What quality do you normally shoot with?

[Digital Matt]

There is no right and wrong here, and yes it is opinion mostly, but there are some indisputable facts about raw vs jpg. Raw offers greater dynamic range. More detail is captured in highlights and shadows, especially when converting to 16 bit tiffs.

Jpgs captures a maximum of 256 tones, while 12 bit raw is capable of 4096 tones. There is breakdown here:

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/raw/raw.htm

 

[Don Simon]

RAW almost always; Jpeg only for snapshots, shots for eBay etc, where I know I won't bother with post-processing and want the convenience of having a Jpeg straight away. But otherwise always RAW because I do find it much better for post processing (in part for the reasons Matt just mentioned - greater dynamic range and more detail captured in shadows makes it better for "pushing" exposure IMO).

 

[Mohain]

I always shoot in the highest possible quality (i.e. RAW).

To quote Digital Matt a moment:

Memory is cheap but memories are priceless

 

[Garbz]

So....do you use a single 256M card when going out shooting, to force yourself to think about the shot you are taking (instead of bringing one or more 2Gig or 4Gig cards)?

I can understand the white balance issue (a little), but if you wanted to exercise restraint, couldn't you just shoot JPG on a much smaller memory card?

Yes you could but then what happens when you truly need the extra space like for timelapse photos? The problem is I DO have a 2gb card and I can easily fit 400 top quality JPEGs on. This makes me inclined to click bracket play and end up with 10 photos of the same thing that I go through afterwards rather than stop and think about what I am doing and make a good photo to begin with.

This is exactly the same principle some photographers employ when they take their tripod with them at all times as setting up the tripod makes you think about what you are doing and not just snap away. Mind you obviously this has limited appeal if you're after snapshots or are photographing things that don't sit still.

 

[SCWIDVICIOUS]

hehe... thanks for all the replies.
keep them coming

 

[AJ Jewell]

I have been debating whether to shoot in either format. Right now, I shoot in RAW, and I like the flexability of adjusting WB and EV. One thing I notice is that all my shots are very flat and pale. I know this is because the camera does not do any PP itself, but I would think they would look better 'out of the box' as it were. Am I wrong in asuming that? I always have to bump up the EV and sat. ALOT. it seems to me that JPG's look way better colour wise.

maybe I am just not seeing things properly.

 

[Don Simon]

The saturation thing is a matter of preference really. Personally I think most digital cameras, even SLRs, apply way too much saturation to Jpegs on their default settings. As for having to boost the EV... well, surely that's a matter of exposure rather than colour? As in, if you consistently have to increase EV in software, it sounds like underexposure, in which case maybe you need to check the histogram and increase the exposure compensation (or try using manual mode) when shooting.

 

[portersangel]

I shoot jpeg only. I don't like spending a whole lot of time making corrections to my photos. Not that they don't always need it, but because I feel that if I wasn't good enough to capture the photo at the moment I shot it, then it would not truely be my photo people are seeing.

 

[Don Simon]

I know this is all a matter of opinion and preference but I'm still really confused by one thing... convenience and space, or liking the saturation, sharpening etc the camera applies, I can understand as reasons for shooting Jpeg. What I don't understand is this argument about being 'good enough' to shoot Jpeg. Whether you shoot Jpeg or RAW you are capturing the image at that moment. It is your image and in fact I'd argue if anything it is less your image with Jpeg because the camera does the processing instead of allowing you to do it. Post-processing is not new to digital cameras. Do people shoot negative film purely because they're not good enough to use slide film? With negative (black & white) film you have plenty of choice in how you process the film and how you then produce prints. The same is true with RAW, and to my mind Jpeg limits your abilities. I guess I just have trouble understanding the idea that post-processing is what bad photographers do to rescue or correct bad photos, rather than an essential part of photography. It's a cliche to say that some of the most historically revered photographers dodged and burned, but it's true.

 

[CFRacer22]

I shoot in the highest quality JPEG, but thats b/c I don't really know a lot about post-processing, if(when) I learn more about that I might move to RAW, but I think it would just depend on exactly what i'm shooting, whether I think its gonna be important enought to spend time post-processing

 

[xfloggingkylex]

hmm, maybe as a little project here, everyone that shoots JPEG should shoot RAW exclusively for a week or so? I'd be up for it to see how it changes my PP and style of shooting.

 

[gmarquez]

hmm, maybe as a little project here, everyone that shoots JPEG should shoot RAW exclusively for a week

I did, and went back to mostly shooting high-qual jpg. I've yet to run into any difficulties in post processing jpg; however, I'm so lazy that if the photo doesn't come out of the camera at least looking somewhat near what I wanted it to look like, I'll just bypass it forever (ie I don't spend any time trying to recover lost shadow detail, etc.)

The extent of my (usual) post processing tends to be: straighten, crop, levels, curves, (possibly) sharpen, done. For the most part, the straighten and crops have been minimizing, as I've gotten better at framing, and levels and curves adjustments have gotten to be minimal.

Maybe I should just get better at some of the post processing tools to see what RAW could do for me. However, I have yet to see a picture of mine that I could perceptively view a benefit of using RAW, even blown up to 30"x20".

(NOTE: some sharpening workflows might have the side effect of sharpening jpeg artifacts, but I think you would get halos on everything before you would see the jpeg artifacts being enhanced.)

 

[J Crew]

I shoot RAW only. It has many benefits and I believe is the better format.

 

[AdamZx3]

There really isn't a "right" answer, both formats have there pro's and cons, some more noticeable than others

 

[Aquarium Dreams]

So....do you use a single 256M card when going out shooting, to force yourself to think about the shot you are taking (instead of bringing one or more 2Gig or 4Gig cards)?

I can understand the white balance issue (a little), but if you wanted to exercise restraint, couldn't you just shoot JPG on a much smaller memory card?

I use a 1gig card, which gives me 98 RAW exposures, roughly the number of 3 rolls of 36 exposure film. It's more than I've ever used in a day. I'm also one of those who brings a tripod with me every time I leave the house (its permanent storage place is the trunk of my car).

If that was the only reason, yes, it would be easier to just get a smaller memory card and shoot with JPEG, but the benefits of being able to adjust white balance and compensate for exposure without degrading image quality is worth the extra time spent in post processing for me. I don't even like post processing, but I do like getting the image I want and I like to keep quality. Some people say they can't tell the difference in the final print, but I can definitely tell. I shoot a lot of buildings, and even with a pc lens, I end up having to tweak things with the lens correction filter in ps and after levels, curves, and color corrections, jpegs end up with noise like crazy.