RAW vs JPG, should I start shooting in raw?

[Mav]

I don't have the time either, which is situational. And when I do have time for my photography I'd much rather be out shooting more rather than sitting behind a computer editing RAW files, which is a personal preference. I love shooting and hate editing, which is all the more encouragement to get it right straight off the camera and shoot in JPEG. Why would I want to spend more time doing something I don't enjoy, and less time spending what I do enjoy? That makes zero sense, which is why I say that some people simply don't get it when they make statements like this. I'm not even going to bother arguing about the technical aspects of RAW vs JPEG anymore because whether you actually enjoy working with RAW or not trumps all of that. If you enjoy working with RAW, by all means shoot RAW.

 

[dEARlEADER]

I cannot believe that anyone who has a camera that is capable of shooting in RAW doesn't. It should not even be an issue, to shoot in JPEG when you can shoot in RAW makes no sense at all. With the inexpensiveness of storage it should just be what you shoot. It is like shooting and sending your photos to get printed then not getting you negatives back. Your RAW file is your negative. There is not a single benefit to shooting in JPEG besides storage issues, and if you want to be a photographer you need to pay for the storage space as part of your cost of being a photographer. I have seen all the arguments for RAW vs. JPEG and to shot in JPEG just does not make sense. Shoot in JPEG if you wish, just not a single benefit to it. I am sure there are points people will make either way but if you want to be a serious amateur or professional learn to shoot in RAW.

Well I see two benefits to shooting JPEG -

1. TIME - I have an infant son and still manage to shoot 800 - 1200 photo's a month as a hobbyist. I don't have time to edit 1200 RAW files... I've tried it... plus as i've mentioned before my D60 does a better job processing noise at high ISO in camera jpg then Nikons own conversion software (viewnx)

2. LEARNING TO USE YOUR CAMERA - I see a lot of raw advocates claiming they have saved images blown out 4 stops and I'm thinking... do you people even bother adjusting your camera settings?? or do you just tape the shutter button down and blast away? If you know your camera and lenses, and have proper equipment like ND, and polarizing filters etc. you should only be requiring nominal editing. Personally, I find post processing mind numbingly boring... I'd rather spend extra time getting it right in the field.

I certainly understand pro's shooting RAW because they get paid for their time. I understand a hobbyist shooting RAW if they got extra time on their hands. However, an DSLR shooter who shoots JPEG is no less a hobbyist or an artist.

 

[Overread]

hmm dEAR I think one thing that is biasing you against RAW a little is the software you are using - Seeing as you take a lot of shots you could try Photoshop Lightroom (trail version is out I think) which is made for batch work with RAW shots and if you have it right in camera then its not too much to edit round and the noise removal software will be better than both in camera and nikon's own brand software. I really would recomend this for you to try out.

After that I think its not the case that people don't try to learn or know how to shoot with their camera, I think it is the case that a shot that would normally be dumped can be saved from the bin by using RAW - yes it could be saved if it were a JPEG, but that would take a lot longer to get the desired effect than with RAW.

 

[Bifurcator]

I don't really know if I agree with that or not. (See Next Message - Originally added).

 

[Bifurcator]

The "Salvation by RAW" theme I mean - dunno if I buy it 100% (10% maybe ). If the exposure is that bad in the first place no one is going to waste their time investigating the possibility of saving it. They're just going to trash it except in some obscure exceptions. If it's not that bad then JPEG is almost as editable as RAW.

There would be no questions about these things if most RAW images were 16, 24 or 32 bits per pixel but almost all are 12 bit and that's only VERY slightly better than 8 bit which is what camera JPEGs are. Sure every little bit helps IF you're editing it much. The assist with RAW is mostly gradients - you get a little smoother spreads and edits don't as quickly cause banding. Although banding can almost always be eliminated in two short steps so again no biggy. RAW might give you a stop or so extra when you digitally adjust exposure levels. But that's about it. There's really not all that much difference. Some. A desirable some, but for many of the benefits of a 12 bit RAW you can "expand" your JPEGs to 16 or 32 bit color space for almost the same advantages.

I just edited a JPEG here http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=128413 and didn't need nor wish for RAW at all. If edits like that are all you're doing then it makes almost no difference weather it's RAW or JPEG - as long as it's a high quality JPEG that is.

Here's another good example: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1285884&postcount=11

See the original and then look at my JPEG edit. And I did that from a copy of the screen.

 

[dEARlEADER]

Anyone gonna take on Bifurcator? ....he has valid points... let's string this into next week...

 

[Overread]

I think (if we are going to keep going ) that a challenge is needed!
First we need a shot taken in RAW and JPEG - this way its the same shot and the same exposure problems
Secondly we need people on either side to edit said shot - and to time (roughly) the time it takes them plus a full write out of the proces that they used to get the result. That would go towards at least showing the true difference between timeing and complexity with a RAW vs JPEG shot.

 

[Bifurcator]

That might be fun! But keep in mind at least part of my point was that if the exposure was too bad in the 1st place no one would likely try to salvage it anyway. Especially since I guess most people take more than one shot of something.


So, who's going to supply the RAW and Jpeg challenge images? You want me to?

 

[Bifurcator]

BTW, here's another example. http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1277763&postcount=8

The edits were made on the scaled down, originally posted JPEG. Time to edit was about 14 seconds.

 

[Overread]

yah but you cheated with that one - you had done it before and had an action code

 

[Bifurcator]

Actions aren't cheating. They're legitimate tools. You bring up a good point tho. It's not going to be a perfect test in regards to time consumption if two different people do the edits because the time needed will be more of a reflection of the difference in proficiency between the two people with the same tool. Or even how much beer the participants consumed respectively.

 

[Overread]

ahh but if both people edit both the RAW and JPEG and time themselves then we can see which method is the quicker or the slower. Of course it does rely on them using basic editing tools (no action codes and such)

*wishes elements had programable batch actions*

 

[Bifurcator]

Yeah (for them). But isn't RAW always slower? It always is for me. 100% of the time. I make the same edits to each type once in PS but RAW also needs an adjustment on import. Sometimes it's just one of my 70 or 80 presets (a minute or two to select the preset, + load-time) and sometimes it's a whole 10 or 15 minutes of slider manipulation extra.

 

[Overread]

ahh but we are more dealing with the trouble case shots here - not those that are already good from camera and don't need much editing - the question being is it easier, quicker and simpler to convert a RAW and edit it than to edit a JPEG.

 

[Bifurcator]

Easier, quicker and simpler? Didn't you answer your own question when you said "to convert a RAW and edit it than to edit a JPEG"? IMHO it can really almost never be "easier, quicker and simpler". I guess however (from my experience) that most of the time it'll be only nominally slower or more complicated. And there will be a few times that you can't do something you want to do if all you have is the JPEG. Between 1% and 5% of the cases I guess.

I was more focusing on the later part of that though. For me there's little doubt that RAW is slower (though not all that much in most cases) but editing potential and how critical that is in most situations is what I was thinking about.

My bottom line (for me) is that RAW is "better", not that much slower, and offers more potential for when/if you need it - but JPEG is just as good in 95% of the situations and recommendations should probably be based on what the person shooting knows how to do in post and what they want - with mostly storage and time investments as the main considerations.