RAW + JPEG fine

astroNikon · Mar 4, 2016

When I first started shooting sports - kids soccer, my first game was around 1,000+ shots.
You're right, what a pain. But after I learned to "wait" for action my shots dropped down to 250-300 maybe a tad more if there are a lot of goals. Our teams tend to score a lot too.

In events the critical thing, like everything else, is making sure you get "the" shot. Not just a bunch of things. Learn how to totally control your focusing system until you are blue in the face. Learn to watch the "action" and get those specific shots. Then you'll make far fewer shots, and more of them will be keepers.

unpopular · Mar 4, 2016

I think one reason why this ridiculous debate exists is because people are stuck thinking about exposure in terms of getting a "correct" exposure to make a good image. I think that this is a result of a minilab mentality; you send in your film and you get a stack of glossy prints back.

With JPEG it's the same kind of mentality. You press the button, the camera measures the data off the sensor, records it as a raw file and saves a JPEG according to factory presets - like a minilab machine.

For many who insist on RAW even it this way. They sort of look at it like one of those advanced minilabs that came out 20 or so years back. They get fiddle with some knobs and press some buttons, but essentially the goal here is to correct problems with the exposure: assuming that the information in the image reflects what the image should ultimately be.

What many people do not realize is that in traditional b/w photography, exposure is a tool to record information, and development is a tool to process information into an image. With b/w photography, you might over expose the image in order to retain shadows knowing that you can compensate the hilights for in development. Digital is different, but significantly less so than you'd think.

While I know that the OP is a beginner, and probably isn't familiar enough with exposure and processing yet to apply this concept, I cannot stress enough how important it is to avoid the mentality that RAW is put there as a safeguard. Rather I'd encourage any beginner to appreciate that processing is an integral part of photography and not an obnoxious inconvenience that, if only you could SOOC better, may be avoided. As I am 100% sure someone has already pointed out, SOOC is a myth, anyway.

I am not saying that there is no place for JPEG. However, RAW should not be avoided simply because one cannot appreciate it's benefits.

GHK · Mar 14, 2016

gryphonslair99 said:
The only time you might need it if you are shooting an event and need to pull a few quick shots say for a deadline.

I have agreed this post from "gryphon......"

In most circumstances, after processing the RAW, then saving your file. preferably as a PSD, you can always reopen and resave as a JPEG; you won't lose the PSD.
GHK

fmw · Mar 17, 2016

I shoot everything at maximum quality JPEG, not just for myself but for clients as well. There are some arcane advantages to RAW but I seem to be able to get what I need with a good JPEG.

unpopular · Mar 17, 2016

fmw said:
I shoot everything at maximum quality JPEG, not just for myself but for clients as well. There are some arcane advantages to RAW but I seem to be able to get what I need with a good JPEG.

Having worked as a graphic artist, I'd never re-hire a photographer that could not provide a 16-bit TIF or PSD file. It might look great on the screen or on a glossy print, but doing custom separations for press on an 8-bit jpeg is limiting.

Yeah, I've done plenty of it. But if I'm paying for commercial photography services having good data is going to be part of my expectations.

Though, perhaps you're right. Doing quality color work has become a bit arcane.

unpopular · Mar 17, 2016

I'm not even sure why cameras have stuck by JPEG. It's a lousy format. A PNG option would be much better.

dennybeall · Mar 17, 2016

I've found that when I'm in control of time and place I can usually shoot jpg with impunity. When things are more difficult and I can't control light temperature or amounts and conditions are changing on the fly - then shooting raw provides a better ability to fix in post.
Some folks know their market and are producing their final product using jpg. If that's good enough then it's the easiest way to go.

Dave442 · Mar 18, 2016

When I have a camera that can seamlessly upload images to social media for the mothers at the birthday party to see shortly after the shot was taken is when I may shoot small JPG along with RAW.

fmw · Mar 18, 2016

That's true. I'm seeing a lot more PNG images on the internet. Back in the days of film I used to do a lot of work for magazines and companies that used the images for printing. These days it is almost all internet. JPEG is all that is necessary. If a client wants a PNG, they will get a PNG. Rarely necessary.

Watchful · Mar 18, 2016

sscarmack said:
32???? I have 256 hahahahah

I always choose the smaller cards and lots of them. Cameras are easilly replaced after an accident or an electrical malfunction but the images may never align again.
I carry dozens of 32gb cards and 64gb cards for photos and video scene shots.
Its safer than all your eggs in one basket.
Think of it this way, money is easy to replace, there are tons of it about, but time is precious and fleeting.

unpopular · Mar 18, 2016

fmw said:
That's true. I'm seeing a lot more PNG images on the internet. Back in the days of film I used to do a lot of work for magazines and companies that used the images for printing. These days it is almost all internet. JPEG is all that is necessary. If a client wants a PNG, they will get a PNG. Rarely necessary.

It's not a matter of suffix or that it's showing up on the web. PNG is a far better format with many more options. It can be compressed lossy or lossless, it supports 8 or 16 bit as well as alpha channels (which is why you see it on the web). Jpeg is always lossy, only supports 8bit and is really pretty much unsuitable for print production aside from newspapers. In many settings 16bit PNG is replacing TIF and 8 bit PNG is replacing JPEG. I do all my animation sequences using PNG if EXR isn't appropriate.

PNG is to JPG as JPG is to GIF. It really is a significantly better format in about every single regard. It'd be nice if cameras had options to provide a RAW, PNG in either 8 or 16 bit, or as a JPEG in situations where it is called for, such as in photojournalism or social media.

But currently our choices pretty much are either using a chainsaw to cut butter, or using a stick of butter to chop down an oak tree. A 16-bit PNG would still be a processed file, but without the limitations of a JPEG.