RAW or JPEG

[Mike Buckley]

Probably RAW but I will look at JPEG just so I have the understanding of what & why I am using a specific file type.

Here's to celebrating the effectiveness of an informed decision. You seem to be on your way to making one.

[William W]

. . .This is the end of that discussion ;-)

That made me laugh.

I have been in board meetings and have noted repsonses like that.

WW

[ajohnw]

Here's to celebrating the effectiveness of an informed decision. You seem to be on your way to making one.

I might make one over the next 6 months - forget shooting jpg's if using a Nikon as nailing the exposure in conditions that will vary just isn't on. My initial impression is that if some white in the shot compensate. However I have heard rumours that they always over expose and - 1/3 EV might fix that.

John
-

[jboyer]

Always a timely question. I have over 100,000 pictures in my library. From 2000 till now. Jut for fun, I did 'reprocess' 2004 (10 years old) Rebel RAW files with Capture One 7.2. And compared the results with the processing done in 2004.

Well, I am glad I shot RAW. For some pictures, it was simply night and day. Better highlights recovery, better noise control, better sharpening etc. Even the white balance seemed better.

Of course, for many of us, reprocessing is not an option... or adds any value. But I can vouch that RAW shooting may prove to have long term benefits.

Good shooting.

[Downrigger]

This discussion seems to presuppose that you are going to process numerous images at the same time which is something beyond my comprehension. Maybe it's the professional/amateur difference, volume vs. individual images. I sync my settings in LR then select only the best image to PP...not a series of them. Then, unless I want to keep the originals for cloning/stacking/merging purposes, they go to file 13 and discarded. For client review?...that has no meaning for me.

Makes so much sense to me.
Amateur is a glorified word for my efforts - I'm in this because I enjoy it.
And like Chauncey, I really only keep the images I think interesting to work with, and vice versa. That said, I can't think of any reason to impart any limitations to the options the original RAW data affords me.

[BrianA61]

Well, just to pile on here, I used to shoot in jpeg only because I had no idea what RAW was or even how to process it. I have since learned that RAW is MUCH better to shoot it. Yes, the files are much larger, BUT, you get to choose the kind of processing you want to suit your need. Jpegs are a result of the camera processing the image and the result may not be to your liking. If you try to post process a jpeg, you will find that you have a WAY smaller window in which to achieve good/best results. In RAW, you can bring out details in the shadows, tone down blown out highlights and color and white balance and a myriad of other functions. I use LR 5 to process my RAW images and use batch processing on import. If I find settings that give me the results I want, I will batch process the same settings to other images with similar exposure characteristics. It doesn't take that much time to post process images since I don't process all of them. Only the ones that "make the grade". Post processing using LR can be streamlined to a much easier and less time consuming procedure once you get the hang of it. The only thing I regret about shooting in RAW format, is that I didn't do it sooner. I have a lot of great (jpeg) photos that I just can't tweak to where they need to be in order for them to go from great to spectacular. My $.02.

[dabhand]

Trouble with a question like X or Y it presupposes you can't use both - and given the low cost of sd cards (or whatever except film) I cannot see the issue, just shoot both !

Although I mainly create mono images I capture both RAW and JPG as well as it enables me to look at the colour image in B&W on the screen by using the 'mono feature setting' whilst of course capturing all the info to process the RAW file; additionally a JPG can be used as an aide memoire as to the general conditions prevailing at the time; they are also very useful for offloading to one of those small digital photo viewers; creating backgrounds for phones / tablets etc etc.

Just shoot both and PP according to your needs.

steve

[Glenn NK]

Always a timely question. I have over 100,000 pictures in my library. From 2000 till now. Jut for fun, I did 'reprocess' 2004 (10 years old) Rebel RAW files with Capture One 7.2. And compared the results with the processing done in 2004.

Well, I am glad I shot RAW. For some pictures, it was simply night and day. Better highlights recovery, better noise control, better sharpening etc. Even the white balance seemed better.

Of course, for many of us, reprocessing is not an option... or adds any value. But I can vouch that RAW shooting may prove to have long term benefits.

Good shooting.

Good points.

The processing capability of many products keeps improving. (Using LR exclusively) I've noticed some large strides, particularly in highlight recovery, and I think this applies to ACT also (CS6, etc).

JPEG's are like a baked cake - the recipe can't be changed once baked.

I look at RAW files as a method of future-proofing my images. However, there are good reasons for some photographers (usually pros doing sports) too shoot JPEG where finished products are required NOW and time is of the essence.

Manfred's solution (shoot both at the same time) has merit.

Glenn

[ajohnw]

Trouble with a question like X or Y it presupposes you can't use both - and given the low cost of sd cards (or whatever except film) I cannot see the issue, just shoot both !

Although I mainly create mono images I capture both RAW and JPG as well as it enables me to look at the colour image in B&W on the screen by using the 'mono feature setting' whilst of course capturing all the info to process the RAW file; additionally a JPG can be used as an aide memoire as to the general conditions prevailing at the time; they are also very useful for offloading to one of those small digital photo viewers; creating backgrounds for phones / tablets etc etc.

Just shoot both and PP according to your needs.

steve

True. There is an incredible amount of rubbish about on this subject that just keeps getting repeated and repeated. PP as needed is a nice way of putting it. Either of the things according to what a shot needs.

John
-
-

[SteveF]

Always a timely question. I have over 100,000 pictures in my library. From 2000 till now. Jut for fun, I did 'reprocess' 2004 (10 years old) Rebel RAW files with Capture One 7.2. And compared the results with the processing done in 2004.

Well, I am glad I shot RAW. For some pictures, it was simply night and day. Better highlights recovery, better noise control, better sharpening etc. Even the white balance seemed better.

Of course, for many of us, reprocessing is not an option... or adds any value. But I can vouch that RAW shooting may prove to have long term benefits.

Good shooting.

As someone who is shooting 100,000 per year since 2003 I find jpegs to be the file of choice. Sure raw is better for low volume/maximum control but where do you finish? This is the choice we have. I have shot weddings exclusively raw and exclusively jpeg since 2004. Neither was a problem. Jpegs rule for me because I love the camera and the controls it offers. Some love the software they have on their computer. I hate computers but I have one in my hands and it's got the Canon logo on it ...

When my DSLR changes the noise control per image in jpeg according to shutter speed/ISO/file size etc I love it! Avoids me touching the file later and makes me money. Just imagine taking 1000 images tonight in raw and processing them in a software package compared to the jpeg shooter who presents 500 out of 1000 to the client in 5 minutes. Who wins?

Shoot raw if you wish but us jpeg shooters will make the money

[jboyer]

As someone who is shooting 100,000 per year since 2003 I find jpegs to be the file of choice. Sure raw is better for low volume/maximum control but where do you finish? This is the choice we have. I have shot weddings exclusively raw and exclusively jpeg since 2004. Neither was a problem. Jpegs rule for me because I love the camera and the controls it offers. Some love the software they have on their computer. I hate computers but I have one in my hands and it's got the Canon logo on it ...

When my DSLR changes the noise control per image in jpeg according to shutter speed/ISO/file size etc I love it! Avoids me touching the file later and makes me money. Just imagine taking 1000 images tonight in raw and processing them in a software package compared to the jpeg shooter who presents 500 out of 1000 to the client in 5 minutes. Who wins?

Shoot raw if you wish but us jpeg shooters will make the money

I quite agree with you. It depends on one's interests and benefits of using one versus the other. The current cameras are amazingly agile in terms of making the RAW data into a wonderful jpeg. Truth be known, it is sometimes hard to make a RAW picture look like a jpeg... no matter what software you use.

Like many other choices in life, your mileage will vary. I personally enjoy (and I have the time... retired...) tweaking RAW pictures. But I can understand the immediate benefits of jpeg. Thanks for your comments.

[Glenn NK]

Avoids me touching the file later and makes me money. Just imagine taking 1000 images tonight in raw and processing them in a software package compared to the jpeg shooter who presents 500 out of 1000 to the client in 5 minutes. Who wins?

Shoot raw if you wish but us jpeg shooters will make the money

That's what I was alluding to post 45; when production rate governs, JPEG is often the best choice.

I haven't shot 100,000 images in eight years, and I've culled out about 1/3 of them - maybe 20,000 left.

Only a few JPEGs have been made for web display or printing.

But I'll bet landscape photogs, use RAW.

[revi]

So in a large part it comes down to speed vs. control: shooting JPEG gives results fast, RAW can give more control over the final result (depending on the situation).

One other aspect (related to the control over the result): some effects cannot be obtained in-camera, or are better done in PP (HDR, added vignetting, colour effects, B/W, some kinds of stitching, ...). And when PP is needed anyway, why not prefer RAW?