JPEG, RAW, or BOTH

[sdgmusic]

I have a DSLR and have had it for a while. I need to know, what are the advantages of shooting RAW. I haven't yet because I can't justify creating picture files that are 15MB each or more. If there are amazing benefits I will try it. Can you help?

 

[Big Mike]

This is an older article, but it should give you a good start to the RAW vs Jpeg issue.
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

I think that for most people, the drawbacks of using RAW are the file size and the workflow. Well, memory cards are cheap and upgrading your computer if it's too old and slow, is an inevitably.

As for workflow, it gets easier with practice and the right software. I shoot RAW almost exclusively since I started using Raw Shooter Essentials. I plan to get Adobe Lightroom someday.

As for shooting both...I don't see a reason to do that. It just takes up even more space. It only takes a few seconds to get a JPEG file from a RAW files...so why record a JPEG in the camera?

 

[Johnboy2978]

I've been shooting RAW for a while now, maybe a year. I was hesitant to do so at first b/c of the extra steps involved in opening them and viewing them. I started doing paid jobs though, and decided it was time to do so. At first, it's a bit of a hassle developing a good workflow, I'll admit that. The other side is that you can have complete control over the development. It is also a lossless format and it will not be compressed. I have personally had several success stories in which I had images that were "saved" by shooting RAW. In one situation I had an image that was completely underexposed (like -4) due to the off camera flash not having time to recycle. I was able to adjust the WB and completely recover the image. A jpg of this would've been useless and deleted. It's worth playing with to see what you can do with it.

 

[GwagDesigns]

There is also an automated action within the RAW dialog, which will enable you to convert all selected files to jpegs, and save them where you choose. Id just shoot in RAW, and convert them later.

 

[tr0gd0o0r]

The reason I shoot exclusively in jpg is the time in which it takes to post-process. While it may not take long to convert one raw file into jpg, doing it to the several hundred photos I shot while on assignment would end up taking quite a while. However, most of my shooting is photojournalism, so speed is somewhat more important than most other applications.

As for shooting both...I don't see a reason to do that. It just takes up even more space. It only takes a few seconds to get a JPEG file from a RAW files...so why record a JPEG in the camera?

Along the same lines, I was showing one of my newspaper friends my mark II (which is capable of writing both formats to two different cards.) And he commented that the feature might make him start shooting raw because he could look at the jpgs, and then choose which files to edit from raw.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, if speed is a big factor, then JPEG may be a better option for you...but even with several hundred photos...you can process them in batch in very little time.

Another thing I just thought of...RAW images fill a camera's buffer faster and take longer to clear. So if you are a machine gun like sports shooter...you may want to shoot JPEG rather than RAW.

 

[darich]

And he commented that the feature might make him start shooting raw because he could look at the jpgs, and then choose which files to edit from raw.

Exactly the reason i shoot both - RAW for editing/printing and jpeg means that windows can give me a thumbnail of each one and i can choose which ones to edit/delete.

 

[Alex_B]

well, batch conversion does not take long ... just as good as shooting jpeg directly .. but with the advantage you can go back to selected images with complicated light or white balance .. and give them some extra treatment with some more effort in the conversion to jpeg

 

[eravedesigns]

I just shot in RAW yesterday which is pretty rare of me to do and I am so happy i did. RAW allowed me to fix the under exposed images that I shot without losing quality and I was also able to adjust other settings without losing quality which was nice

 

[abraxas]

This is an older article, but it should give you a good start to the RAW vs Jpeg issue.
http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

...

Thanks for posting that link. It explains to me why I would get a halo effect (jpeg sharpening) in some photos when post processing. ie; the reason I use raw.

 

[RVsForFun]

...and you have the software for RAW processing, shoot RAW. You can go back later and change the conversion parms to re-do your resulting JPEG at any time. Personally, I shoot over 1,000 images a wedding so I shoot JPEG in-camera for speed and space reasons. Since I edit each and every image, batch conversion of either RAW or JPEG isn't feasible.

 

[Garbz]

Seriously I have the cheapest modern computer there is. Batch converting 100 images right off my very very cheap and slow memory card takes at most 10-15 minutes. If you do this stuff at home, drink a coffee and come back. If you're out on assignment you may really want to consider taking more memory cards, or shooting jpeg.

 

[sdgmusic]

OK, lots of info thanks everyone.
I shot a couple photos in RAW doesn't seem like my camera takes any longer in RAW than in JPEG. I am using an alpha with a lexar pro memory card, write time seems to be just as quick unless I shoot a continuous burst of like 10 photos. I do have Photoshop Lightroom which I hear is great for RAW. So I suppose I'll give it a shot and store everything on my external Hard Drive.

I suppose my other concern with RAW is if the idea is to no compress to save the loss of information in the compression, what do I do when it comes time to take these files in for printing?

 

[Big Mike]

I suppose my other concern with RAW is if the idea is to no compress to save the loss of information in the compression, what do I do when it comes time to take these files in for printing?

Well, the theory is to keep any compression to a minimum. For optimum quality, you want to start with the best you can and use a lossless format up until you output.

Really, you can get great prints from JPEG files...but any editing and saving you do along the path from camera to printer will change and posibly damage the image...so it's best to keep the quality high until you need to output to smaller files or prints etc.

 

[Big Mike]

Since I edit each and every image, batch conversion of either RAW or JPEG isn't feasible.

Have you used Lightroom or similar software? The idea behind that software is that it doesn't save the edits you do, into the actual RAW image, until you output. It does save the edits/changes you do and only applies them when you are finished and wish to save copies etc. This way, you can edit them one by one while at the same time applying things to multiple images.
(To be fair, I haven't used Lightroom but I do use R.S.E., which was bought by Adobe before lightroom was released.)
For example, I will adjust the RAW settings for an image (WB, Exposure, Highlight Contrast, Shadow Contrast, Noise Suppression etc.) and then copy those settings to all the similar images, which only takes a few seconds.

I'm been hearing from a few wedding photographers who have cut out Photoshop from the bulk of their editing...preferring to do it all in Lightroom.

As a last note, I was at Costco the other day and Sandisk Ultra II 4GB CF cards were $80 CDN. Memory card space shouldn't be an issue.