Shooting JPEGS only.

<p>Postings on the RAW versus JPEG debate always kill me! All you have to do is shoot up a card with RAW + JPEG fine, download to your computor and do some experimenting. Take an image you really like, tweak the RAW file and then tweak the JPEG, make an 8x10 print and see if you notice any difference. Keep making bigger prints and see where the line of demarcation is and then decide what to do. RAW only or JPEG only seems silly, do what works for you.</p>

This seems to be one of the more civilized raw vs jpg debates we've had in a while. Good work all.

 

So, hopefully I won't stoke the fires too much by saying the following. I feel there needs to be a change in mindset concerning exposure when talking about raw versus jpg. A common theme that emerges in these debates is concerning "correct" exposure. The wisdom being that if you expose "correctly" then jpg is fine, and raw is only really helpful in cases of "over-exposure". This is flawed thinking. The reality is that "correct" exposure is in the first instance determined by the image captured on the sensor, not by the image as spat out of the processing pipeline. And what does the sensor capture? The raw data. Raw files can contain greater dynamic range than the jpg files spat out by the camera. Expertly processed that raw file can be converted to a jpg that contains the same dynamic range as the raw file.

 

In effect, the common tagline "highlights can be SAVED in raw processing" does not serve the case of raw as well as it should. The phrase should really be... "highlights are SACRIFICED in jpegs". When you correctly view it this way, one soon realises that the raw sensor data is capturing highlights that would otherwise be sacrificed in a jpg conversion, and therefore is probably MORE "correct" in terms of exposure than the jpg.

 

The term "correct", as misapplied in these debates, really means more "correct" in terms of ones particular workflow, not in an absolute sense.

<p>I've never had a bride say to me, "Y'know, I paid you a lot of money...couldn't you have retained more of the highlights in that shot?" or "I don't see enough dynamic range in this shot.". My point being, does it really make a difference in the end? If you're the photographer, apparently it does.</p>

<p>Photographers tend to be a lot like high-end audiophiles, stressing and straining over the oxygen-free composition of their speaker wire, placing machined billet aluminum pointy feet under their equipment to eliminate resonance, or denouncing transistor-based amplifiers as "unpure" (and wasting TONS of time, effort, and money in the process).</p>

<p>Photographers in general tend to be somewhat fussy and unforgiving about details that most clients don't even notice (and expending TONS of money, processing time / power, and storage space in the process). I guess it comes from their committment to ultimate image quality and perfection, which is fine, that's our purview. But if a tree falls in the woods...</p>

<p>Steve: Just because a bride doesn't have the training to articulate the nature of the underlying difference between a shot where the lace detail on her dress is lost in blown out highlights and one where it is not, or where the texture of the groom's tux is more handsomely revealed as opposed to blocked up in the shadows... doesn't mean she can't <em>see</em> the difference. But the difference between retaining those details or not can be the difference between shooting straight to JPG and rendering a JPG from RAW with a little more care after the fact.<br /><br />And how many photographers operate on the plan that the only person who will see their work is the one customer for whom it was done? Even if the customer is a color blind myopic who only cares if her mother in law's wig is on straight in at least one shot, isn't it better for the work to stand on its (best possible) merits when it might play a role in landing new work from a more discerning audience? The bride's cousin or boss might be an avid or pro photographer. How other people react to those images in the bride's presence can add a <em>lot</em> of baggage, later, that will impact how that bride serves for you as a reference down the road.</p>

<p>I said I shoot 100% RAW, but that is not totally true. I do shoot jpeg(raw+jpeg) for school dances where I print on-site as well as when I am shooting for fun (such as vacation).</p>

 

Raw since I bought a D90 and the prices of the cards got down. For my old D50 camera, I only have jpeg's. When processing those pictures with Elements 6, the result with jpeg is most of the time far less then form the raw-files.

 

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3914968">Maria McManamey</a> Says....<br>

Consider JPEG & RAW like print vs negative.<br /> Did Ansel Adams not "shoot it right" when he spent HOURS in the dark room dodging and burning the print? The negative, like a RAW file, contained more information than was visible at any given exposure of the print. Ansel dodged and burned to bring out the details that would not have been visible with a straight ("JPEG") print.<br>

Would you make copies & enlargements from the print or the negative?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I really like this way of putting it. I think it says it all.</p>

 

<p>Rob wrote, "<em>12-bit and 14-bit RAW files have <strong>significantly </strong> more information than 8-bit JPG files. This cannot be emphasized enough. This has nothing to do with "getting it right" in the camera."</em></p>

<p>Ditto, ditto, and <strong>ditto again</strong> .</p>

<p>5-6 years ago this might've been OK to shoot all JPG (storage on disk and CF card not so great and computers were slower - Raw processors.) Now that it's 2009 no reason to never shoot RAW for all Pro work. What you do on your own time is your thing. You have nothing to gain from shooting JPG only (unless you're a klutz at post processing and need the camera-supplied JPG only "color slide").<br>

<br /> RAW: everything to gain, nothing to lose. JPG: Nothing to gain, and more to lose.</p>

<p>Matt, again, fussing over these details is our purview, and I can respect your thinking, I just think we're kind of straining over minutia. I shoot mostly JPEG, and It's not my habit to blow whites or render tux's in murky blackness (because I understand lighting and how to augment it properly with flash), but I see a lot of very prolific and successful wedding shooters that shoot only with available light, and they nuke grass to a chartreusy-green color or blow dress details all the time, and clients seem to eat it up. I don't shoot that way, but apparently the practice sells.</p>

<p>Shoot RAW, deliver jpgs after all the post is done. Once the jpgs are burned to a read only disk they become lossless no matter how many times they are opened.</p>

<p>Here's a simple test. Shoot a scene in RAW and Jpg and overexpose the dress. Unfortunately, none of these cameras can record the full range of tones, so the dynamic range is limited ... especially so in contrasty conditions. Summer weddings are notorious for this. Now take the files into LR or whatever you use, and see which format allows you to restore the blown dress the best. This is also true for other more subtile exposure latitude issues. It has nothing to do with getting it right in the camera, the medium is simply limited in its range, and can be helped if you are really good at artificial lighting ... which few are. </p>

<p>"Good enough" is a slippery slope IMO. Fussing over details is what a lot of other people call "craftsmanship." </p>

<p> </p>

<p>

<p>I find that convincing people to shoot raw is pretty easy. I have them shoot for a while in raw+jpeg, with them shooting with their normal care. I then show them what I am getting using their raw files compared to their out of camera jpegs.</p>

</p>

<p>Here are the rules for how to shoot good photos. Just remember there are exceptions.</p>

<p>Shoot in raw. But wear sunscreen.<br>

Spot meter. But if Spot is a black lab, don't meter to zero.<br>

Expose to the right. But not if you're covering Al Franken.<br>

Use the zone system. But watch out for players running out of the end zone.<br>

Always use a tripod. I'm not going to tell you what to use it for.<br>

Keep a filter on your lens, but don't believe what they say, it won't reduce tar or nicotine.</p>

<p>Seriously, I think I do about one and a half of the above.</p>

<p>A couple times I''ve shot Raw + JPG -- not once was the JPG worth keeping compared to what can be done, and what was done to the Raw--to the final JPG img of course). That alone taught me the time-waster (and data waster) of ever shooting JPG only (except for happy snaps) again.</p>

<p>And then their is film.......</p>

<p>And then their what is film?</p>

<p>The pursuit of perfection is what keeps things from getting done.</p>

<p>"This question is for those of you who shoot weddings on a regular basis." Well, I have to confess right now that the last time I shot a wedding was on film, but if I was still shooting them today I would definitely be using a RAW + Jpeg workflow. The Jpegs would simply be there as a quick proofing method.</p>

<p>Surely shooting weddings should be about security and insurance, since you don't get a second chance. You owe it to the clients to ensure that everything possible is done to make sure that the pictures are of the best ARCHIVAL quality. Jpegs just aren't IMO, since one bit of data corrupted in a Jpeg file means that the whole image may be rendered totally unreadable.</p>

<p>Regarding jpegs.. What does it save? A bit of memory card space? Some post-processing time? Any one among the guests can be shooting Jpegs, and might even be getting more exciting shots than the "official" photographer. As a professional you ought to be giving your clients the best technical quality that your equipment is capable of, and that means shooting RAW or at least TIFF IMO.</p>

<p>One would think this topic has been beaten to death, but plenty of photographers still appear to need convincing of the obvious benefits of RAW IMO. Unless you need to dump photos from your card to a device or customer after a shoot for hasty printing or publication, JPEG is inferior IMO.<br>

 

 

<p>When I got a Canon G2 in early 2002, I shot JPEG for two months. I went on a vacation, and had a revelation. I was banging into walls during processing. White balance issues, inability to recover some highlight and shadow detail, and annoying artifacts in bigger prints convinced me to switch to RAW. RAW images also write to the card faster.<br>

Today, with software like Lightroom, excuses are invalid. I process and upload directly to Smugmug without ever exporting to disk, except to work something further in Photoshop or burn discs for a customer. RAW workflow is fast, efficient, and delivers a superior product. End of argument. ;-)</p>

<p>Rick, I can see how you'd have those problems shooting JPEGs on a G2. No comparison to CMOS cameras of today.</p>

<p>It has been beaten to death.</p>

<p>And will continue to be beaten to death no doubt.</p>

<p>Here's a thought on the whole argument: Who CARES what someone else is doing? Honestly! If you think RAW is the way to go, go for it.<br>

At this point in time my workflow works with JPEG. I may change someday, I may not. But I've never come across ANY issue with JPEG. So if it ain't broke....well, you know the rest.<br>

Again, this is a really old, overdone argument that will never be resolved.</p>

<p>Agreed Tim. Which is why I've said my peace and will let people continue arguing over that which does not matter to their business or their clients.</p>

<p>Is this thread now a jpeg?</p>

<p>My guess is, it has now reached TIFF proportions. </p>

<p>Thank goodness it CAN'T go RAW, as p.net doesn't allow that sort of language here.</p>