Jpeg vs RAW!

[freixas]

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.

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.

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[JonFZ300]

I understand all the advantages and sometimes shoot raw.

If you get it right you don't need Raw!

Ah, this old chestnut...

 

[CherylL]

I shoot raw mostly. I've shot jpg for timelapse by accident a few times. I enjoy editing photos.

 

[Mister_Photoguy]

I think the best answer is actually made in a simple question... Do you trust a very small processor in your camera to blindly process the colours in your captures without any input from you or would you rather a larger computer or tablet allow you to process your captures as you intended them to look?

 

[ClickAddict]

I think the best answer is actually made in a simple question... Do you trust a very small processor in your camera to blindly process the colours in your captures without any input from you or would you rather a larger computer or tablet allow you to process your captures as you intended them to look?

That is essentially the same question restated. Because your question does not narrow it down to one option. It also has the same vague (non) answer: Depends.

Depends on Purpose / use of photos. / particulars of the shoot (Time to edit / web only / etc..)

Like I said in my previous post, when I shoot sports events, there can be 5 photographers shooting 5000-10000 shots a day. (Yes, I've hit the 7000 a few times, and some obstacles / events require more based on participation). so that's easily a potential 40000-50000 photos for one event. Do you think they have time to manually edit each one? (And have posted on the website within 2-3 days) Definitely no. So the answer in this case is, Yeah, I'll trust the small (and extremely capable) processor in my camera to do the job.

Shooting anything else that I have plans / time to edit. RAW.

 

[petrochemist]

OK, WTH.

I shoot raw because I can always make a final photo that's better than the JPEGs that come from all the cameras. The processing software in the cameras is simply too limited.

I shoot raw to save time at the computer. It takes more time and more skill to try and fix a JPEG than to just process the raw file.

I shoot raw because I frequently take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG and I'm not willing to give up taking those photos.

I understand that my ability to do the above is a luxury that not all photographers have. Some photographers have jobs that require them to shoot JPEG. I know some of those photographers and they do great work.

Joe

I shoot JPEG most of the time because it's only under unusual conditions that I might have to 'fix a shot'.
99% of the time any one of my cameras can be set up to give great shots SOOC.

 

[jaomul]

I shoot raw because although I can kinda find my way around a camera I don't want to adjust the wb every time the light changes a bit and I find that with modern cameras and modern software I can often get a usable shot in harsh lighting and high contrast lighting.

These shots would be binned in jpeg mode. I know this is often true because I always shoot jpeg along with raw as a backup in case something happens. These jpegs are mostly deleted once I get the raws on the computer.

I believe the opposite to most, many say pros should shoot raw, I think those with less camera skills probably would benefit the most from raw

 

[Ysarex]

OK, WTH.

I shoot raw because I can always make a final photo that's better than the JPEGs that come from all the cameras. The processing software in the cameras is simply too limited.

I shoot raw to save time at the computer. It takes more time and more skill to try and fix a JPEG than to just process the raw file.

I shoot raw because I frequently take photos that are impossible to take shooting JPEG and I'm not willing to give up taking those photos.

I understand that my ability to do the above is a luxury that not all photographers have. Some photographers have jobs that require them to shoot JPEG. I know some of those photographers and they do great work.

Joe

I shoot JPEG most of the time because it's only under unusual conditions that I might have to 'fix a shot'.
99% of the time any one of my cameras can be set up to give great shots SOOC.

That's because you settle: JPEG can't do it.

Joe

 

[johngpt]

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.

About as much fun as shouting FIRE in a crowded theater.

 

[Derrel]

I have found one of the keys to getting a really good JPEG is to let the tone curve Stay on automatic, and to allow the camera to set the processing,or to set it manually,based in the scene's dynamic range. This was super-easy to do on the Fuji S2.

If the camera offers automatic dynamic range optimization, then use it. If you "set it and forget it" and make the shot with the wrong tone curve it will not be too long before you encounter a scene which has a dynamic range that is a bad match for the tone curve you have left the camera set at.

Shooting good in-camera JPEGS is more work than shooting raw...you have less exposure latitude, and tone curve and saturation and exposure become critical as does white balance. Nikon has "picture styles", and Canon has its tuning parameters. JPEGs are far better than they used to be; my opinion is that Nikon's Matrix metering and Dynamic Range Optimization (D-Lighting), are actually helpful, as is Auto on Tone curve...remember, it is no longer 2001, or 2007, or 2010...we now have very sophisticated in-camera processing available but many "serious" users will not allow automation to do the work...they still act as if it is 2005, and do not trust "automation"at all...and I feel this is a big part of the dislike/disdain toward shooting anything but Raw.

 

[johngpt]

I have found one of the keys to getting a really good JPEG is to let the tone curve Stay on automatic, and to allow the camera to set the processing,or to set it manually,based in the scene's dynamic range. This was super-easy to do on the Fuji S2.

If the camera offers automatic dynamic range optimization, then use it. If you "set it and forget it" and make the shot with the wrong tone curve it will not be too long before you encounter a scene which has a dynamic range that is a bad match for the tone curve you have left the camera set at.

Shooting good in-camera JPEGS is more work than shooting raw...you have less exposure latitude, and tone curve and saturation and exposure become critical as does white balance. Nikon has "picture styles", and Canon has its tuning parameters. JPEGs are far better than they used to be; my opinion is that Nikon's Matrix metering and Dynamic Range Optimization (D-Lighting), are actually helpful, as is Auto on Tone curve...remember, it is no longer 2001, or 2007, or 2010...we now have very sophisticated in-camera processing available but many "serious" users will not allow automation to do the work...they still act as if it is 2005, and do not trust "automation"at all...and I feel this is a big part of the dislike/disdain toward shooting anything but Raw.

Cogent comment Derrel, unlike mine.

 

[Rseider]

I shoot L Raw and L JPEG at the same time. I mostly like the JPEG to just quickly look through the images more easily on my computer. Then the raw to edit because I find there's a lot more precise options.

 

[Derrel]

Large RAW + medium size, fine-compresion (1:4) JPEG for me.

 

[JonFZ300]

I don't see the point in doubling up. I shoot only RAW and if I just want to view preview JPGs, I use FastStone viewer, or I use bridge and just go by the thumbnails, which I believe are also preview JPGs. FastStone is very easy and will show you JPG previews of your RAW files with the quickness. Bridge is a little more cumbersome but still better than shooting every shot in two different formats. Just my 2 cents...