RAW vs. JPEG.

MrsLittle · Dec 3, 2011

I took the advice of you all and decided to try shooting in RAW. Although this is just a snapshot, I just want to show what a difference I see from the two. It feels so good to have control over my WB and never have to worry about having orange faces again. Thanks.

Untitled-2 by Lily Belle Photos, on Flickr

KmH · Dec 3, 2011

:scratch:

Even shooting Raw you can have white balance issues, and you have just as much control over white balance by shooting JPEG.

Because of the sheer volume of images the make and to minimize the post processing they need to do, many of the top professional wedding and sports shooters use JPEG almost exclusively.

Kerbouchard · Dec 3, 2011

KmH said:
:scratch:

Even shooting Raw you can have white balance issues, and you have just as much control over white balance by shooting JPEG.

Because of the sheer volume of images the make and to minimize the post processing they need to do, many of the top professional wedding and sports shooters use JPEG almost exclusively.

No, most of the top shooters do not shoot JPEG almost exclusively. Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts...

Ron Evers · Dec 3, 2011

I see a long thread coming.

Sometimes it is easy, sometimes not, as to who's opinion to trust.

Vtec44 · Dec 3, 2011

JPEG's has an advantage in sports photography. Generally speaking, you can burst faster and longer vs RAW counterpart. Well at least the cameras I use can burst in JPEG faster than RAW.

Kerbouchard · Dec 3, 2011

Ron Evers said:
I see a long thread coming.

Sometimes it is easy, sometimes not, as to who's opinion to trust.

It won't be a long thread. This topic has been hashed and re-hashed so many times there is no reason for a long thread. KMH made up statement and presented it as fact. Perhaps he should stick to posting links to copyright regulations or telling people to get lawyers, instead of actually commenting on photography related subjects.

zcar21 · Dec 3, 2011

you can also change the wb in jpeg.

480sparky · Dec 3, 2011

zcar21 said:
you can also change the wb in jpeg.

Not near as well as you can in raw.

MrsLittle · Dec 3, 2011

I guess I should rephrase: I know I can control WB in JPEG but that requires me to fiddle around with all the colors, levels and saturation. I find adjusting a RAW file a ton easier.

MTVision · Dec 3, 2011

MrsLittle said:
I guess I should rephrase: I know I can control WB in JPEG but that requires me to fiddle around with all the colors, levels and saturation. I find adjusting a RAW file a ton easier.

I think what thy meant is that you can open a JPEG in camera raw and adjust the white balance basically the same way you would with a Raw. I'd rather work on a Raw image then a JPEG though.

KmH · Dec 4, 2011

Kerbouchard said:
KmH said:

:scratch:

Even shooting Raw you can have white balance issues, and you have just as much control over white balance by shooting JPEG.

Because of the sheer volume of images the make and to minimize the post processing they need to do, many of the top professional wedding and sports shooters use JPEG almost exclusively.

Click to expand...

No, most of the top shooters do not shoot JPEG almost exclusively. Again, you are confusing your opinion with facts...

I didn't say most. I said many.

Though you often whine there is no 'Dislike' button, you could add me to your Ignore list.

KmH · Dec 4, 2011

MrsLittle said:
I guess I should rephrase: I know I can control WB in JPEG but that requires me to fiddle around with all the colors, levels and saturation. I find adjusting a RAW file a ton easier.

How easy it is to adjust the white balance in Raw, depends which Raw conversion application you are using.

Adobe Camera Raw has a nifty white balance tool that works real well if you use a target, like a good gray card, in an image everytime the lighting changes. Without a target, adjusting the white balance is less certain.

But, technically perfect white balance doesn't always make the most pleasing looking photo.