Anyone go back to JPEG after shooting in RAW?

Discussion in 'Digital Darkroom' started by betty_lowrey, Jan 22, 2009.

  1. I've found as far as my workflow and ease of editing, working with JPEG has been much easier (not to mention the amount of pics I can fit on one compact flash). I worked with RAW for awhile but found it to be a bigger pain in the butt than I was wanting to take on. For one, I do all my cropping, sorting, and burning through Picasa...which doesn't support RAW files. So, I moved over to Adobe bridge, but that got rid of my ability to quickly crop, quickly sharpen, and move on to PS quickly.
    Maybe it's laziness...maybe I'm stuck in my ways...maybe Adobe Bridge needs to be more like Picasa as far as quick cropping....
    Anyone return to JPEG?
     
  2. 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.
    Assuming that you have some input to your cameras controls, such as sharpening, noise reduction etc, then the camera will do an excellent job of rendering the image.
    Yes, the camera CAN screw things up.......but so can a human being. Not so long ago the camera computer was a lot less able than it is today, and raw was an answer to that. The problem is largely absent today and for most things I believe raw is un-needed, and perhaps even worse than jpg depending on the users computer skills.....regards, Bob
     
  3. Wow you should try Lightroom, its like picasas grandady.
     
  4. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    For Weddings my RAW files are edited by a third party. BUT all else I shoot, is with with the intention of using the only the JPEG, and with minimal PP, so I apply the same scrutiny and methods to my Wedding shots as if I were shooting for the JPEG only. However, I still always shoot RAW + JPEG (L), for all my work.
    I have found, after extensive tests, the JPEG out of the box still requires some attention in Post Production, mostly always Sharpening.

    I exploit, to fairly rigid formulae, the JPEG manipulations in camera. I use specific JPEG parameters for a set of three general lighting conditions I have determined as requiring differing attention: and each are different, for each camera.

    I suggest if you do not already have a set of similar guidelines which you have adapted to suit what you want as an end result in your prints / files, you might run some comprehensive tests yourself: in the end, it might save a lot of time in PP, if JPEGs only is your desire.

    I tend to frame in camera to a particular crop, usually to 7 x 5. But I can easily adjust to 10 x 8 (6 x 4), which is another print I use often – I think that too, saves a lot of PP time.

    I am fairly critical apropos exposure and quite anal retentive about testing and analysing results - so I have fairly rigid in camera metering methods and again I have found each DSLR is different.

    The point is, I used to pay a lab technician by the hour, so I guess I am of the school of thought whereby I want to nail it as close to perfect in the box, rather than pay for any adjustments later, but with digital the “later” being I do not want to pay with my TIME.

    Picasa 2 is too rudimentary for my liking. I find CS3 quite quick to work for what I do on my JPEG files.

    WW
     
  5. RAW vs. JPEG is similar to the difference between kit lenses and pro level lenses. sure, you can take great pictures with either one. but to get output of the utmost quality and precision, you want to stick with RAW [and pro lenses] because these don't degrade the quality of your images.
     
  6. I've never tried Lightroom....need to look into that.
    I'm afraid I'm just being lazy...which is terrible of me.
     
  7. William- The only thing I prefer Picasa for is cropping and their sharpening tool. I just like it. It's quick and I like the result. I also like their batch renaming ability and their quick DVD burning. But if I can find another program that works in a similar way and can support RAW files, I'm all for it.
     
  8. On occasion, but was always unhappy. Hard to put my finger on what is wrong, certainly not exposure or color bal or too small a file. RAW seems to give me a better pic even if i do minimal work on the file.
    Workflow is exactly the same as I open JPEGS in the RAW converter same as RAW. I don`t care about file size. Storage is cheap and this preserves options for the future.
     
  9. I also shoot RAW and use Lightroom since there is no difference in workflow what-so-ever ... but there is a huge difference in flexability, WB options, and ability to crop after the fact and interpolate up using the most image data available (RAW).
    Batching is no brainer with LR, and you can set a crop ratio (even a custom one) and apply it to every image or any set of selects in seconds. You can rearrange the images and batch re-name them, and open individual images in PS for effects and other retouching, you can select individual images in a smart collection for further work ... like your album selects. Once LR features are understood, there is no reason to use the slower, more finicky Adobe Bridge application at all.
    I recently switched to outputing jpgs when finished because the files are getting so huge they eat DVDs and burden the client's computing power. Once you burn the jpg files to a "read only" DVD, they are pretty difficult to tell apart from Tiffs., and can't be altered nor recompressed. I also output a set of DNGs ... where you have the option to embed the original RAW file for future extraction if you wish.
    Lightroom saves all adjustments but is non-distructive ... with RAW you can return to the original and start over if a new set of creative demands need to be addressed.
    I simply have not found anything faster than LightRoom for this sort of work.
     
  10. Why choose?

    Memory is cheap nowadays, and RAW + JPEG gives you the speed of processing of JPEG, with the option of RAW fall-back if a critical image isn't up to scratch.
     
  11. Nope, I switched to RAW, use Lightroom 2 and never looked back. With LR, editing RAW's is just as easy as editing jpeg's anyway. I use RAW simply because I want the highest quality file my camera can produce.
     
  12. A couple of things about Picasa. It absolutely does support RAW. And it is no tool for a professional photographer. The sharpening is atrocious. Cropping and sharpening in LR couldn't be easier...
     
  13. Even the highest quality in-camera jpgs have poor detail contrast in images that contain a lot of fine detail. Tried that, the raw worked out to better image quality at large print sizes (12x18 inches). For most wedding photography which is never printed that large, it doesn't matter, but due to the variable quality of artificial lights available in many locations, I reserve the option to reset white balance which means it's all raw for me.
     
  14. Marc and Rick: DITTO 100% !! I use the following analogy when comparing the functionality of LR to PS for processing RAW images: LR is the surgeon's scalpel compared to PS's very sharp knife. I hasten to add that PS still remains part of my work flow for those images that need PS functions.
    B.J.: The ease of processing RAW images with LR does away with the need for shooting RAW + JPEG. As well, with shooting RAW only, your work flow is a simplified single stream, no need to treat two different types of images (RAW and JPEG) differently.
    Ray
     
  15. RAW takes more time. Time = money. I use raw where I need the extra detail and latitude, but shoot jpeg's mostly and watch my histogram display all the time to get good exposure.
     
  16. Rick...can you share how to open RAW in Picasa and open that file into PS3 right from Picasa following a quick cropping in Picasa (boy, that was a weird sentence)
     
  17. Yes, I have a Nikon D60 and use a Lexar SDHC Professional x133 speed 4GB card and found that in Raw and in jpg Large fine modes the pics are a bit slow to show in the LCD screen of the camera as well as in the computer, despite the use of an 2.0 USB card reader. I don't know why, but I looked in the manual of the camera and on Lexar cards it supports up to 2G despite the camera ability to handle SDHC cards.Nikon Tech support gave mixed answers, one said it should work fine , the other call that The Lexar 4GB SDHC 133x speed Professional card has not been tested in this camera. I find that in jpg med and fine as well as small and fine works more quickly . I have PS CS2 but frankly, I have not got a handle of it well, I'm a bit slow in learning it and therefore I don't use it. I find so far that my jpg pics are well enough for printing even somewhat large prints-which I don't do often-and so far I'm comfortable with that. Maybe when I advance more and become more than a fresh amateur/ocassional shooter, my procedures will change.
     
  18. I recently printed a 16x20 gallery wrap for a client off of a jpeg and it turned out beautifully....so I'm wondering when it starts to make a difference as far as printed is concerned.
     
  19. If you go from camera to print, using either the Raw file or the JPEG, then the Raw file won't matter. You can't even print a Raw file; you either export as some sort of image file type (TIFF, PSD, JPEG, etc) or in the case of printer from a Raw convert, the program sends a TIFF version behind the scenes to the printer. And I dare-say in the above scenario that the JPEG may be better as it has some in-camera post-processing applied. Of course you can set up your Raw converter to apply certain pp parameters automatically to the Raw but simply taking the JPEG vs the Raw without any pp, the JPEG will likely look better. Come to think of it, it's only high-end speciality houses that can even print a 16-bit file. Most labs and "home" printers require an 8-bit file. Which simply means the Raw file must be processed in some way. For myself, I don't understand why anyone would purposely throw away information at the time of capture. We shoot Raw+JPEG. Again, for me the reason is simple: an 8-bit JPEG has 16,777,216 possible colors. A 12-bit (not 14-bit!) Raw file can have 68,719,476,740 possible colors. Now either one of those figures actually exceeds the estimated number of colors the human eye can see (estimated at around 10-million). However, if the pinnacle of the pyramid is a print, which would you rather have as the base? The slide below (hopefully!) is from a ComEd class I teach. This is from a wedding my wife attended as a guest, not in any official capacity. Of course our cameras are set up for RAW+JPEG. The upper left image is the JPEG. The upper right images is where we tried to process the JPEG to look like the processed Raw file which is the bottom image. Please keep in mind that this is just one example but the principle applies to every image you take. Recording either Raw or JPEG records more color than the human eye can see anyway. But the tonal variations can be IMMENSE.
    00SD36-106503584.jpg
     
  20. Steve- With LR, RAW doesn't take more time at all.
    Betty- when I used Picasa-which I admit was 2 years ago-it it imported and read the CR2 RAW files from my rebel XT exactlt the same as jpegs. When you saved them though, it saved a jpeg copy.
     
  21. Mike- that's a beautiful example of the power of RAW. I agree, why would anyone throw away information that their cameras sensor is collecting...? Makes no sense to me.
     
  22. Thanks Rick! Quite possibly the nicest thing anyone has said to me on this forum!
     
  23. In spite of what the LR people are saying, RAW does require processing time. The reason they say it doesn't add time is because with LR, they have to import a folder of images and then export them once they're post-produced, whether they're RAW or JPEG. The processing and conversion to JPEG has to be done and does require processing power to do so, which takes time depending on your machine's power/ram.
    With PS or other programs, You can edit and save a JPEG faster than you can edit a RAW and export it as JPEG. I use ACDSee Pro, which doesn't require all that importing and exporting business just to work on a group of photos.
    That said, I only use RAW for difficult lighting situations (mixed tungsten and daylight, or the example Mike posted above for instance). With a 12mp sensor, I simply don't need a 19 megabyte RAW file for every casual shot at a wedding. Nobody ever blows them up enough to show the difference anyway. Only a handful of wedding shots ever get printed beyond 4 x 6.
     
  24. I shoot both depending on what I'm shooting. One thing I do like about RAW is applying adjustments to other images in Camera Raw/Bridge - if I have multiple shots of something, I can process one and apply those changes to all the others. Granted, you can do that in PS by dragging layers into the other image once opened but once you flatten, you can't grab those changes to apply.
     
  25. Actually Steve, it is much, much slower to edit and save individual jpegs with PS than to process RAW's with LR...for one simple reason, in LR you can select and apply adjustments to many images at once. It saves processing time like you wouldn't believe.
     
  26. 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.
     
  27. 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.
    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.
     
  28. If the exposure is right, using the batch mode to convert raw should not take much more efforts (a few clicks).
    But if exposure is off 1 or 2 stops, even once a while, the raw seems the only way to save the shot..
    I shot jpg only when I run out the card space.
     
  29. 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.
    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.
     
  30. 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.
     
  31. DXO Optics for Jpeg? 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?
     
  32. 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!).
     
  33. Hi Mike ...
    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)))
    RICK: You wrote "... why would anyone throw away information that their cameras sensor is collecting..." 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.
    Ray
     
  34. 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).
    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.
     
  35. 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.
     
  36. 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 :)
     
  37. 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.
    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...
     
  38. 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.
    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.
     
  39. 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
     
  40. 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!
     
  41. 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.
     
  42. it

    it

    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.
    I have no idea why anyone would shoot jpg unless their workflow timing demanded it.
     
  43. 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.
    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.
    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.
     
  44. 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.
    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.
    Having said that i shoot raw on the dp1 and jpeg on the nikon, although i would like to shoot raw with both.
    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.
    I still get satifactory jpegs from the d200 when the quality is set large and fine.
     
  45. 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.​
    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?
     
  46. Michael C,
    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?
    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.
    Take care, Scott.
     
  47. 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.
     
  48. 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.
     
  49. I'll do both. If it's a large fine .jpg, I'll save it as a TIFF. No further compression or degradation
     
  50. I work with JPEGs, but I capture RAW files in case I ever need it. If I get this "million" dollar shot by chance, I sure want to have RAW along with it to get most out of the file. I separate RAW files into another folder and sort JPEGs in ACDSee.
     
  51. I switched to RAW and will never look back.
    To those who complain that RAW takes more processing time:
    If you have stuff waiting to get done, your PC must be more than capable of multitasking. Work on unfinished stuff while Lightroom or whatever program does its processing in the background, that's what I do. If you don't have unfinished stuff to work on, go shoot while your computer does its thing. Either way, it's no excuse. My PC isn't near top of the line anymore, and I can process a full 4GB card of RAW files and export to JPEG in about 30 minutes. It's your own fault if you just sit there and watch the progress meter grow to 100%. You can even continue to use Lightroom while it processes!
    Memory is more than affordable enough. $250 will get you 1TB. At least with my camera, that's about 100,000 RAW files, or about 4-5 years of shooting (for me -- I have a very specific and quick system of keeping only the very best shots)! By the time 4 years go by, I can get 4 or maybe even 8TB for the same $250.
    The dynamic range of RAW absolutely slaughters JPEGs from my D40x.
    Never going back.
     
  52. I've never shot RAW. Due to my work flow it would require extra steps and more time. Also, shooting with a Fuji S5 gives me some of the advantages of shooting RAW while actually shooting JPEG. For example, I can recover some blown highlights on a Fuji JPEG. But I might try RAW if I could deliver a better image by using it.
    But, here is a question that I have never had answered to my satisfaction about shooting RAW. Some of the RAW advantages touted by many are the increased bit depth and dynamic range that RAW files provide. I am well aware that this is true since we're not throwing away any data in a RAW file. If you shoot JPEG you loose some of that. But, here's my question. I can't print from a RAW file or a TIFF. My lab needs a JPEG. I can't display a RAW file on my web site, it needs to be a JPEG. So, once we get to the point of conversion aren't we going to be right where we would be if we shot JPEG in camera in terms of dynamic range and color depth? If we have a gradient color in the image, won't banding appear in the JPEG (that we need to print from) that wasn't there in the RAW file that had more data? Don't we loose the extended dynamic range the RAW file gives us when we convert it to a JPEG? We're knocking the file down to 8 bits from 12 or whatever we started at, the same as if we converted in camera. At some point I need a JPEG to show people. I don't understand the claims of increased file quality when shooting RAW since I'll never show anyone the RAW file and can't print from it. What am I not understanding? How do you get more out of a RAW file when at some point it has to be turned into a JPEG in order to show it?
    Thanks to anyone who can shed some light on this for me. If I stop shooting with my Fujis (which I may have to since thay may not be making any more) I wouldn't mind trying a RAW workflow if it would give me a better final product.
     
  53. A 1GB card holds around 140 RAW/NEF files for me. My camera (D50) allows 2GB cards max and considering how cheap they are now, 2GB is about the same as a roll of decent film. I will never ever shoot jpeg in camera again, unless I am at a family function and know RAW adjustements will 100% never be needed. Even then, I shy away from switching to jpeg in case I forget to put it back to NEF! I'm attaching an example - the left side is the unprocessed NEF file, the right side is processed. Pretty drastic positive difference I'd say and jpeg is just not capable of these corrections.
    00SDhQ-106647584.jpg
     
  54. By the way, when you shoot raw you will still benefit from thinking about color balance. If you don't it will eventually come back to bite you.
     
  55. Jay--I'm not a technical person, so someone can explain better--but basically, the advantage to shooting RAW over JPEG is you can mess around with a file to manage and tweak the image data before creating the final JPEG--maybe pull in data from the highlights and from the shadows that wouldn't have been there in a JPEG straight from the camera. One thing that I really like about Lightroom 2 are the adjustment brushes. With these, you can bring exposure and other settings up or down on selected areas of the RAW file. The big advantage for me is the fact that the color does not shift when you do this like it does in Photoshop. This is really great on skin tone, which is important for all of us wedding photographers.
    To the folks supporting the 'get it right to begin with' argument, I agree with the premise, but when shooting true candids at a wedding, I appreciate the fact that I CAN wait until later to tweak the file, and can concentrate on getting the shot at the time, if necessary. For static shoots, where you have control, I agree that shooting JPEGS makes sense. However, if you shot in RAW AND got it right, the post processing takes minutes, and you have the added insurance of having all the data for each file, in case you really needed to do some major work on it for some reason. In addition, I doubt that all the photographers shooting RAW are using it as a crutch.
    Still, a wedding photographer, or any photographer, should evaluate the pros and cons specifically against his or her own image standards, workflow, time usage, client expectations, and almost every other aspect of being in the business, and then decide for him or herself.
     
  56. For me JPEG is preferred.
    If I print, the size is four inches by six inches
    If an item goes to an internet site (rarely)
    the image gets knocked to 72 dpi in any event so superb quality
    is not an issue.
    Yet another reason I sold all my DSLR GEAR and now use
    just a CanonA590 P&S for my digital work. (JPEG only)
    Film is the Nikon F100 and is the preferred method, for me.
     
  57. Nadine - Thank you very much for your quick response. I fully understand the tweaking advantage as well as most other advantages of RAW. I also understand why many if not most would prefer to use it. But, again, I fail to understand the perceived quality advantage of RAW since it must be converted before delivered to a client. Does a JPEG converted from a RAW file have more dynamic range and color depth (is it a highr quality file?) than a JPEG straight out of camera that is taken properly? That's my question. I have no idea but I'm having trouble understanding how it could. I've never understood the argument that RAW can provide these quality advantages when all RAW files must be converted to JPEGs at some point.
     
  58. Jay--OK, I didn't understand exactly what you were after. No, there isn't a difference once a RAW file has been converted to JPEG. A JPEG is a JPEG.
     
  59. This is what I thought, so where do all the claims of greater dynamic range and so on come from? I understand that the RAW file has that advantage but we loose that as soon as we show the image to anyone as a print or JPEG on the web? Is that correct? Some of the sites that review cameras go into great detail on how a certain camera has great dynamic range but to take full advantage of it you must shoot RAW. I'm not understanding why there is an emphasis on that if you can only see it on your computer when looking at the RAW file or maybe a TIFF.
     
  60. I understand the concept that Jay is trying to prove and to certain extent I understand him. This will apply if the RAW image is not processed or altered in any form via LR or any other photo tweaking program. But Jay, I just realized that if you alter the RAW image in any program the results of converting it later to jpeg will be noticeable, a simple example is the two pictures posted above by ND Trivette. Those are jpeg images, but the second one-on the right side-has been altered to obtain the final image posted as jpeg, and the original image was a NEF.This NEF captured image was what made it possible to be altered later and converted to jpeg. What you are seeing there are two jpeg images, but they originally were one NEF image. It is understandable what I am trying to explain here?
     
  61. Well I'm assuming that the greater dynamic range is 'pulled' out of the RAW file before it is converted into a JPEG. Say you take a RAW picture of a scene that has a greater dynamic range than would ordinarily be possible to show in a JPEG straight from the camera. You manipulate the highlights and shadows in such a way that when you convert to JPEG, the highlights and shadows in the JPEG show more dynamic range than the one straight from the camera.
     
  62. Robert, believe me, I'm not trying to prove anything, just to understand. I'm not sure the example by ND is a good one. It's a great example of how you can pull back the highlights with RAW but I'm not sure it shows that RAW has more dynamic range. I bet if the JPEG in that example was exposed for the background it would look the same as the image that was converted from RAW. There are tons of great reasons to shoot RAW. I'm questioning whether or not increased dynamic range, color depth, or better looking huge prints are reasons as well since we have to go to 8 bit to show images to anyone not sitting at our computer.
    Nadine - you won't block up some of those shadows and blow out some of those highlights when you convert? If a JPEG is a JPEG is a JPEG, I'm still missing something. Sorry, I've just never understood this and it's not for lack of trying.
     
  63. Jay, I understand you now and I agree with you 100%. You're right, the final image is in jpeg and it wouldn't show any increase in dynamic range or color depth. The results of large prints won't be any different from an original well exposed jpeg image.
     
  64. No, you won't, because you pulled them into place when you mess around with them in processing. I guess you might be having a hard time understanding if you've never played around with a RAW file before. In processing you can compress the dynamic range without losing the data in the highlights and shadows. In shooting a JPEG file, that data is lost upon writing the file because it is outside the range to begin with.
     
  65. I think it depends on your subject. I primarily shoot sports, both day and night. I only shoot sports in JPG because RAW causes my camera (Nikon D80) to drag in those situations. I prefer RAW for everything else. ND's example is a good one showing how adjustments in RAW are made easily. With wedding photography especially, I would think RAW would be the only way to go. If the pictures are perfect then running a simple batch file would quickly convert from RAW to JPG. Better yet, just to be safe, shoot in RAW + JPG.
     
  66. Thanks, Nadine. I've shot plenty in RAW but I've never adopted it for work. A test would be great but I'm totally not qualified to set one up. I can understand how you can process the shadows and highlights in RAW to maximize something like dynamic range. I don't understand why you wouldn't loose that at conversion time when you have to throw away a buch of that data. How come that data is lost when shooting in JPEG because it is outside the range to begin with but you can shoot the same scene in RAW, process the file, covert to JPEG and not loose the data or have it outside the range of that 8 bit JPEG? Isn't it still a JPEG that is still only capable of holding the same amount of data as a JPEG out of camera?
    Again, sorry that I'm still not understanding. I'm just having a hard time grasping the concept. Thanks a bunch for all your help though.
     
  67. You don't lose the extra data at conversion because you have manually pulled both ends in during processing and ensured that the data is withing the range capable of being shown in a JPEG. The data is lost when shooting a JPEG because the camera makes a decision which part of the dynamic range it wil show, and if that range is bigger than it is capable of showing, part of it gets dropped right off the bat.
     
  68. That's starting to make some sense. Thanks so much for hanging in there with me!
     
  69. RAW all the way. You can't afford to miss the push/pull power of shooting in RAW with weddings; and any other occasion when conditions can be difficult and you get just one chance!
     
  70. Jay,
    This is a vastly over simplified analogy but I hope it helps.
    The difference is that a jpeg can only reproduce x number of colours and shades, a RAW file produces x+ number of colours and shades.
    Suppose your photo is two staircases, they are the same height, the jpeg has 100 steps, the RAW file has 150 steps. At the top is white, at the bottom black.
    Now if you think of each colour and shade as a step on a staircase, the jpeg takes your lightest colour and your darkest colour and just divides all the rest of the colours/shades in a linear fashion, it doesn't care if most of the detail is between steps 80-100, it still pushes all that information into the 20 steps on the staircase it allows so looses information. The RAW file captures the information, it has more steps in the first place, then by applying a curve(non linear adjustment) you can spread the information captured between values 80-150 in RAW to cover more than 20 steps of your convertion to a jpeg 100 step staircase, thus giving you more detail. You do compress stuff elsewhere but you can choose where that is.
    The above example shows how it works, the important information is in the lighter areas, steps 80-100 on the jpeg staircase, and 100-150 on the RAW staircase, so lots of the light detail in the jpeg is lost. Now before you convert the RAW file you adjust your curves to enhance the light areas, you can spread ths enhanced area to spread over the top 30 stairs on your new saved jpeg, you have a better photo! The payoff is that other areas get compressed, there is a lot more black and dark detail is lost in the example above but it makes the picture work even better, so in this case it is a win win.
    You are right, they do hold the same amount of data, the RAW just lets you spread the important information out so you can see it.The important thing is that the in camera jpeg is the cameras tiny computers division of the RAW data into an 8bit file in a linear fashion on the fly, the RAW image allows you to adjust that division to better work with your image into the same 8bit space in a non linear way. It is particularly important for wedding shooters because of the ability to pull back detail in white dresses, especially when they are standing next to dark suited grooms!
    Hope this helps, Scott.
     
  71. Well Scott, that makes sense, now I understand better, I am at the same level than Jay, didn't understand clearly how was possible to conserve the amount of data of RAW into a jpeg.
    Thank you
     
  72. Jay, what Nadine says is correct. It's a nice sunday morning here, and I don't feel like getting all technical over my wheaties, but if you want the full technical definition, let me know and I will post the details. The basics of it are this: It is not the fact that the image file is 'raw' or 'jpg' which determines what it's dynamic range is. The reason the out of camera jpgs will have reduced dynamic range is due to a programming decision made by some technician in Japan as to how the raw data should be converted. Basically, some data at the highlight end is essentially thrown away. But if one chooses to process the data themselves, it is possible to conserve that highlight data and not just chuck it out.<p>

    Here's an example of an in-camera jpg vs a raw-to-jpeg conversion.<p>

    <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QTjS-63617584.jpg"><p>
    <img src="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Q/00QTjW-63617684.jpg"><p>

    Please, no comments about how boring this image is. It was taken for scientific purposes. Cheers.
     
  73. I shoot RAW all the time, with a small jpg for screening the images. I shoot for fun, and I don't care if it takes a little longer. I'm fishing for a great image I may find one day, and if I eventually find one, I want everything available to work on it later. If I make a mistake with WB or other factors, I want every tool to fix it as best as possible.
    So it was a bit of a surprise for me to learn that, in a recent survey, most professional shooters on the Sportshooter website shoot jpg, not RAW. Of course those guys do it as efficiently as they can, and they work on a timeline to get images out to the wire service. Also, they often have exposure and WB adjusted correctly in the first place, so they don't need the extra work and hard disc space that RAW entails.
    Ultimately a professional also wants great images, but he's not willing to sacrifice that extra half-hour every day for a (usually marginal) difference in quality. Like most of us, he works efficiently so he can get home to be with his family.
    Dave
     
  74. When I started shooting digital as a pro (Canon 10D) I always shot JPG as I was in the studio and I felt I was on top of my game. I also felt that the time spent using RAW was a cost I did not wish to bear in my business.
    I began testing with RAW and found that the in camera JPGs showed artifacting from the conversion that were not present in JPGs converted from RAW. In truth one could not see the artifacts in print at moderate sizes. It did bother me from a purist viewpoint however that my files were not as clean as they might be.
    I also noticed that even though I was very careful in WB and exposure, I almost always opened each file in PS for some retouching or tweaking. Once I did that almost all the alleged speed advantage of JPG was lost.
    Lightroom has removed the limitations of Bridge in my work flow. I heartily recommend this and other pro-level RAW processors( such as Capture One and Aperture) for quality and speed.
    More importantly, in the very competitive world of wedding, portrait and commercial photography, clients were no longer settling for images that looked like studio work from the 70's with a few fixed poses and lights. The studios that were prospering were those studios that were leveraging the advantages of extensive post processing. Starting with JPGs can be done but starting with RAW allowed a much greater range of interpretation. In addition using RAW allowed me to return to the original file for new versions of the image incorporating ideas and knowledge I had gained in the intervening time.

    A JPG contains the image info that was baked into it when it was created. By making a JPG from RAW I get a JPG with MY DECISIONS in it and not the compromises of a hardware component of my camera.
    With regards to sports shooters and PJs....they are usually working in an environment where the conditions are very tightly controlled. They test the venue extensively and know exactly what they need to do to get an image FAST. Does anyone think that at the recent inauguration that a JPG would not have been ideal when the demands are speed and more speed? Sure a lot of jpg +RAW was shot, but the JPGs made it to the net in 5 minutes or less.
     
  75. Awesome help, everyone. I really appreciate it. Bernie, great example. That's a marked difference! I'd love to see more info on this if anyone has a link. I'm in a somewhat unique situation in that the JPEGs I shoot come from my S5s. Right out of camera my JPEGs look a bit like Bernie's RAW example. When I pick up any of my Nikons the images look like Bernie's JPEG example. If Nikons were my primary camera I might be looking at switching to RAW tomorrow.
    I'm wondering if what is looking to be true about dynamic range would also be true about posterization and other such issues with smooth, subtle tonal gradations. Do you maintain those advantages when a RAW file is converted as well or do you see a reduction in file quality when converted to JPEG? Again, thanks to everyone for the great information.
     
  76. A landscape bolted down on a tripod looking for every advantage possible then I'll shoot raw. Everything else jpeg. A little hint. If you don't blow the highlights you won't need to recover them. That's why we have a histogram and bracketing.
     
  77. However, there is deliberate blowing of highlights (and later recovery) to maximize the amount of information you capture and to minimize noise (exposing to the right). Particularly for weddings, which is what we are talking about, as opposed to landscapes or studio shots, where you have control and time to bracket and analyze the histogram.
     
  78. Can't bracket a "decisive moment."
     
  79. Nadine I'm not a wedding photographer but I' hate to depend on raw processing to save my highlights. LR may give a little back but from my experience not enough for comfort.
    Marc my attepted decisive moments are shot on B&W film that I develop myself. I have the procesing down and "never" blow the highlights. LOL.
     
  80. Since switching to RAW about a year ago, I will never go back to shooting JPEG. It gives you the ultimate flexibility as well as being able to shoot in lower light and adjust the exposure in Adobe Bridge (or similar). Also I often use this exposure adjustment to fix up areas that may have been under/over exposed (ie. a blend of 2 or 3 masked photoshop layers, all of the exact same frame but at different exposures configured in Bridge. A kind of manual HDR image, but far more realistic and subtle giving a nice exposure across light and dark. That is something that simply can not be done in JPEG. It means you can capture that decisive moment and not worry *too* much about blown highlights. It may be a little extra work to work with RAW but the benefits for me greatly outweigh the cost.
     
  81. Michael, when you deliberately blow the highlights, you don't 'save' them in Lightroom. We're not talking about blowing 2 stops or anything. More like 2/3 stop.
     
  82. Gotcha Nadine. Actually I always push my highlights to the brink and attempt to bring the shadows back a bit if needed.
     
  83. In cs3, you can batch process a whole series of raw images in a couple of clicks after setting the first image. (starting each series with a wb card is nice) The way you want them batch processed, not Nikon. You might even set an action or two if you find a pattern. I paid good money for that sensor to collect all that information and I dont want much of it thrown away without my input. I'll edit it and then convert to jpeg. Nadine is right, double processing raw for highlight/shadows can be a life saver. No matter how good or careful you are, your camera has a limited range. An extra stop or so can make or break a photo and raw can deliver that. With the recovery(highlight) and shadow sliders it is sweet. Shooting both raw and jpg seems more work to me. But if its ok for your clients who probably dont know any better, then, perhaps you are right. Any extra work and decreased profit isnt necessary. A member at the local club told me after years of fussing in the dark room over miniscle adjustments, he realized he was only doing it for the other club members, the general public never would notice.
     
  84. I suppose if you work only in JPEG and in JPEG tools then that works for you. For me, I pay the rent with my work so my goals are speed and quality. I can post process a raw file to a final uploaded version to my edtor at a rate of 30 images an hour. My botleneck is in downloading from CF cards to hard drive. Even with a FW reader it's still slow.
    Shooting is only part of the overall image.
     
  85. I dono I shoot Raw + JPEG on my D200 and I love it. Yes its work after the fact, yes there is post process, but you know what, there is Some Post no matter what. So i shoot RAW + Basic JPEG, that way I have the JPEG to be able to go through em on any viewing program and delete junk, but anything worth "framing" i go into the Raw file in PS CS3 do my post then save into a JPEG in a separate folder as "processed" or "the good stuff" :p then if u don't want to waste the space...delete the raw's and jpegs of all the other files... personally I keep em..but thats just me I prefer to have all original files on a seperate dump drive unless something was to happen.
    I shot over 4000 pictures in teh Galapagos islands on L-JPEG alone, and did it work out? Yeah. Did I get Great shots? Yeah. Are there some shots which coulda been saved through raw edits that I cant adjust thro just JPEG work in PS CS 3?.... Yeah. So would I do it JPEG alone again?....Probally Not.

    Oh also...Raw produces a larger Pixel image to start with...lets say a Large Jpeg is 10,000px by 7000px (I know its not but i dont remember the exacts....so...lets just say..) When u open a Raw File ....it will be like 12,000px by 8000px .....Larger pictures generally mean more information to work with, and better enlargment capabilities.
     
  86. After the shoot I did yesterday and the amazing adjustments I was able to make after the shoot, I wouldn't even consider just using jpg only.
     
  87. Jay, something not discussed is in reference to your lab only printing jpegs. Perhaps look around for another lab. I mostly hand my lab tiff files, from RAW for enlargements, because if you print something around a 24X30 and compare a jpeg to a tiff you will see a considerable differerence in quality.
     
  88. +1 for Raw and LR.
     
  89. If you don't blow the highlights you won't need to recover them.​
    But that was my point about "correct exposure". The highlights may only be blown in the jpg conversion, but not in the raw sensor data. Which is the more correct exposure? I would say the MOST correct exposure is what the sensor ACTUALLY records.
    Oh also...Raw produces a larger Pixel image to start with...lets say a Large Jpeg is 10,000px by 7000px (I know its not but i dont remember the exacts....so...lets just say..) When u open a Raw File ....it will be like 12,000px by 8000px​
    Sorry, but that's not true. You can convert every pixel into your jpg if you wish.
    In regards to the 'technical' explanation of what is going on, I will give a short and sweet description: When white balance is done in the raw conversion to jpg, the raw converter / camera will scale the different channels in proportion to the white balance that is desired. Often the red channel pixel value will be scaled by a factor of about 2, and the blue is usually 1.5 or thereabouts. Green stays at unity. So, you can see that a pixel that might register say 200 in the raw sensor data (let's just use 8-bits for simplicity) can be 'doubled' in the conversion to jpg. This will result in a blown value of 255. But the pixel wasn't blown in reality. So, if we do the raw conversion ourselves, we can do the white balance adjustment, still in the correct channel proportions, but without blowing any channel. There are a number of ways of doing this, but the best way is to just pull the exposure slider down in your raw converter and this will reduce the scaling in proportion. But a further point is that different raw converters may not behave in the same way. Lightroom/ACR is much better at scaling back these values than DPP. DPP, in true Canon form, has some other stuff going on behind the scenes that they don't want the consumer to know about and have a chance to decide on its use themselves. Lightroom/ACR seems to apply the scaling on the raw data in a linear fashion and results in a very good output. Hope that helped. Cheers.
     
  90. Whew, what a strange bunch of replies. You spend thouands on a good camera and lens and then blow it all by shooting JPeg. RAW is the only way to go. And it isn't just for correcting images with errors. RAW gives much, much more control over everything. JPeg has lost information before you even open the image for the first time. I've been in photography since the days of film and drum scanning and RAW is the only way to go - there should be no discussion here if quality is what you are concerned about. I shoot RAW and save my files for print as PSD. At no point in your workflow should you use JPeg (if, as I mentioned, quality is what you are after).
     
  91. I shoot RAW but use JPEG when I'm practicing sports photography. I need the higher capacity afforded (not to mention the ease my camera's buffer) by shooting in JPEG. Sure there isn't much you can do if you blow the highlights or clip the shadows, but RAW does give you an amazing degree of latitude.
    Jesse
     
  92. For some, RAW is like a negative in the film world and jpeg is one among many possible outputs. For others "Jpeg is all we know, and we're happy; don't confuse us." Finally, some know the benefits of RAW but choose to occasionally or always use a jpeg-only workflow because they know their cameras well enough to directly get the output they prefer from jpeg without the need to post process. I've been in all three of these ways of thinking over the past year, since working seriously with both RAW and jpeg. I'd suggest a simple test. Shoot your favorite subject in RAW and then in jpeg with your in-camera custom settings maximized to your preferences for ISO, exposure, white balance, saturation, contrast and sharpness. (I suggest this rather than RAW + jpeg, which doesn't save your custom settings into the jpeg, in some cameras.) Then do your best post processing possible with the RAW, convert the RAW to highest quality jpeg or TIFF, and look closely at a comparison of the final results from both workflows. You'll have your own answer. It took me a year of working with RAW conversion in both Aperture and in my camera's proprietary RAW conversion software, before I could say that my work from RAW was appreciably better.
     
  93. I can't really add anything at this point that someone hasn't already said, but for me RAW and LR2 is a great workflow and I don't really see how my workflow would be any different if I shot JPEG, so what't the point?
    I do think Howard V. makes an excellent point, shoot both types of files for awhile and work with them, see which gives *you* the best results and more importantly, which type of file makes photography the most enjoyable for you.
     
  94. It took me a year of working with RAW conversion in both Aperture and in my camera's proprietary RAW conversion software, before I could say that my work from RAW was appreciably better.​
    And I think that is the key. It takes time and practice to get an image from RAW to be appreciably better than a JPEG iamge straight from the camera. To paraphrase a poster in another forum 'you don't use RAW to get the same as JPEG, you use RAW to do it differently'. Now most of the time even my lowly 30D seems to do a pretty good job of coping with lighting situations so I find there are few pictures where I need to play around with complex PS manipulations.
    So I am (so far) in the camp that shoot RAW+JPEG and by and large am happy with the JPEG, but I revert to the RAW file for those that I want to 'improve' by pulling details out of shadows or highlights. I have some photos of grizzlies in Canada where even on JPEG I am surprised at the detail I can pull out of highlights on the fur that were seemingly blown - but I regret not taking RAW because if I had, I might have been able to go further (and now, I will never know).
     
  95. Picasa 3.0 supports the RAW out of my D300, the earlier versions of Picasa 2 did not, and left me with big black squares in the preview window.
    My workflow, personally, is to shoot in RAW+JPG, remove my throwaways in picasa, then save the raw images to a different work area for use with the nikon tools. I basically have My Pictures\raw\<folder>\xyz.raw and My Pictures\<folder>\xyz.jpg
     
  96. I am thinking of following those who recommend RAW + JPEG. I do find that there is more scope to recover a decent photograph from RAW if there is excessive contrast, colour cast etc, but if I also had JPEGs it would enable me to get cheap "proofs" printed easily at my usual photo shop or on the spot when away. However, rather than give the shop my CF card I would like to copy the JPEGs quickly and easily onto a memory stick and give that to the shop, but my D300 and D700 save the RAW + JPEG to the same CF card. Can someone please give me a link to a simple instruction how to get just the JPEGs onto a memory stick via my PC or laptop? Thanks Philip.
     
  97. I think that RAW processing only adds an extra 15-20% to my postprocess time per wedding. For me, that's a very small cost for not having to worry about getting the right white balance and perfect exposure everytime. I'm a very good technical shooter, but I'm not so good that I don't welcome having to not worry about it during a shoot, and taking care of it later.
    BUT of course, to each his own. In the end, the final product is all that matters. If someone produces an incredible body of work from a wedding and can do that consistently, HOW they got to that point is of no interest to me.
     
  98. I shoot Raw and process in Adobe Lightroom. I primarily shoot location portraits and weddings. A lot of people seem to think of RAW as an assurance that if they blow it they will have a backup. Frankly, I find that I can vastly improve even a good exposure with RAW processing. At one point I learned a lot about fine black and white printing, and the control of tone, contrast, and selective dodging and burning are things that really make a big difference for even properly exposed images. With a 12, 14, or 16 bit image you can perform these adjustments without the visible artifacts that show up immediately in 8 bit jpegs. Color issues are also handled much better. Jpegs do not handle big adjustments in color balance well, compared to larger files (including tiffs) If you shoot a perfect exposure and you do not plan to make adjustments in tone, contrast, or color you probably will not benefit from shooting RAW. Big adjustments in editing, however, are done much better with raw files. I'm the type that can always find a way to improve things in post. I also have learned to shoot in a way that facilitates effective batch processing. Good batch processing skills can really minimize the time you spend working with RAW files.
     
  99. It's always a bit surprising people are afraid of RAW as if it were a secret format only readable by aliens, highly skilled experts and expensive/difficult software. Yet just set the camera to RAW, load the images into the free software of the camera manufacturer (this takes no longer than a few seconds) and if you wanted to make no corrections at all, like a camera would, just hit the batch process button and you will find 100 images processed 20 minutes later. If you do make some quick corrections of exposure and contrast, the images will look better than anything you do on a JPEG in Photoshop.
     
  100. It's not jpeg vs raw. It's Nikon's or Canon's or whoever's in-camera processing software vs. out-of-camera processing software. Personally I like the choices Photoshop and Lightroom give me over the 3 or 4 slider bars provided by the Canon in-camera software.
     
  101. Anyone return to JPEG?
    Hello Betty! Not fully. I bought a dslr to explore the possibilities of raw processing. The only time I switch to jpeg is when I need to quickly give a whole chunkload of jpegs to someone quick. Even then it's usually set to raw + jpeg. Else, usually I will pick and process a few of my best shots. Like over the weekend I went hiking, took 200 odd shots, but only picked the best 20 or so to process.
    Alvin
    PS: I noticed that this is posted in the wedding and social event photography forum; got here via the main photo.net page. I'm definitely not a wedding photog, so what I expressed is for the photography I enjoy, and I'm doubt it applies to wedding related photography. That said I'd probably still shoot raw if I had to shoot a wedding - I use bibble pro for conversion and it's easy to apply similar settings to a whole slew of images.
     
  102. The buffer would have run out on these shots had I not used JPEG. Cranked up the color temp on the white balance to 10000K, high speed shutter set to JPEG only.
    00SEnE-106915884.jpg
     
  103. +1 for:
    • Always shoot RAW.
    • If you want to keep it simple, shoot RAW and use your camera manufacturer's software and batch export.
    • But for proper workflow, use Lightroom.
    All that said: yes, when I shoot sport (a hockey game) for our local newspaper I go to (medium/small-ish) JPG.
    Michael
     
  104. Picasa 3.0 supports the RAW out of my D300, the earlier versions of Picasa 2 did not, and left me with big black squares in the preview window.
    I'm using Picasa 3.0 and it would not support the RAW images out of my D300. Did you have to do anything special with them prior to uploading or afterwards?
     
  105. Betty,
    Do you have Picasa configured to read RAW files?
    Tools --> Options --> File Types.
    Make sure the "RAW" checkbox is checked.
     
  106. When I decided to start shooting everything in RAW it was because I realized that if I have someone serving me in some manner I want them to give me the best they can give me.
    I want them to use the best equipment possible at critical points in the process if at all possible. Using a RAW file is a matter of making an adjustment in our camera and then investing time and effort in workflow. We invested time and effort in learning the camera so why Cheat the end product part of the photography process ... why not invest the same time and effort into learning to work RAW files and get the best photo out of the files that is possible?
    If we think wedding photography is Important then it's easy to conclude that a RAW file can give your customer the best opportunity at the best end product merely as a result of switching to using a RAW file.
     
  107. I shoot only RAW --not even a sm jpeg corresponding. If a client wants the card direct from the camera ....then it is strictly Large Jpeg that we hand over. We do charge for the editing of the RAW and seem to have fairly consistent exposures > since we shoot all manual.
     
  108. I mentioned above but I think it bears repeating that jpeg uses lossy compression. Even with quality set to 100, there is data loss. And every time an image is reopenned and edited, there can be more data loss. Using something like Photoshop with layers is probably the best way to preserve the original quality because the edits can be applied against the original every time an output (file or print) is needed. But that final output shouldn't be processed anymore. Raw works the same way. If little or no editing is required, jpeg wins for speed. That, IMHO, is the only advantage.
     
  109. I LOVE using RAW. I feel I have more control and I end up learning much more about settings and what to avoid in the future. I was intimidated by RAW since I've never seen it outside of Digital Photography, but, I'm most definitely happy I use it. It's a little bit more work with RAW, and it takes up more space, but I feel I've got more advantages with RAW.
     
  110. Well, I tried some photos on my Nikon D60 in RAW mode and I'm impressed by the quality when I blow them up in the monitor in comparison to JPEG. Now I have to learn how to use Adobe Photoshop, Light Room or Capture NX, oh my Lord!!
     
  111. always raw for me !
    Kev
    www.image-i-nation.co.uk
     

Share This Page