The RAW v jpeg debate continues - over my head

paul'dee'dowling

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 4, 2015
Messages
68
Reaction score
10
Coming from film SLRs from the early 70s , mostly the Minolta SRT , I went digital when film became expensive .
I guess al I did was to continue as if it were film - so jpeg , ISO 200 [ so I could judge how close the exposure would be ] either auto exposure or 125 shutter speed for normal conditions .

Not too keen on slow kit zooms which came with each camera , so managed a cheap 35mm for the Sony plus my 1990s Minolta 35-80 nicely extended to 50-120 in old money .

If 35mm [50mm in the past ] was wrong for the shot , that was that .
If I had to expose for the interior or the window , that's how it ever was .

The only advance for me with my current Fuji X-T 1 / X-Pro 1 / X-M1 plus gifted X-T 100 was the extended ISO range and the exposure compensation dial .
The 18-55 starts at f2.8 which is bonus and it's a heck of a lot sharper than previous kit lenses .
I also have the pancake 27mm - around 40 odd in old money .
[ I don't do much with longer zooms , , so just a couple with older digitals .]

The RAW debate continues , and I am finding that my current cameras , in RAW can overcome that problem of the interior contrast twix interior and windows , plus a whole lot of other stuff .

Maybe I am missing out on my bargain basement trawling for these clearance cameras which are capable of much more , but I am severely limited in computer know how .

Certainly have no need for the subsequent versions of my oldies , which were either new or ex-dem .

RAW just goes over my head !!!

Regards
dee
 
Some of what you're noticing is that your digital cameras have a wider (deeper) dynamic range, not to be confused with Raw files that have more bandwidth.

Just enjoy the dynamic range of your newer cameras, and try not to be overly concerned with the Raw files.

The way I look at Raw files is; use Raw if you're going to do some advanced photo editing, which enables you to use more of the data that Raw files contain over that of JPEG files.

If you're not sure how you will use the files later, you can capture both the Raw and the JPEG files just in case you ever find yourself wanting more electronic data to produce the image that you want, and you've go the JPEGs to print, pass around, or share on the internet.

Photography is supposed to be a fun, relaxing hobby, so don't let it keep you up at night worrying about Raw.
 
I came from the days of film
Pentax k1000 fp4 set to 100 asa not 125
I shoot both raw and jpg but I try to get it right in camera
A lot of my film habits have crossed over to digital and in some ways I see it as an advantage
In addition to what post 2 said you may find as you experience more time with digital you will want to go back and re work some of the old shots
So shoot both save the raw files somewhere for another day
As for being the right way or wrong way...if you have the luxury of doing it your way do so
Photography is my hobby this mean I can shoot a 2 metre pano or a macro shoot of a needle with thread and print it at a3
DSLR tech has allowed me to do the images I dreamt of doing in my days of film
 
And one more thing: Each Raw file contains a JPEG version in addition to the Raw data. This is so you will have something to look at, since humans cannot see an image when looking at just Raw file data. But the JPEG file is easy to use for those uses I mentioned above without the need to upload your files to a computer and run them through a Raw converter to get the JPEG image. I usually capture both file types.
 
I have shot raw + jpeg for the last 15 years.

Works well for me.
 
Last edited:
Coming from film SLRs from the early 70s , mostly the Minolta SRT , I went digital when film became expensive .
I guess al I did was to continue as if it were film - so jpeg , ISO 200 [ so I could judge how close the exposure would be ] either auto exposure or 125 shutter speed for normal conditions .

Not too keen on slow kit zooms which came with each camera , so managed a cheap 35mm for the Sony plus my 1990s Minolta 35-80 nicely extended to 50-120 in old money .

If 35mm [50mm in the past ] was wrong for the shot , that was that .
If I had to expose for the interior or the window , that's how it ever was .

The only advance for me with my current Fuji X-T 1 / X-Pro 1 / X-M1 plus gifted X-T 100 was the extended ISO range and the exposure compensation dial .
The 18-55 starts at f2.8 which is bonus and it's a heck of a lot sharper than previous kit lenses .
I also have the pancake 27mm - around 40 odd in old money .
[ I don't do much with longer zooms , , so just a couple with older digitals .]

The RAW debate continues , and I am finding that my current cameras , in RAW can overcome that problem of the interior contrast twix interior and windows , plus a whole lot of other stuff .

Maybe I am missing out on my bargain basement trawling for these clearance cameras which are capable of much more , but I am severely limited in computer know how .

Certainly have no need for the subsequent versions of my oldies , which were either new or ex-dem .

RAW just goes over my head !!!

Regards
dee

Back in the film era we had slide film and negative film. Were you of the Kodachrome persuasion or the Tri-X persuasion? Slide film pretty much started and ended with the camera. Today SOOC JPEGs are an appropriate corollary. Negative film had to be taken into the darkroom where all kinds of mysterious arts were performed in the dark until out came the finished print. Today raw processing is an appropriate corollary. Only that the old chemical darkroom was pretty crude compared to what's possible with a modern raw file and software.

I also shoot Fuji X cameras and I've been at this for over 40 years so if I can learn you can learn.

Joe
 
*Only shooting JPEG is like shooting film and sending it to a lab for lower quality dupes. If there hasn't been a day where you want to explore a really large print for your wall, it will come and that day you will regret not shooting in Raw.

*caveat; if all you do is take snaps and never endeavour to make art then JPEG's are likely all you need.
 
JPEGs are convenient and honestly still contain an enormous amount of information. A raw file is, for the most part, the maximum amount of information that can be read from the sensor.

I think one misunderstnding is that a jpeg is just compression. If it were only compression, you could get back the the original information just like unzipping a set of files on your computer. But, your camera actually processes the data, for convenience, in such a way that it is not possible to get back to a raw file. That's what all of those settings in the manual that apply to jpegs only do.

Don't get caught up in raw snobbery. Technically it is better but practically speaking, if you dislike always post processing your raw files and as a result stop shooting, you are better off shooting jpeg. And, there is still plenty of information for post processing, just not as much. Find what works for you.
 
I used to shoot in RAW + JPeg. I only shoot in JPeg now. I have a Canon 7D and a Canon 5D. The quality of the JPegs allows me to edit to my liking. No more RAW for me.
 
Raw allows for more editing with fewer consequences than JPG simply because there is no data compression. Reality is that the fuji JPG engine is outstanding and provides enough data to fulfill almost every photographic need. If you do a lot of editing the raw file will serve you better. If you just tweak the images a little, JPG will save time and work and handle most requirements. Like Derrel says, there isn't much negative consequence to shooting both concurrently and is the approach I take as well. I turn raw off when I shoot products for internet consumption. It saves me time going through the memory card and the images will become even more compressed when I am finished.
 
A camera is a tool--that's all it is. And it's actually a multifaceted tool (like an incredible swiss army knife) that, depending on the setting, can do a bunch different jobs. Use the right tool for the right job.

To me, calling this a "debate" is like calling it the "hammer vs. saw" debate. No debate--use the tool that fits your needs.

I shoot a lot of RAW. I shoot a lot of Jpeg. I deliberately choose what I'm going to shoot based on the subject and setting.
--When I'm shooting a gazillion files for an organization/client and they don't expect me to do edits (the editor will do that) and they don't want me to fiddle with the files--I just shoot jpeg.
--When I know I'm going to be shooting and then uploading a gazillion files, I almost always shoot jpeg.
--When I'm shooting something that I know is going direct to a website or online publication, I usually shoot jpeg.
--When I'm going to be shooting some color extremes (fashion, fall foliage) I almost always shoot RAW.
--When I'm shooting subjects where I expect I'm going to be blowing it up and putting it on a poster (or cropping it like crazy because I'm using a 600mm zoom and I really need a 1200 mm zoom), I shoot RAW.
--When the lighting is challenging and I can't use a speedlight (and I'm know I'm going to have to boost brightness or contrast), I almost always shoot RAW.
--When I don't have a tilt shift lens and I'm shooting architecture or interiors, I always shoot RAW.
--When I'm shooting something that I know I'll be spending time on editing, I almost always shoot RAW.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top