Raw or Jpegs?

<p>Ty - RAW (all caps) refers to Canon's proprietary file extension for a raw data file. raw (all low caps) is the adjective describing the un-processed information</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Dave, seems to me that judging from the images that I've seen posted here on the forum, many shooters manage to blow out the highlights even though they are shooting RAW.</p>

<p>I also wonder how it is that the Wedding POW thread only gets 9 comments to date while a thread like this gets close to triple that amount in the span of a single day.......</p>

<p>I shoot both RAW and JPEG at weddings, but mostly JPEG. I'm one of these photographers who is constantly checking my settings/white balance and I've never had a mishap with underexposed or out of balance JPEG's. It's more of a workflow reason for me. When shooting RAW it does take a lot of time to go through and edit. I use Photoshop's built in Camera RAW and it opens one file at a time where as to I can just select a hundred JPEG images and open them all.</p>

<p>Maybe people are happier to give hard earned advice more than they feel they are appropriate critics. Maybe people like the sound of their own voices and are happy to repeat things they have heard so many times they believe it to be true, who cares?</p>

<p>Anybody shooting weddings (or other unrepeatable occasion) who is not shooting RAW is playing fast and loose with their clients. We all make mistakes, RAW gives us insurance and the probability to give a better end product. How many pros shot slides at weddings? Why are wedding emulsions particularly good at wide dynamic range? Try getting good, detailed, results from dark clad gents and white decorated women with jpegs, try fill flashing onto a white dress and holding detail with jpegs. Anybody that does this for money and doesn't shoot RAW is a master, a genius, complacent or inexperienced.</p>

<p>I want to know what work flow improvements you've had with shooting JPG now. I do the same amount of editing or less frankly with RAW images. Yes, when I go to post them on Zenfolio or something I have to click on export, and that can take some time when you are exporting 800+ photos, but at least on my mac, it still functions just fine for me to do anything else I want, be it in lightroom, photoshop, or surf the web, I just let it run in the background and that's just fine by me. I'll take the versatility and save my butt feature of RAW any day over jpeg only. I also used to shoot RAW + JPG but found it a waste of space on my memory card. So now it's just RAW for me. =) In the words of ODB, "Baby I like it RAW!" </p>

<p>RAW for me when it counts. Personaly I would rather shoot JPEGs but there is no getting away from the advantages of RAW. When I shoot RAW I don't need to worry about finding the right white balance, the right amount of sharpening or finding the correct contrast settings while I am shooting. I can worry about those setiings in the comfort of my own home while enjoying a coffee or a cold beer. It makes my shooting life easier, just concentrate exposure, composition and ISO. And just how am I suppossed to find those correct settings while shooting. The LCD monitor in daylight with the sun shinng on it may not be anything like the print I want to make.</p>

<p>Scott, I just learned to shoot with JPEG and frankly never need the RAW insurance as much as everyone claims they needed. I know the pros and cons of shooting both file types but few years back (my older camera) my buffer filled up so fast I was missing too many shots. For example, when I shoot a formal I tell everyone to smile and hold it. I realized very quickly that I needed to take about 10 shots for a formal (especially with kids) to make sure every body looked good. As you know someone is liable to be blinking when you shoot a 12 person formal. So rather than waiting on the camera to write the big RAW files, I switched to JPEG and I can take 9 to 10 shots with my full frame before my buffer fills. So now I shoot RAW the first 3 to 5 shots, I then hot switch to JPEG and click away. To me it's not about the file size, I have 7TB setup. I also shoot lots of aviation and I need a little more than 3 to 5 shots. This year I have been shooting with the 7D which is pretty good at shooting RAW and keeping up with me. Now I have less reason to shoot JPEG with the 7D. v/r Buffdr</p>

Interesting comments, Scott, although perhaps a little unbalanced.

 

I shoot a lot of my work on film - in fact, these days almost all of it. No room for mistakes. No ability to check the histogram. No

ability to check if I got the shot. I like to use rangefinders, but they don't give me any ability to judge depth of field or confirm focus. The

frame lines are inaccurate beyond one meter and composition depends on my intuition, not gridlines or built-in horizons. There's no automation on

my cameras. Nothing except a shutter speed dial and an aperture ring. Some of them don't even have a light meter. I rarely use flash. Manual focus for everything. Motordrive is my thumb.

 

Am I playing fast and loose? Hardly. I'm merely working with a set of constraints that fit my style and preferences.

 

So I don't see why JPG over RAW has to mean photographers are offering a lesser service, or somehow being

unprofessional. People should be free to choose whatever works for them. As long as it's an intelligent choice based on

their abilities and preferred workflow then who cares?

 

Film requires good technical photography. So does JPG. RAW offers generous latitude, whether for making minor creative enhancements to excellent pictures, or rescuing the end product of enormous incompetence.

 

Judge the end result rather than the method of getting there. Because whether people want, or need, the comfort of extreme latitude is surely up to them. For some people it may be very useful. For others, less important or even less useful.

<p>Neil,</p>

<p>I might have been trying to shock but that is what so many people need nowadays. Of the three, film, jpeg and RAW, film has the largest latitude to under, and particularly over exposure, RAW gives you less latitude, jpegs give you practically none. I could shoot a wedding with film, incorrectly set the iso, mess up the exposures and a good printer could still save my butt. Not with jpegs.</p>

<p>Of course people have the choice to choose any workflow, or incompetent (or gifted) photographer they want, I am certainly not proposing an anti jpeg police force to attend all weddings :-) and I fully understand that some people just don't want to (just like some people won't fly or turn left in automobiles).</p>

<p>But the fact remains, few people who shoot film weddings develop and print their own images, good printers are what works for them, if you are moving from film to a digital workflow then RAW, whilst giving you or your printer less to work with than film, still gives you a lot more to work with than jpegs.</p>

<p>Arguing a case for less useful seems silly. How can it be less useful to have something for free but not necessarily use it than to not have it and never be able to use it? Film gives you way more comfort and latitude than RAW, unless you are shooting slides.</p>

Scott, you're right and wrong about exposure latitude.

 

Yes, film has enormous latitude. But only in so far as choosing the EI at which to expose it. You can underexpose

film but you have to develop it correctly to compensate, and that's a one shot deal. Get it wrong and it's wrong. So in real

terms it's not much different to selecting the ISO dial. Once you've made your choice, that's what you have to work with,

and it has to be good for the whole roll. Any exposure errors become apparent and aren't readily fixable.

 

In the days of optical printing there was a secondary level of compensation. A good printer could rescue anything. But find

me an optical printer today.... It's all scanned. And scanning means a Dmax of 3.5 to 4, but no more. Which is about the

same as JPG.

 

A case for RAW being less useful?

 

FWIW, I switched to film gradually from a starting position of using RAW. I must have processed a couple of hundred

thousand files, and came to a realization that it represented a huge potential for wasting time. I calculated

the financial and personal cost of all that time and made a decision to change my workflow. I can now deliver work four

times faster and have reclaimed about 60 hours a month. As much as RAW offers advantages of latitude, it comes with

the major drawback of being a time sink.

 

People have different approaches to workflow and different positions on what they want from an end product. I'm well aware that some people can bang out files from LR incredibly quickly. But I haven't seen any digital work that has looked convinceing to me unless it's had substantial time invested. A two hour digital workflow looks exactly like two hours were spent on it.

<p>But Neil Shooting negative wedding films gives a rather large latitude to make a good looking print. Often much more latitude than RAW from a digital camera. It is rather hard to blow out the highlights with something like kodak portra. The printer can often do an excelent job to recovering over exposed negative films.</p>

Stuart, yes -- for hand-printed work. Which is close to unobtainable now. I agree there's some headroom for over-exposure., even with scanned film. But there's none for under-exposure, and the problem just shifts to retaining shadows rather than blowing highlights.

<p>Sorry I was talking about hand printing. Its a shame that film is judged these days by digital printing and hand printing is hard to come by. That could be market for a lab that wants to offer hand printing. Even an old optical minilab knew how to leave the light on longer.</p>

<p>Since when did negative emulsions approach Dmax 4.0? Maybe some specialist copy or testing products do but not readily available wedding films. Even unexposed Velvia only nudges 4.0, and no emulsion can have a 0.0 rating so scanners with a good Drange are not limiting digital printing in their abilities to recreate the dynamic range of film. I don't know where you got the jpeg Dmax figure from either, it doesn't, in itself, have a measurable Dmax (it can certainly reproduce perfect black), only the paper and ink it is printed on or the computer screen you see it with do. Certainly all good scanners comfortably out perform the 8 bits per channel of a jpeg.</p>

<p>Now if film works for you then great, all power to you, but compare like with like on a time basis. Were you preparing your files for printing? Were you doing your own wet, and, digital printing etc etc? Modern software has completely changed the workflow of RAW files, they are as easy to handle and process as jpegs. I save, on average, $400 per wedding by using digital, well I don't save it, the time that I now use to prepare my files for the printers I charge for and instead of paying for D&P I get that figure as additional income, if I can make an additional $400 per wedding I am happy, if that time is charged for correctly. At best I could turn around a wedding in eight days with film, if I pull an all-nighter I can turn around a digital wedding, complete with the same prints as film, in 36 hours. The speed and ease of use of digital is overwhelming for most users, with ftp uploads, in theory, I could be presenting a wedding album 12 hours after the event, just about the time I might be able to see my first rolls of film developed if I rushed them. Yes digital has the potential to be a huge waste of time (with a jpeg or RAW), but it also, with the correct workflow, has the potential to increase income dramatically and not take any extra unpaid time at all.</p>

<p>None of this changes the basic point though, if you are shooting digital, there is no genuine advantage to shooting jpeg and several potential pitfalls, RAW is the more sensible format to store. If you choose to use film, for whatever reason, then the conversation is moot.</p>

<p>Scott, I don't particularly want to delve into a film vs. digital debate, so I'm going to quietly sidestep your questions about dynamic range and exposure. This is a good thread and I don't want to drive it off-topic.</p>

<p>I will, however, pick up your point about workflow, as I think it has a stronger bearing on the discussion.</p>

<p>In my opinion there is a huge fallacy in any business model that requires the business owner to spend a lot time not doing their core business. So the photographer has to decide what exactly <em>is</em> their core business. I decided that my core business is the camera, not the computer, and my focus should be on people, not on workflow. So I wanted to outsource everything that was a distraction to that goal.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>...instead of paying for D&P I get that figure as additional income, if I can make an additional $400 per wedding I am happy, if that time is charged for correctly.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that working on the basis of short term money saved becomes a very short term focus. It doesn't scale. I have no interest in saving $400 on a wedding, and in fact would view that as a false economy. I'd rather save 20 hours time on that wedding, which I could use to shoot two more assignments, or meet preferred vendors, or spend time with good clients, and in the process generate business that would make another $10,000. Using film (or any outsourced workflow) is going to be more expensive up front. But it doesn't have to mean out of pocket. A well designed business will control all of the direct costs simply by repositioning its pricing.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now if film works for you then great, all power to you, but compare like with like on a time basis... At best I could turn around a wedding in eight days with film, if I pull an all-nighter I can turn around a digital wedding, complete with the same prints as film, in 36 hours.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Okay. I dropped 28 rolls of film into the lab on Tuesday and the film was processed, the files scanned, retouched, uploaded and ready for the client, and all the materials in my hands, on Friday. Wednesday I spent with my friends, Thursday I spent booking more clients. I haven't done any direct work myself and I'm fresh and alert, ready for another wedding tomorrow. We've both spent 36 hours. One of us is tired and has spent 36 hours working with little sleep. One of us is relaxed, happy and ready to go again...</p>

<p>Getting back on topic, I don't discount any of the technical benefits of RAW and don't dispute anything you've claimed. (I shot RAW for several years and know exactly what it does and what it offers over JPG). But, if the end goal from RAW workflow is to produce JPGS (which both client and album companies insist on) then it's logical that shooting JPG from the start can get there a whole lot quicker. With the caveat that the technical quality of the work must be high, of course. Hence I wouldn't rule out a JPG workflow for those photographers who suit it.</p>

<p>You might be relaxed and happy, but in your scenario, I am $800 better off than you if we charge the same for a job. If you are in that price bracket then again, all power to you, few are, but say hello to <a href="http://www.jeffascough.com/">Jeff</a>, a true master of available light, reportage, film feeling wedding work. But don't think for a second I am not ready to go again. But as you say this is not a film/digital debate. I fully understand people who use film and, sometimes, why.</p>

<p>Back on topic though, I have never used a printer (person) that specified, preferred or insisted on jpegs, if I did I would not use them. All quality printers (machines) can print out at greater than 8 bit depth. That really is the true point of a RAW workflow, whether it is done by the photographer or he pays somebody else to do it.</p>

<p>I have said several times, I would not rule out a jpeg only workflow, for a few photographers but I haven't been convinced that my earlier list, <em>"a master, a genius, complacent or inexperienced."</em> should be expanded.</p>

<p>Shooting in RAW is like having a negative. Shooting in JPG is almost like some one giving you a print. You can do a lot with the first, but not much with the second.<br>

I always shoot RAW for the larger number of shades, and the ability to set the white balance after the fact. I always convert to DNG with lightroom so that every version of Photoshop can open the file. And every adjustment is saved in the meta data with out increasing the size of the file or having municipal versions.<br>

If you do not know how to develop the RAW file, try shooting with RAW+JPG. You can use the JPG until you develop the necessary skills to deal with the RAW files</p>

<p>I will say this again ...</p>

<p>Many of the arguments here concerning work flow, time spent, are answered with <strong>"That was then, this is now."</strong> "Then" could be as little as 6 months ago.</p>

<p>Yes, it takes some skill in setting up your post program ... maybe a couple of hours in climbing the learning curve at most. The time savings has exponentially increased with every iteration of the Adobe programs. </p>

<p>Once your preferences, camera calibration, and user presets are set or installed into a program like Light Room, the sync'ed batch processing speed differences between a competently shot RAW and Jpg are non-existent ... since one need not sit there watching the processing bar while the program crunches the files ... go do something else ... or do nothing with a brewski in hand : -) </p>

<p>Lightroom sync works in the background with either file format ... while LR batch automation is running, you can select individual images for additional work in the develop module if you wish.</p>

<p><strong>The paramount difference for people to select from is whether the least amount of data is preferable to the greatest amount of data going in.</strong> Which choice is not an indictment of anyone, or a reflection of their professionalism ... it has more to do with how flexible one may want to be with their work, what their style may be, or any number of other personal factors.</p>

<p>However, I also think it is unrealistic to say that even the best, most careful photographic craftsman is able to overcome all of the uncertainties present at a wedding shoot ... for the speed we sometimes have to shoot at, the chaos that can ensue in certain situations, the horrible mixed lighting that can change from one shot to the next, the grab opportunities where a severe crop makes for a better shot, and so on and so on ... personally, I've found RAW to be more accommodating in such cases.</p>

<p>So, if I have to shoot an entire wedding in RAW to protect the few great shots in bad, or hectic and uncertain, conditions ... it's a sacrifice I'm more than willing to make ... if I even consider it a sacrifice anymore given that ... "<strong>that was then and this is now". </strong></p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>...in your scenario, I am $800 better off than you if we charge the same for a job.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, if you want to be truly accurate: for a given amount of time, I'd be able to do three jobs for your one. In my book, that means you've saved (or made) $800, but I'd have made my day rate three times over. Plus, my out of pocket costs are zero because the client pays the lab fees. So the $800 is still in my pocket. Or, at least it would be, if I hadn't spent it on lunch with my friends while you were doing your processing. ;-)</p>

<p>Of course, the above is tongue in cheek because it assumes there's an infinite amount of work to be booked, which clearly isn't the case. But with a great deal of extra time, the person who is not locked to their computer is in a better position to find it, and has more room to be selective about the work they do take, which in turn adds to their market position.</p>

<p>Doing all the work yourself just doesn't work - basically because it locks you into a dependency on activities that do not add to the bottom line, and prevents you from scaling up those activities that do.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>All quality printers (machines) can print out at greater than 8 bit depth</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is getting pretty off topic, but it's not a material difference because the output is restricted by what the paper can display. The same file printed in 16 bit and 8 bit is identical to the eye when viewed on paper - which is the reason why all major album companies use JPG for production. The other reason, of course, is that not many people work with local album companies. Mine are in New Zealand, for example. No point in ftping 16 bit TIF files if a prepared JPG will look exactly the same.</p>

<p>Neil, I think working in jpg and printing in jpg are two different subjects. </p>

<p>More data provides more processing options, less data provides fewer processing options. Nothing less, nothing more.</p>

<p><em><strong>Even after outputting a RAW file in jpg for final printing, it is the subtile tonal transitions and color depth that are preserved by the exponentially more powerful RAW processing programs compared to the limited CPU jpg conversions inside a camera.</strong><strong> My personal feeling it that letting the little brain in a camera make "general processing decisions" is like setting it on Program to make general exposure decisions : -) But that's just me. </strong></em></p>

<p>I've run many print tests on this using a RIP and a 3800 Epson ... and a RAW converted jpg file provides more guts, depth, etc. etc. than the same file shot in jpg ... on the same paper. So, I'd have to disagree with you on that subject. </p>

<p>The albums I get printed at my local lab are real silverprints ... and the lab owner has mentioned more than once that my files are the best he has ever gotten ... especially my B&W conversions. Of interest is that he requests Tiff files not jpgs, and 16 bit at that. His automation is set up to make any conversions ... and even he wants the most data going into that process as possible. Of course, he is an old-school craftsman, not a high volume album company ... so he may well change his tune if quantity overwhelms his production capability. For that reason I'll not say who it is ... LOL! </p>

<p>While not as relevant to wedding photography, it may be worth mentioning that not one owner of a professional medium format digital camera would consider jpgs for anything except content proofs. None of the major MFD cameras even offer jpg in camera ... and as far as I know, all current backs produce true 16 bit files not 12 or 14 bit conversions ... which is sort of telling as it relates to producing the highest IQ going into any given reproduction output.</p>

<p>Just a few thoughts to ponder ... or dismiss ... LOL! </p>

 

Marc, actually I don't disagree with very much of your post at all.

 

Editing should always be done in 16 bit. I receive my scans as 8 bit files and immediately convert them to 16 bit if I intend

to work on them. That preserves the colour and gradations of the file through editing, and the final version is then saved

as an 8 bit JPG. So we're agreed. My point about JPG above was in respect of printing. There's nothing to be gained by

sending album companies a 16 bit file if you've already done all the editing. Even if you sent them a TIF, the first thing

they'd do would be to convert it to 8 bit.

 

I also get silver prints made from digital files, on a Durst Lambda, possibly similar to what you're using. But it's an optical

process, hence benefits from the additional information. I haven't seen any difference in file output on inkjet paper and I'm

not aware of any inkjet paper with sufficient gamut to print it. I get my work done at one of the top London labs and they

only recommend 16 bit files for certain processes and papers. Lightjet on Crystal Archive, yes. Inkjet on Hahnemühle, no.

 

Your point about a RAW converted JPG having more guts when printed is not material to the printing. All it means is

that the RAW converted JPG has more guts than the camera processed JPG. Which may well be true. It would depend

greatly on the camera and the processing, as well as the desired end product and the degree of 'guts' that the

photographer wants. I think that's a case of to each his own. I can offer your test right back at you, using RIP and my 3800

too. But all we'd be comparing is the processing, not the printing.

 

Depending on camera, there is a fair amount of control over in camera processing. I know we've both used Nikon, and

we're familiar with the wealth of image adjustments that can be made to dynamic range, vignetting, saturation, clarity and

sharpening, even in camera. It doesn't have to be dumb luck - there's a fair amount of control over how the camera processes the file. But that's why I referred to making intelligent choices if

someone works in JPG. I'm not advocating doing it blind, and I'm not suggesting it's equally suited to every photographer.

<p>Raw edits better. If you don't need to edit much, Raw is worse. I shoot raw + jpg, and only use the raw files on images where my exposure isn't perfect or nearly perfect.</p>

<p>Think of it from a value perspective. Say, for the sake of argument, you get paid a thousand dollars to shoot a three-hour wedding and give the couple a CD. You shoot a thousand photos, and you're going to give them all away. Bad business I know, but bear with me. If you shoot raw and edit everything, it might take you three minutes per photo. That means it takes you three minutes to earn a dollar, which puts your pay at $20 per hour. If you shoot jpg (again, assuming your exposure is correct), it might take you one minute to edit each photo. This means that you're now getting paid $60 per hour.</p>

<p>That means that if you always shoot in raw, you are getting paid much less for your time. So if you're a professional, I recommend only using raw files when you don't think the jpgs will be good enough, or when you're doing a portrait shoot or something else 'small' that will yield far fewer photos. Or, y'know, if the client wants perfect quality, and more importantly, is willing to pay for it.</p>

<p>Again, that advice is for PROFESSIONALS, for whom time equals money, and whom are able to get the photo right in the camera the FIRST time. If you're doing it for funsies, sure ... listen to all the hobbyists that tell you you're a bad photographer for shooting jpg. Those guys usually spend ten hours editing a $200 job anyway, so they're not exactly thinking in terms of workflow.</p>

<p>Another five-page RAW vs. JPEG thread.</p>

<p>For those who have deficient color vision (8-12% men of western European descent) this is a sore point. We can't see colors as normal-sighted people do, and that's why we liked sending our film to a lab that corrected colors while they adjusted exposure when printing. It's also the reason I shoot JPEGs. If I shot RAW, I would have to send files untouched to the lab; would they do the same service with RAW files as they did with film?<br>

S/F Wayne Gardner</p>

<p>raw always</p>