Anyone go back to JPEG after shooting in RAW?

<p>Nope, but I do know of a couple of wedding photographers (established) that have, or do a combination. Why worry? Do what works for you and satisfies your standards. You 'should' try Lightroom though, before deciding.</p>

<p>A RAW file is also a reasonably convincing proof of copyright. I know of a stock photographer who had his portfolio frozen at an agency because a third party company cliamed the image was theirs. The first thing an agency asks for is a RAW file to prove ownership.<br>

This is a specific case involving a specific area of photography - but disputes over owernship will probably only increase with the easy of image transfer in the digital age.</p>

<p >If the exposure is right, using the batch mode to convert raw should not take much more efforts (a few clicks).</p>

<p >But if exposure is off 1 or 2 stops, even once a while, the raw seems the only way to save the shot..<br>

I shot jpg only when I run out the card space.</p>

<p>Actually, Rick, I was comparing the processing of one JPEG vs. one RAW file processed and converted to JPEG with PS or other editor. Sure, the batch processing helps with large numbers of images, but they still have to be processed. I was mostly speaking to those who say RAW is faster, and that's just not the case.</p>

<p>I use the batch processing of ACDSee Pro for RAW/JPEG, just like you do in LR, and it's a real timesaver. More so, because I don't have to import to get the images in and work on them, and then export to get the processed ones somewhere else.</p>

<p>Steve - as for the importing being an additional step that slows you down: your pictures have to be imported from the camera to the computer, if you use LR to do this it automatically creates a Lightroom library of those images, so there's no extra step. And LR is so much more than batch processing. Batch processing is very much an automated step, whereas with LR the adjustments can be made on the fly in real time, to as many images as you want, and it's all non-destructive editing, leaving the originals RAW's as they were shot. It's an incredibly powerful tool. </p>

<p><strong>DXO Optics for Jpeg?</strong> I shoot in Raw, transfer files to LR for organization etc. & then to Dxo Optics where I save a copy as Jpeg. Dxo is specific to a camera and a lense. It does other corrections beside colours? I believe Dxo produces better jpegs than what comes out straight from the camera. Any thought?</p>

<p>Falsafay, this is a subject for another thread (preferred Raw converters?). However, you have your answer: it works best for you and so far as I know- you are paying your mortgage/rent so it's your thoughts that count. There are so many different ways to process a JPEG in camera (another reason to shoot Raw, I might want a different way!) and so many different cameras it would be really hard to say one processes better than another (but I prefer Aperture!).</p>

<p>Hi Mike ...<br>

I agree 100% with Rick regarding "... a beautiful example of the power of RAW ...". So now that's TWO people who have said something nice about you on this forum <[;-0)))<br>

RICK: You wrote "... <em>why would anyone throw away information that their cameras sensor is collecting..." </em> Once I understood that that is what was happening when I was shooting in JPEG, that was the end of JPEG for me. It was like giving one artist a box of 24 crayons and another one 64. Other things being equal - talent, background, training, etc ... - we know wo the winner would be.<br>

Ray</p>

<p>RAW is still the way to go and if you invest in LR2, you will get the speed back (assuming you have a reasonable machine spec wise).</p>

<p>Jpg colors cannot be easily changed and when you do, a lot of the color information is lost. If you must use jpg., I would suggest getting bullseye3 for color corrections. Slow but needed in a lot of circs.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I will never go back. With 1TB drives under $200, compact flach cards at $6-8/GB, why not get both a large jpg and RAW image? Most times, either format will do, but when you really wish that you had the RAW image, no jpg will do.</p>

<p>nope...I've got an 8 gig card so why bother. If you shoot a real winner on jpeg you're kind of wishing you had been shooting RAW :)</p>

<p>nope.</p>

<p>I shoot everything in RAW - process it in Lightroom - then export out to PS those few photos that need a bit of touch... save a copy as a high res JPEG and one to DNG - it is my understanding that DNG will be a filing system that will be able to be opened for years (according to Scott Kelly and the Photoshop pros). I keep them on my computer for 120 days (bridal) and 90 days (portrait) then burn to DVD and archive in an offsite location (bank vault) for 5 years.<br>

The goal is to shoot as clean as possible out of the camera - usually takes me just a few hours to do an entire wedding...</p>

<p>Depends on the shoot. If it's my own art stuff, always RAW. If it's a paid gig, depends on the use, but I always try to use RAW when I can. I don't understand those who think there's no advantage to RAW. <br>

Weddings: Portraits in RAW, JPG for the reception. And it's not about post-processing or cost of memory, it's about buffer speed and getting more shots in the same amount of time.</p>

 

<p>RAW RULES...I just wish they weren't so freakin' large when I'm shooting a wedding/reception due to the typically large number of exposures during those events. Hopefully one of Canon's big announcements pre-PMA is that there will be a new FF Series 1 camera producing 10-12 Megapixel RAW files</p>

<p>If you get the exposure right you don't need to shoot in Raw! I feel that Raw has contributed to lazy photography. "If I don't get it right I can always Photoshop it." For most macro, landscape and portrait photography you have instant feedback using digital, so there is no reason not to get it right. Perhaps I'm just old fashioned, but I feel part of the satisfaction in photography is getting the right exposure!</p>

<p>Michael C., Among other things, you can get at least an extra stop of dynamic range by using RAW rather than jpg. I pay very close attention to every aspect of exposure and generally shoot manual. The extra stop(s) of range - especially in the highlights - is more than enough reason (for me) to shoot RAW.</p>

<p>The only people I know who shoot jpgs are wire service photographers who have to get hard news and sports stuff out from the field ASAP. Seconds count in that biz, so they upload immediately to beat the competition. These people shoot all day everyday, so their exposures are usually bang on. Most of them shoot RAW when working on documentary projects.<br>

I have no idea why anyone would shoot jpg unless their workflow timing demanded it.</p>

<p>Raw is an INPUT format. JPEG is an OUTPUT format. Raw uses no or loss less compression. JPEG uses lossy compression. Every save after processing (applications don't work in jpeg internally) results in data loss.</p>

<p>I sometimes turn on the jpeg copy for quick turn around but I always shoot raw. Yes, it is slower. No, I don't pay the rent with photography and even if I did, I wouldn't do the type that depends on the large number of images it would take to make me avoid raw. YMMV.<br>

I mostly print my work so the images are not often exported as jpegs. They get converted to printer data, which is just another OUTPUT format.</p>

<p>I think converting raw files to your desired finish is another skill on its own. Some raw converters are too complex at times, for me that is, to understand the full programme and understand how each and every tool changes the image is quite a lot to take in.<br>

I have the Dp1 that comes with its own sigma photo pro, and that has a very simple to use raw converter which i like. I also have a D200 and find nikons raw files a nightmare to adjust to what i want. <br>

Having said that i shoot raw on the dp1 and jpeg on the nikon, although i would like to shoot raw with both.<br>

I read previously in the thread that some people use Picasa, i also use this combined with other programmes, i have CS2 and elements 4.0, paint shop pro, i dip in and out of each using what i can understand from each programme.<br>

I still get satifactory jpegs from the d200 when the quality is set large and fine.</p>

<blockquote>Bob Cossar [subscriber] [Frequent poster] , Jan 22, 2009; 11:58 p.m.

I am a believer in shooting the highest quality jpgs for almost all uses. If you blow the exposure or get the colour balance badly out of whack, then raw....boiled....or fried....will not recover the image.</blockquote><p>

 

Actually raw can recover the image in both these situations. With raw, you can set the colour balance to anything you like after the fact in the raw converter simply with one or two sliders. And what you see in a baked jpg is not what the sensor saw. In most cases there is a lot more information (including dynamic range) in the raw sensor data. And this leads into a point Michael C made about "correct exposure". What is correct exposure in digital? Just because the highlights might be blown in the jpeg doesn't mean they are blown in the raw. So should we base our assumption on what correct exposure is via the technician who programmed your in-camera jpg settings, or via what the sensor actually recorded?

<p>Michael C,</p>

<p>One of the points of RAW files is that exposure is only one of the fundamental criteria that can be changed PP. I find noise and sharpness are the main reasons I manipulate not exposure, it has been proven time and again to be better done on RAW files over jpegs. If you know the output of the images, e.g. website product work or 6x4 prints then you can produce jpegs in camera to suit, but if you are not certain about the output then why limit yourself?</p>

<p>Betty, Lightroom is your friend, try it for free and you won't look back, it allows you to work on RAW files as you do on jpegs.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>I dont shoot RAW as it takes too much memory, humongous file, and slow to write. Fine jpeg is good enough at any party; come on, be real. In business time is money; I cut this workflow to a minimum.</p>

<p>I'll shoot in Raw-JPEG mode if I suspect that something great could potentially result; but more often than not JPEG(Fine) is just fine. Lately, it seems I spend too much time post-processing in PS and the results, to be honest, don't warrant it.</p>

<p>I'll do both. If it's a large fine .jpg, I'll save it as a TIFF. No further compression or degradation</p>