File type and workflow question

Hi again. These are my other two questions. Just wondering about

whether to use jpeg, tiff or raw when shooting. Is there any other

benefit of one over the other? I know with raw, there is a lot more

latitude. Just wondering if that translates into better picture

quality assuming both jpeg tiff and raw are exposed properly. Does it

allow for a larger print size if you shoot in raw or tiff? And does

anyone know about the interpolation of up to 10 megapixels and how do

I do that? Also, what programs do most of you use for workflow? I

will be using it for weddings, and high school seniors. Thanks for

all of your help!

I shoot in raw 100% of the time. There is greater lattitude as you guessed, and also complete control of color temp, which I use all the time. Reason being, at least on my D100, I find that manually setting the white balance, or even leaving the camera on Auto, rarely produces exactly perfect results. I could be sitting directly underneith a stack of flourescent bulbs, and the cameras "auto" recommendation is rarely where I like it. If you shoot in JPG, you are stuck here.

 

Also, jpg is a lossy compression, and forced strait to 8bit, so you definitly have more room/data to print with. The only reason you would shoot tiff, is so you could shoot in a lossless compression, should you not have CS, a plug in for older versions of PS, or a RAW editor such as nikon capture (my favorite). It would be horrible to be forced to shoot JPG.

I'm pretty new to the digital world. I've created images from weddings the two months using both film and digital.

 

My wife & I took a 1 week coarse with Monte Zucker in May and only used jpeg with his Canon 10D.

 

<P>Take a look at this photo of his:

<A href="http://forum.montezucker.com/index.php?act=ST&f=8&t=857&s=13d1b4033bfcf71b1ea8383c1a9082cd"> Monte Zucker</A>

 

<P>I'm still learning digital. I've submitted just a couple of images on this wonderful site. They all were all done in jpeg untouched.

 

<P>Hope this helps. Thanks!

If you are concerned about optimum image quality (which you should be as a paid

photographer) shoot RAW. I use Photoshop CS of course, I have heard great things

about Capture One, look into Noise Ninja v 2.0 as well it's a great tool.

<p>

My suggestion would be for you to <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

tutorials/understanding-series/u-raw-files.shtml" >click here and read this</a>

It will help you realize the benefits of shooting RAW and the reasons for shooting with

it. Luminous-landscape.com is essential for learning purposes. They have essays,

tutorials, and great descriptions of a ton of different things and you'll gain a greater

understanding just by looking at this site often enough.

Always RAW!

 

RAW is good for mixed lighting...post process for WB and exposure comp.

 

C1 conversion to tiff. Around 3-4 gigs RAW per event.

It isn't an issue of quality, but of latitude. I shoot jpeg when the light is controllable, predictable, and consistent. I light the formals at my weddings with one or two studio strobes with umbrellas, check my histogram carefully with a few test shots, and then fire away with jpegs that can go directly to proofs with no Photoshop work whatever. But when I'm in an uncontrollable, catch-as-catch-can situation, I shoot RAW. If you can nail the shot perfectly every time, then jpegs are the way to go. But if you have to do any degree of correcting those jpegs at all, I can beat the socks off of you timewise by shooting RAW and processing in Capture One.

Dave. I soleheartedly disagree. The only time I recommend shooting JPG, is if the picture doesnt really matter. Any "important" picture, especially one you are getting paid to take, you always shoot RAW even if the situation is totally controlable. This is because the JPG compressor in the camera isn't really all that great. You are much better off letting a program like photoshop do the conversion as it will compress a much better looking image. HEck, then what I really mean to say, is why would you EVER use a JPG? why not convert strait to TIFF? There is barely enough resolution to work with as it is, even in 16bit working space, let alone taking it down to an 8 bit jpg.

 

If it counts, RAW or TIFF. JPG if its junk or practice.

Brandon, I have 16x20s from a Canon 10D that say if there's a difference it isn't one that's easily seen. In fact, I carry a pair of 16x20s in my car to convince digital unbelievers. They are photos from a bridal portrait session I did shortly after I got the 10D.

 

My main camera for the session was my old faithful Pentax 6x7 loaded with NPH. But I had just got this brand new digital camera, and while I wasn't ready to bet the farm on it, I thought it would be good to make a few shots with it just to see how it would do. I didn't know anything about RAW at the time, so I shot Large/Fine jpeg. Later I picked a digital file and a 6x7 negative of the same pose and had a 16x20 made from each. My lab operator was blown away by the results.

 

I've shown those two prints to many other photographers and some of the art directors I work with in the commercial arena. Almost none of them were able to tell which was which.

 

Interestingly enough, digital photographers can usually tell the difference, but film photographers almost never can.

 

I'm a big believer in RAW, and use it most of the time. But when the situation is controllable, I'll shoot jpeg for the added convenience.