RAW or JPEG

[regdawg]

Sorry to open up an argument here, but I was just wondering what everyone's preference is? I'm trying to decide which I want to shoot with. I've always shot in JPEG because I guess no post production necessary and I could share pictures quickly when necessary. But I've had a couple photography friends tell me that RAW is best because in post production, your able to do more with the photo. But its kind of hard to see someone doing a 500-1000 photo weekend and having to look at every single picture. I guess there is advantages and disadvantages right? What do most of you shoot in?

Thanks for your opinions/suggestions/advice in advance.........

 

[TCampbell]

This has been asked and answered a thousand times.

RAW is typically 14 bit on most cameras and preserves all data regardless of how minute the differences are from pixel to pixel. This means in post processing, nothing is normalized or flattened to safe space and aid file compression. It has the greatest ability to recover detail and provides the best and easiest post-production adjustment "latitude" (you can adjust a RAW file quite a bit and the person viewing the end result probably won't be able to tell.)

Don't worry about the adjustment time. If you're shooting RAW, you'll want an application that's good at dealing with RAW "workflow". The gold standard here is probably Adobe Lightroom (there are others but Lightroom is the most popular by far.)

The programs have profiles for your camera. As you import images, they are auto-apply some base adjustments just because the image was imported into the program. But all adjustments are applied in a non-destructive way. The programs saves the original image and that image is never touched. It tracks all the adjustments you make and renders them ONLY when displaying them on screen and it would also apply those changes when you "export" an image out of the program (e.g. sending something to be printed or to post on a website, etc.) but the internal image is really the original image combined with it's list of adjustments and the program rapidly applies all of those in real-time as the image is being displayed on screen.

But where programs such as Lightroom REALLY save you time is when you have to process large batches of images. Suppose we took 25 images in the same lighting. We can fuss over image #1 (or any of them), then select the lot of them and tell Lightroom to "sync" the adjustments across the images. Instantly all of the white balance, levels, highlights & shadows, etc. etc. are all sync'd across every image you selected and you really only had to manually adjust one image.

JPEG does have one advantage... since it's images are small, they don't take up much space in your in-camera memory buffer. If you are shooting action photography in "continuous burst" mode, your camera will be able to capture more JPEGs at high speed before it slows to a crawl (it does that when the internal buffer is full and it can't take another image until one of the previously taken images has been saved to the memory card to free up more space in the internal buffer.)

 

[Tailgunner]

We really need RAW information sticky thread.

They both have their pros and cons. I started out shooting in Jpeg but soon learned there was only so much I could edit a photo before it became too distorted. So I gave RAW chance. I found out that Jpeg is basically the camera editing the file for you and doing what it thinks is the best way to processes the image. The camera then deletes whats left over. This information is lost for ever...like highlights and colors etc. RAW on the other hand retains all the information and puts control of processing the image into your hands. You now decide what information is kept and whats deleted. It wasn't long after I made the switch to RAW that it began saving my bacon. I shot a series of photos that ended up being several Stops off. Now experience with Jpeg told me these shots was trashed, I could work with them a little but not much. I wasn't used to trying to salvage shots that was taken in RAW and didn't know what to expect. The first shot I corrected the white balance secured RAWs feature with me forever! As soon as I clicked on the white balance, the photo cleaned up perfect! It was as if nothing was wrong and was shot perfectly.

Now I'm a landscape photographer, so I really don't edit much more than 10-20 photos at a time. Adjusting 500-1,000 photos could be time consuming for sure but both LR and CS has quick White Balance adjustment tools? You can also create actions in CS to mass edit photos that are part of the same group? I'm sure someone with more experience in that area can chime in with some more useful info.

 

[dennybeall]

Another less popular approach is to use Adobe Bridge to look at the photos and delete the ones you don't want. You can copy all the remainder to a folder and convert them to jpg in one action and/or some can be grouped and sent to ACR (Adobe Camera Raw) and processed and saved there or sent on to PS(Photoshop) for more work. Not as efficient but works for smaller batches.

 

[Fred Berg]

I always use JPEG.

 

[Derrel]

OP, you sound like you might enjoy the benefits of simultaneous RAW+JPEG shooting. It offers the RAW file if needed, but also produces an in-camera JPEG file for easy viewing, small storage, and in some cases, you would be smart to use the camera's more-advanced features like vignetting control,.highlight tone priority, direct printing sharpening and optimization, dynamic range optimizing, etc,etc. The names of the features vary from brand to brand, but for example, in-camera noise reduction can many times be done BETTER by the camera's internal JPEG processing engine than it can be done by a less-than-expert worker at his or her own computer.

For example, at high ISO levels, in dimmer indoor lighting with no flash, my relatively new Nikon when set to Automatic tone curve adjustment, and High-degree of High ISO Noise Reduction, and its maximum vignetting control option, with in-camera sharpening set three notches above the middle value, can shoot an entire low-light party type event and create gorgeous straight out of camera JPEG images with amazingly good noise reduction, and sharpening that looks great.

You'll find that in on-line forums, you'll get answers about how bad in-camera JPEG processing is, and answers that are way out of date (like 10 year-old information), and which ignores the need for advanced skill using advanced software at the computer. In other words, you will get information that USED TO BE true, but which might not apply to the newer cameras, or which might not apply to YOUR ability level in post-processing. Again, some of the newer d-slrs offer in-camera JPEG processing of images that is actually better than what many people can do on their own, using software and raw files. That is the often-overlooked aspect to your question when it is asked on a forum full of advanced shooters.

 

[bribrius]

I forget.
no really. I do.
one camera only shoots jpeg. so there I am guaranteed to only shoot jpeg. I adjust ahead with in camera settings if I want bw or color, contrast, low key whatever. And if it is beyond fixing I have to throw it so if it is something I really want it makes me more careful. in camera and really don't frig with the image much in post. Other times, I will shoot just jpeg or raw + jpeg. Half the time I forgot what I was shooting last so don't even notice what I am shooting right away. Again I do in camera setting adjustments. I have paid for that before though by looking through images after the fact and wishing I had a raw file (so I really should just pay more attention).

so what I do try to pay attention too now, is if I am shooting a photo I know I will be messing with to make sure I am shooting in the raw + jpeg for the additional tweaking aspects. Majority of time I actually despise raw and the post processing that comes with it, and waiting for files to transfer, deleting them out when I don't need them.....
Really just not a raw fan. (And yeah, slows the camera down too and the computer in transfer talk about carrying dead weight)
I have noticed to when I am shooting jpeg I am much more careful. when I am shooting wrong I get this real "who gives a chit " attitude because I know I can fix quite a bit in post if I choose to. I also if shooting bw jpeg I think it out before I choose color or bw. With raw, I tend to just wing it and decide for sure later. Raw has made me very very lazy and unconcerning in some ways. Even if I mess up the exposure, well who gives a crap I can fix that to a large degree in raw too. I really should be shooting raw less, my skills will probably drop the more I shoot it in some ways.

As mentioned to, with my Nikon at least I can turn out some pretty damn nice jpeg images, especially bw. Even my cheaper Nikon turns out some really good high contrast bw sooc jpeg.

 

[bribrius]

I always use JPEG.

well, geez I used to. But I dont think I could do that now. For things I absolutely dont want to frig up I want the reassurance of later options available in raw. You know the shot you "cant afford" to miss. Also things I know for a fact I will have to tweak I want that ability. But yeah, snaps in general, jpeg is my preferable method. Shooting landscape, portrait (as much as I suck at it) I will (not always but) primarily shoot raw+jpeg for insurance and tweaking ability. When I shot a wedding a while back you can rest assured the entire thing was in raw+jpeg. Last thing I wanted to frig up is the traditional kiss or "cake cutting" moment.

 

[weepete]

If I want to edit it myself later I shoot raw. If I don't I shoot jpeg.

I'll mibbies start taking Derrel's advice and shoot raw + jpeg over the next wee while as cards are getting so huge now that storing a few hundred jpeg is not a filespace concern.

 

[AceCo55]

For sports photography - where I'm shooting five sports AND processing the keepers over a weekend (approx 1000) - I use JPEG.
For everything else I use RAW

 

[480sparky]

I shoot raw when it makes sense to me to shoot raw.

I shoot JPEG when it makes sense to me to shoot JPEG.

I never shoot raw+JPEG because it never makes sense to me to do so.

 

[FArrival]

I second what weepete says: if you plant on spending time editing pictures in detail , shoot RAW. Otherwise stick to JPEG which you can still edit a bit and won't fill your memory as quickly.