Poll: Do You Shoot RAW or JPG?

[iflynething]

I am ALWAYS getting the hang of shooting full manual camera AND flash so I shoot RAW even for family get togethers (even if I will be burning a DVD of pictures to give out) becuase I know I'm going to blow a highlight or something where if I shot JPEG all the time, I would have wanted RAW and there isnt' much I could do about it

~Michael~

 

[smokey breeze]

I shoot RAW + JPG in the max (finest) resolution the camera can.

I use more CF space, but extremely high quality and fast CF cards are CHEAP! If I can get 200+ images (RAW + JPG) on an 8GB card and that 8GB card costs $50, then for $200, I can get 800 shots without thinking.

So, to put this in perspective, a $1000 camera + a $500 lens + 4 $50 CF cards means that the CF cards cost ~1/8 of my total setup cost.

WTF? Why would I limit my output based on CF card cost?

 

[Garbz]

Hi there ......i read your post..... i am a photographer in newyork....the best type of image results when it is made in jpeg image.....because resolution is well setted in jpeg.....while in raw there are chances that resolution might not come as per our thought.........

This should get strangest post of the week award

 

[FidelCastrovich]

You guys made me curious enough to start shooting in RAW, to see what all the fuss is about. I've been doing it for two days and so far its inconclusive.

It's nice to not worry about the white balance, and be less worried about blowing highlights, but the size of the files and the time it takes to flush the buffer offsets these advantages, at least in stressful situations where you need your shutter to respond.

I'll post my conclusions when i have any.

 

[JamesMason]

Hi there ......i read your post..... i am a photographer in newyork....the best type of image results when it is made in jpeg image.....because resolution is well setted in jpeg.....while in raw there are chances that resolution might not come as per our thought.........

This should get strangest post of the week award

Ha ha. Whats the prize ? A brain ?

 

[musicaleCA]

Considering it's German spam, meh...

Can I take the brain though? I left mine lying somewhere and can't find it again.

 

[CSR Studio]

Raw for me too.

 

[Garbz]

It's nice to not worry about the white balance, and be less worried about blowing highlights, but the size of the files and the time it takes to flush the buffer offsets these advantages, at least in stressful situations where you need your shutter to respond..

Well the shutter response and shooting speed shouldn't be a problem really. Do you have an old slow memory card? Even when at sports events it takes some very strange situations for me to fill the buffer.

In any case you will probably be disappointed. RAW is only worth fussing about if you do any serious editing or need an absolutely perfect image, and can dedicate the time to actually achieving that perfection.

/EDIT: Woopse I discussed this with you above already.

 

[Ava]

I tried shooting RAW a couple of times, but always found myself going back to JPG. I could never figure out exactly how to work in RAW.

 

[Plato]

I tried shooting RAW a couple of times, but always found myself going back to JPG. I could never figure out exactly how to work in RAW.

I had that problem for a long time. If you do not do serious post-processing, RAW is significantly worse than jpg out of the camera (it's flat and dull). Think of camera jpg as the camera doing the post-processing for you. It's only recently that I decided to put some effort into learning how to work with RAW. I'm still not too good at it but I'm getting there.

 

[Ava]

If you do not do serious post-processing, RAW is significantly worse than jpg out of the camera (it's flat and dull).

Yeah, exactly. I find the jpg files to look very good after some post processing, so it's "good enough" for me.

 

[smokey breeze]

This response is not directed at/towards anyone, but a way for me to try to better understand others' viewpoints, perhaps to clarify mine, and more importantly, to learn.

Do you ever bracket your shots? why/why not?

Do you nail DoF, Shutter, white balance and all other parameters each and every time you take a picture? If so, you're a better photographer than me. I can only strive to be that good, and that's why I'm here - to learn.

Is your camera converting RAW to JPG in a perfect manner? What's perfect?

Would you like to have a say in how that RAW gets converted to a JPG?

I'm certainly not advocating shooting only JPG, or only RAW - why not shoot both, since CF cards are so inexpensive (I shoot 30 MB/s Extreme III CF cards and they are ~$50/8GB) and hard disk space is dirt cheap.

Today's cameras are quite capable in producing JPG images, however, if you read up on your cameras firmware updates, you may find that the camera manufacturer has adjusted the RAW->JPG post-processing within your camera. Why would they do that (rhetorical question)?

If I take a money shot (composition, focus, DoF, etc...) today, and 6 months or 12 months from now, I find that the in-camera post-processing wasn't accurate and the mfr has adjusted the firmware to correct an aberration, should I correct my old file? Which file would be easier to correct - RAW or JPG? The answer of course, depends on the aberration.

While I am very happy with the way my camera processes RAW into JPGs, I'm not ready to throw out the RAW CCD/CMOS data in favor of the in-camera post-processing (lossy?) JPG results.

Do I post-process my RAW files? Not at this time.

Do I post-process my JPG files? Not at this time.

I am a fan of minimal post-processing, with a JPG, I've already got post-processing in-camera; with RAW, I have absolutely no post-processing.

 

[Buckster]

Strictly RAW for me.

 

[CrazyCanuck]

I have such a vast range of styles and shoots that it really depends on the day.

For sports I never shoot raw, since the most pp I do on those is generally a bit of cropping if need be, and that's it.

For events I usually shoot both RAW and Jpeg mainly as a fall back. I'd like to say I'm a good enough photographer not to make mistakes, but that would be a lie. Usually a Jpeg is good enough for the pp I do, but there are cases where I blow a highlight, or want to experiment with a different pp technique, and for me, that's where 12bit files come in handy.

Also, it kind of depends on whether I'm getting paid or not. If I'm not getting paid, I usually don't shoot raw since I don't intend to do hours of work after.

 

[taracor]

This topic has the potential to give me aneurysms, but I do "fine" "large" jpegs. For as long as I've been doing it, I've never had an issue with quality or having limited potential or anything of the like. It works for me. If any post processing happens, I then generally save as a tiff and leave it as that. Maybe I'll try RAW someday, but until then, jpeg all the way for me.