Poll: Do You Shoot RAW or JPG?

[FrankLamont]

RAW... it was a bother, since before I didn't really have the heart for post. Until recently. So I took that step forward. It's not like I haven't looked back... file size is a bother but I really cannot be bothered changing it back, and I've got enough cards.

 

[Jon0807]

RAWR!

 

[JamesMason]

RAWR!

Combined with your avatar, that cracked me up

 

[Nicholas James Photo]

Nef

 

[FidelCastrovich]

If there are differences, they usually stem from different editing processes.

Precisely. If you don't edit the file then there's no benefit of RAW. The standard colour space can cram all visible colours into an 8bit JPEG. You start editing though and you want your 12 or 14 bit data so the algorithms have more sample points for their estimations of what the data should be when you slide some sliders around in image editing software.

For instance, RAW has enough data to adjust white balance without loss of fidelity. JPEG does not, you try and bump up the orange channel and you'll introduce colour artefacts in the others.

If you don't edit, don't bother. It's an extra step you don't need to deal with. That RAW makes everything better is a somewhat averagely common misconception. I shoot RAW, I edit a lot.

That's not what i meant. I do edit. I mean i do try to nail the exposure and WB in camera, but there's always something to tweak. Especially since it's my job to bring back a picture, sometimes under impossible conditions where i'm forced to shoot at 2000 ISO and it's still under by two stops.

What i meant was that even then i don't seen any noticeable differences. Maybe i don't know what to look for.

 

[Garbz]

Edit vs Edit. A minor tweak is just fine for JPEG too. It's when you really start pushing parts of your exposures around that the difference becomes painfully obvious. I.e. adding 1-or 2- to the white balance in JPEG to get the equivalent of about -100K to -200K decrease is just fine. But If you shooting in daylight 5000K, and then try to change the WB to incandescent 2950K, you start noticing difference in how colours are rendered.

 

[Joves]

I shoot in both pretty much all the time.

 

[musicaleCA]

Edit vs Edit. A minor tweak is just fine for JPEG too. It's when you really start pushing parts of your exposures around that the difference becomes painfully obvious. I.e. adding 1-or 2- to the white balance in JPEG to get the equivalent of about -100K to -200K decrease is just fine. But If you shooting in daylight 5000K, and then try to change the WB to incandescent 2950K, you start noticing difference in how colours are rendered.

The difference is also painfully obvious when trying to recover those underexposed images. The extra bit depth really can save your but when the original image only fills half the histogram and you need to pull it up a stop or two.

 

[TriniPhototakeoutta]

If is nothing else this forum has taught me is shoot in RAW once possible an just convert to JPEG, if you want to, after

 

[PhotoXopher]

Interesting results, can't say I'm surprised but the 'always RAW' crowd is a little larger than I thought it would be.

 

[benlonghair]

I see no drawbacks to shooting in RAW/NEF. 1 8GB card holds a little over 700 raw images for me, which means that, for the most part, space isn't an issue.

 

[mariusz]

of course raw, jpg has much less colour and tonal info (8bit)

 

[i Kandi Photography]

Wow, maybe I should read up on the advantages of shooting RAW.

Naah...
It's just a fad. Like zippers and the Internet.

JPG 4 life !!!!!

Same here!

 

[PhotoXopher]

That makes no sense.

 

[DWS]

totally raw