Jpeg vs RAW!

I used to always shoot RAW with my Nikons and process in Capture NX2, with additional processing in Photoshop. I've had to move away from that workflow since moving to the D500 though. My D700 is the only body I have left that can still be processed in Capture. It's not that Capture is a good program, but it was at least able to accurately reproduce the Nikon colors.

I have 4 cameras with 3 different RAW file formats: Nikon NEF (x2), Olympus ORF, and Ricoh DNG. I'm not really satisfied with what ACR does with the Nikon and Olympus files. DNG is native to Adobe, but they still manage to FU the Ricoh colors too... As a result, I've been moving more and more toward JPG shooting - I would say I'm about 50/50 at this point, depending on what I'm shooting and the intended final output.

Adobe Color is an improvement, but still misses the mark a bit too much for my taste.
 
I'm like Soocom1 - Most of the time, if I'm trying to take creative "photographs" I shoot RAW mainly for the added information available in Lightroom editing. If I'm just shooting "snapshots" that I probably won't do a lot of editing on, like a birthday party or something, then I might shoot .JPG and not worry about post-processing too much.
 
Hey there,

Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.

It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.

Anyway just thought it would be fun.

I dislike JPGs because they do limit you in many ways and also have quality problems. They became the 'de-facto' compression scheme because they were first. I do not edit images with them but will convert to them when I must. There is no competition between RAW and JPG. Is there a competition between a horse & buggy and a Ferrari ?
 
RAW

When photographing birds hiding in dark foilage with a telephoto, I still need to use a fast shutter speed or the photos are useless. Even at ISO 6400, some shots are under-exposed. DxO PhotoLab 2's amazing PRIME noise reduction requires the sensor data (before demosaicing) to do its magic and won't run without it. With RAW's 10- to 12-bit channel depth plus PRIME's noise reduction, I can often get serviceable images where the JPGs would only give me trash. RAW is essential for me in these cases.

Even when shooting landscapes, I want to make sure that the final image is as good as it can be. As Ysarix mentioned, if you use the sensor to its maximum capacity, you might get shots that result in poor JPGs.

Still, the answer depends on one's photo goals. There's no point shooting RAW if you will never use or enjoy or care about what it gives you. There is no one answer for everyone.

About the only potential problem to shooting JPGs is if you eventually become more interested in the advantages of RAW; when you throw away the sensor data, you are making a decision not just for your present self but your future self. That one's a tough one. Storing RAWs when you are using them eats up a lot of disk space and makes backups more complicated.
 
I don't bother with RAW much Files too big, takes up too much space on the camera and hard drives in the long run. If you use the right settings for each situation, shoot on/over/under every shot like I do and know how to "use" your camera, keeping lighting, composition etc in mind, no need for RAW. Most of the time, Raw is a waste of time and space for me. However, from time to time when there is a situation where I'll use RAW, and that would be in extreme lighting situations such as late cloudy evening or sunlight/shade situations. Other than that, I don't use RAW.
 
Last edited:
I don't bother with RAW. Files too big, takes up too much space on the camera and hard drives in the long run. If you use the right settings for giving situation, shoot on/over/under every shot like I do and know how to "use" your camera, keeping lighting, composition etc in mind, no need for RAW. Raw is a waste of time and space for me.

Well I photograph scenes (very high contrast lighting) using raw that, no matter what settings you use in the camera, you can't capture shooting JPEG. In other words, shooting raw I take photos that are impossible for you to take shooting JPEG. I like being able to take those photos.

Joe
 
JPEG because the last think I want to do is spend more time on my computer.

Yes, I know there is a big trade-off.

It gets worse. I pull them down to my phone and edit them there.

Optimal? Quick and easy. Yes.
 
To me, there is no disadvantage to shooting raw. It's easy to batch convert if they don't need work. If they do need work, you can get details from a raw file that you cannot get from a jpg. I'm not anti-jpg, they are handy for sharing for sure.

I just can't see why you'd only want a partial amount of information from your sensor when you can have it all.
 
Only time I shoot JPG is when shooting for a specific company that covers races / events. They send you the memory cards, you shoot all day and then the team lead uploads the photos to their server. Last time I had to upload 90 Gigs of photos. They were in JPG AND in limited size (Mid range size settings on ~20MP cameras type of thing). They have a server that batch processes them using bib number recognition, facial recognition etc... to let the runners then quickly find their photos online. These are not posed shots (with some exceptions) and are all "catch everyone running by / over the obstacle" etc...) So JPG makes sense. Any other work I do is in RAW for the same reasons given by others above.
 
To me, there is no disadvantage to shooting raw. It's easy to batch convert if they don't need work. If they do need work, you can get details from a raw file that you cannot get from a jpg. I'm not anti-jpg, they are handy for sharing for sure.

I just can't see why you'd only want a partial amount of information from your sensor when you can have it all.


Is there enough difference to notice it if you don't have a top-line monitor?
 
Hey there,

Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.

It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.

Anyway just thought it would be fun.
 
Is there enough difference to notice it if you don't have a top-line monitor?

I don't know because I don't have one. :biglaugh:

But like I said, if they don't need edited, batch converting is easy and they will look about the same as a camera JPG. If they do need work, you have way more to work with in a raw file.

I guess it comes down to the overall quality of the original shot and whether batch converting is enough of a hassle to prohibit shooting raw. That's something everyone decides for themselves. In good light, JPGs are fine. In challenging light, raw records detail that JPG doesn't.
 
Hey there,

Just thought i would start a fun topic, i think we can get a conversation going, I shoot RAW because i find it easier and way more flexible for editing. I want to know what all of you shoot, Jpeg or Raw.

It will be interesting to see if there are more people that shoot Jpeg or RAW here.

Anyway just thought it would be fun.

Ok, these are tools not a not a religious quest. I understand all the advantages and sometimes shoot raw. The thing I shoot mostly studio portraits , ball teams, dances etc. and print it all on dye sub printers before the customer leaves. I use Darkroom with camera tethered, controlled lighting and jpeg. I work at lightning speed and have great color with no color corrections. When we shot film at these types of volume events you made sure to get and keep everything dead on consistent, the labs would not fix it for you. The same thing can be done in digital. If you get right you don't need Raw! I am a 68 year old who learned how to make a living with photography in the 1970s continued to now. King Film is dead, long live King Digital. Jim
 

Most reactions

Back
Top