now just raw. I was reluctant to give up the jpgs but after a few months of never looking at the jpgs just went raw.

 

While using both I took a shot of a shaded train along the cliffs with a brightly lit snowcapped mountain in the background. I overexposed the shot. The jpg barley showed the mountain at all it was so overexposed. The raw file was more even and I was able to balance things in post processing showing detail in the mountain when there wasn’t enough detail to do so from the jpg. It was an incredible indicator of how the camera adjusts things and the negative effect of it.

[havoc315]

Raw 95%

I'll shoot JPEG when doing a high volume shoot that I want to turn around quickly. Typically, like a sports shoot.

At a family gathering, I may do candids in JPEG but portraits in raw.

 

Raw when I want the best possible shot. JPEG when I'm just doing volume.

 

Vacation is hard-- I want the best possible "once in a lifetime" shots, so I shoot just raw. But I come home with a huge volume of shots. I still have more than half my August vacation shots to process.

[Cabansail]

You may have missed my weak attempt at ironic humor. :)

 

 

Yes - I got and appreciated the humour. :D

 

RAW is definitely not a fix for everything. I just want to make the decisions not someone in a white coat.

 

I know that in camera processing has come a long way but I still want all the data. My workflow is quite advanced and can be very automated. If I get the right data to feed in I can get the output I want too, so it still has to be "right in camera" it's just that I do not expect the image that emerges to be close to the final image. Even when doing it like that there can be problems with using Lightroom (or ACR) with the latest conversion presets, unless you backdate them to the 2010 version.

 

Each to their own and Dave definitely gets some great images so it shows that JPEG alone can work quite well.

[ab21au]

I must admit I am beginning to think a bit like Dave. Even though I think I have my workflow down pretty good, I think I have gone a bit too far the raw way. I have been dismissing the jpg's and not even looking at them but now I am starting to reassess them to see how much better the processed raws are over the jpg's in general. (if at all in some cases). not sure yet, haven't come to a conclusion. Sometimes for me it can be easy to over process the raws.

[Cabansail]

This is an image as taken in the camera. It's unprocessed but taken in fairly good daylight.

 

Nikon D800 & Nikon 70-200 f2.8 lens

 

 

This is a processed image. It was quite a long job and took about six minutes, much longer than I normally take but I did some background desaturation.

 

 

[chipmaster]

How many are shooting in raw, JPEG, or both? Just curious as I am starting to shoot both, and considering raw only.

 

Thanks

 

Ken

 

JPG 99.999% of the time, yeah I throw a lot of information away. But I find with all them pixels, quality of the sensor and care in setup have never had the need to push exposure in post... I've printed to 16x20 and don't find an issue with detail/color.

 

Others will say RAW only.. these days so easy if with the cheapness of memory, computational power and HDD, all about what gets your jollies.

 

I feel too many say RAW as somehow it makes them more or better photographer, frankly all that matters is the image in the end, not the brand, lens with or w/o filter or it is RAW processed :D

[Cabansail]

Just realised my "before" image did not upload correctly in my previous post :(

[zackiedawg]

I'm a 98% JPG only shooter, and RAW + JPG about 2% of the time. Long-time photographer, long-time digital shooter, semi-pro shooter - I've found over the years that JPG will work for me nearly in all situations as I've gotten pretty good at figuring exposure and setting up my shots and am confident with my settings and control enough that I rarely do any processing other than minor cropping, straightening, and/or resizing. I also make sure I set up the JPG output of all my cameras to suit to my taste - within the picture settings I will choose the color and contrast profile that looks best to my eye, then adjust the sharpness, contrast, and saturation settings so they deliver the look I want (as long as I do my job with the exposure). I enjoy MUCH more the act of taking the photos, and though I have extensive editing tools available to me, I don't enjoy time spent in front of a computer as much, so anything I can do to reduce the time spent editing and increase the time shooting, I will do.

 

The 2% of the time when I do use RAW + JPG would be for two specific situations: 1. When I'm hired to shoot a live event or occasion, I use RAW because if I do happen to flub the settings, the event is live and can't be re-run just for me, so since someone other than me is relying on those photos, I shoot RAW + JPG - I can use the JPG most of the time, but have the RAW with the extra editing latitude in case I ever need it. And 2. If I'm shooting in extremely superlow light and need to crank my ISO over 6400 - there's enough extra latitude in the RAW and ability in the RAW converters to pull a little more detail out of the shot that makes it worth using. I rarely have to shoot at ISO12,800 or 25,600 or higher, but when I do, RAW tends to give me that extra bit of detail when I process the shot compared to the in-camera JPG.

 

JPG generally does the job for me though, so if the shots are mine, just for me or for pleasure, I will use JPG. I've sold large prints, and published in national magazines, with JPGs - a well-shot JPG can easily meet the highest standards for publication or stock photo use as long as the camera, lens, and settings are all up to par.

[pierces]

From DP Review

 

"In an email to freelance photojournalists this week, Reuters has confirmed a change in its photo submission policy requesting that photographers submit out-of-camera JPEGs rather than JPEGs created from Raw files to the news agency. The message states that original JPEGs with 'minimal processing' are acceptable, for example, level corrections and cropping.

 

A Reuters spokesperson spoke with PetaPixel, saying that the aim of the new policy is to increase speed in getting photos from the camera to client, as well as to maintain a high ethical standard. Reuters' Photographer's Handbook details which edits may and may not be applied by photographer. The list of acceptable adjustments includes cropping (as long as journalistic integrity is maintained), minor use of levels and curves adjustments, minor brightness and contrast adjustments, and downsizing photos to fit 3500 pixels longest edge. We've reached out to Reuters for clarification, specifically regarding the reported ban on images created from Raw files which - on the face of it - doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

 

Although it is possible to adjust Raw files to a much greater extent than JPEGs without undue quality loss, it is also much easier to establish whether an image converted from Raw has been over-adjusted (or unethically edited) than an OOC JPEG, simply by comparing against the original Raw file."

That last little bit sounds like RAW bias struggling against the increasing use of ever-better OOC JPEG. This thread has had me doing some comparison testing and like Justin mentioned in the last post, unless I really crank up the ISO, I find little or no difference between a well-exposed JPEG and a similarly exposed RAW file. There may be a tad less detail in the JPEG at 200% on the screen but since I don't usually view a 40"x60" print at a distance of six inches, it's not really an issue.:)

 

Again, to each their own but I still consider RAW an option rather than a commandment.

 

Dave

Edited November 18, 2015 by pierces

[kenevenpar]

I tend to agree. I shot several hundred photos at our local zoo on Saturday, raw and JPEG, and saw very little difference. Now, I have to remind you I am colorblind, which may "color" my judgement and my aftershot ability. I did have DW look at some, and she didn't see a lot of benefit in the raw.

 

I just bought a D5500, so I think I'll try a similar exercise of comparing the raw and JPEGs.

 

Ken