Discussion in 'Just For Fun!' started by Raw photographer, Jun 17, 2019.
Since being on this thread I now shoot raw only
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.
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.
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.
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
I agree Joe.. I did edit my post after you posted to reflect that.
Exactly. I covered a conference once. The experienced event photographers I talked to over meals at the staff table would look at me funny when I said I was shooting RAW (well, the lighting was awful and the camera's white balance wouldn't have coped well—if I were doing it full time, I'd probably have worked out some other solution). One guy I talked to told me about covering rock concerts with HD video. Rather than hoping he'd capture a precise moment, he'd capture them all, select stills from the video after the fact and dump the video. This was before 4K videos. The stills went to a web site, so he didn't need high resolution.
Whether or not you need RAW depends on what you want to do with your photos.
Back around 2003 my main Camera was the Fuji S2 Pro, which was a digital single lens reflex built up around the Nikon N80 film camera. It had a very clever system of camera set up. On the back were four simple push buttons, and each button had two variables. It was pretty simple. The user would select raw or JPEG, file size in pixels (small, medium or large), tone curve (Org or original meaning low contrast,Norm, or Hard). Sharpening was off low,medium,or high,Saturation was also a simple choice of Org, Med or Hi.
Using a DSLR that had such a simple image adjustment made it easy to shoot a picture and then press a button and make any needed change, and it was easy to increase or decrease saturation, Or to change saturation, etc. The S2 was perhaps the best JPG camera I have ever shot.
Back in those days conversion of raw files was much slower than it is today. Adobe's Camera Raw converter was not yet invented, and batch conversions were not like they are today. Converting Raws was was a real problem with this camera, since only Fuji software pretty much was able to translate raw files. It would be a little few years before Adobe could offer a raw file conversion for Fuji's .RAF raw file format, so as a result, the vast majority of my early shooting with his camera was done in JPEG only.
It was with this camera that I learned the importance of selecting the correct tone curve and the right amount of saturation. Whenever you shoot JPEG directly it is super important to make sure that both the tone curve and the image saturation are properly adjusted for the scene at hand.
Ah, this old chestnut...
Separate names with a comma.