What percentage of Dslr users shoot Jpeg vs. Raw only?

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by t._zenjitsuman, Jun 20, 2013.

  1. Has anyone seen a statistic answer to this question?
     
  2. There are no reliable statistics on this.
     
  3. pge

    pge

    I have done both but presently just shoot Raw. One thing I have never understood is why people would shoot Raw and jpeg, other than as a backup. Is there actually a reason to have both?
     
  4. Don't think there is a definitive answer. Phill, if I am shooting sports and need to get photos quickly to someone else for one reason or the other I may shoot both. The reason is so that I can quickly offload a jpg file to them without any post while also having a RAW file if I wish to do some editing later on.
     
  5. I shoot RAW but with a small jpg. The jpg gives me an image for quick use and the web that is good for a large percentage of shots, and the trickier ones require me to go into ACR.
     
  6. +1 JDM. Those modest little JPGs end up landing on tablets and in email, etc., but all the heavy lifting is done with RAW files.
     
  7. I almost always shoot raw and high quality JPEG. If I have time to tweak the image and I'm at home with my Photoshop machine, I use the raw file. Quite often, I'm at work or using a different computer when someone wants access to an image in a hurry, preferably the best that can be achieved trivially - the JPEGs are also easier to categorize and process automatically. The JPEG is enough smaller than the raw that I find it acceptable to waste the time and space - I stick the JPEGs on my SD card and my raw files on the CF, though that does mean I have to delete the dross twice (unlike my D700 - I may be missing a setting). If I know I'm shooting in dubious conditions, or will never get the chance to play with the raw files because I'm in a hurry, or if I need the buffer and don't want to run out of storage (for example when I'm trying to get a sequence of people dancing), I'll sometimes switch to JPEG only - but not for important stills.
     
  8. SCL

    SCL

    +2 JDM. I work in RAW, but use JPEGs for sharing with family, etc.
     
  9. ShunCheung

    ShunCheung Administrator

    I typically shoot RAW only. If I need a lot of JPEGs for e-mail, etc., I do a mass RAW-to-JPEG conversion on NikonView or LightRoom. Usually I don't bother to shoot RAW + JPEG because I find even the JPEG basic files straight from the camera to be way too big for web posting and e-mail.
    On the D7100, the memory buffer is shallow. Shooting RAW + JPEG simply makes it worse as it needs to hold both files. Initially I had no choice because I didn't have a good RAW converter for the D7100, so I had to shoot RAW + JPEG for a couple of weeks until Adobe added that to LightRoom.
     
  10. No statistics, but I'll wager that the larger percentage of DSLR users shoot only/mostly jpegs.
    That's because the vast majority of DSLR users (of which participation in the photo.net forums does not proportionally represent) are entry level users shooting pics of their kids and such. They don't want to spend a lot of time post processing, if they know how to do it at all. Heck, many of them are unsure of how to simply resize their jpeg photos, never mind the complexities of Raw conversions and manipulations. They want to download a usable photo straight from the camera and be done with it. Think "soccer moms", not photo geeks. They stick their camera on green Auto mode, shoot their pics of birthday parties and other family events, and then upload them straight to Facebook or take their SD/CF card to Walmart for some quick 4x6 prints.
     
  11. Phil, I used to shoot Raw plus JPEG so that I could do full-screen previews of my images in order to decide which to process and convert from Raw to jpeg. I'd never save those in-camera JPEGS. then, I found the Irfanview program and now use that to preview my Raw images.
     
  12. I shoot 100% Raw, but would wager that 99% of DSLR users shoot JPEG-only.
     
  13. I always shoot both... I typically look through the jpegs to find the shot that stinks the least and use that one...
    btw, most of my shots aren't "art", and to be honest, if I just used the jpeg, I doubt anyone would know the difference. But I shoot the RAW file anyway.
     
  14. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    There are no reliable statistics on this.​

    That's because it's not a very useful question. Knowing some statistics would not help anyone's photography or equipment purchases. What people have done is answered the useful questions, "When do you shoot (one or the other)?"
     
  15. RAW + JPEG Basic for me, so I can post the JPEGs to Facebook etc immediately if I want to.
    For "keepers" and any shots requiring post processing I over-write the small JPEG with a high quality one created from the modified RAW file.
    Chris
     
  16. Actually, I do exactly as Chris does: save over the small jpg if I've processed the RAW more than my presets for jpg.
    I used to shoot high-res jpgs along with the RAW and settled on this replacement strategy as minimizing the "working" over as the file sizes from the cameras got larger and larger.
     
  17. snapshots jpeg..serious work raw
     
  18. Micheal your answer is probably the situation, most people want the camera to just give them
    sharp results fast.
    One thing I can think of that D7100 owners should consider, Jpeg + 1.3 crop mode
    probably solves the buffer issues. If you don't need raw for shooting your kids
    little league or basketball game then having the latest Nikon AF cam doing focus
    tracking is a fine setup.
     
  19. Get the settings in-camera right and produce high resolution jpegs. All that's left to do is cropping or minor brightness and sharpening. I rarely do more than that.
     
  20. I looked up on Dpreview and they did a poll. About 35% used Jpeg alone some of the time.
    That was higher than I thought for a group more knowledgeable than the general public.
    I would say that means a majority of Dslr owners don't use Raw but occasionally.
    Maybe that is why Nikon didn't design the D7100 with a larger buffer. They seem to
    have designed the D7100 to do Jpeg shooting at full frame rate pretty well, and
    faster in crop mode to meet the expectations of most amateurs that don't use RAW
    but occasionally.
     
  21. hbs

    hbs

    +3 JDM. Another reason for saving a small jpg is if you use on-line backup. If you want to quickly examine a file from another device, the jpgs appear as small thumbnails using many of the on-line services. This doesn't occur with raw files.
     
  22. I shoot JPG only for football and surfing and NEF + large fine JPG for everything else. I will mostly post process with the JPG file and only use the NEF file when the image has been shot under difficult lighting conditions or has other issues. The JPGs from the D7100 are pretty decent by themselves.
     
  23. I always shoot NEF + Large high quality JPEG - memory cards are cheap (relatively speaking)
     
  24. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    I looked up on Dpreview and they did a poll. About 35% used Jpeg alone some of the time.​

    And that affects photography in what way?
     
  25. Why does anybody want to know this?
     
  26. Why do companies do consumer research? Why do we care what others think, and why they
    hold those opinions. Can we learn from others, can we use deductive reasoning why even
    very savvy people make choices. If one can answer these questions and learn from others
    one knows the answer to learning about the world not just photography. Not snarky remarks,
    that have no affects on photography.
     
  27. Maybe that is why Nikon didn't design the D7100 with a larger buffer. They seem to
    have designed the D7100 to do Jpeg shooting at full frame rate pretty well, and
    faster in crop mode to meet the expectations of most amateurs that don't use RAW
    but occasionally.
    Guess Nikon IS ONE SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO KNOW THIS SO THAT THEY COULD
    cut some corners and give most of the people something that they would buy.
    THAT's WHY!!!
     
  28. The limited sample in this thread indicates that most people shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG, so you've concluded that Nikon made their design decisions based on people not shooting RAW. Ahhh, the joys of the internet . . .
     
  29. I almost always shoot raw+JPEG. The best / most important pictures have the raw files added to my permanent archive. JPEG's are great for proofing and providing to friends etc.
     
  30. Here comes an idea...how to separate photograhers from plain quiche eaters?..:)
    ... photographers use RAW.
    If ayone is old enough to remember days when computer programmers were using an Assembler, and Visual Basic was for ""quiche eaters".
     
  31. So is thread then market research?
     
  32. Pro Photographers use FX, Fast Glass and take RAW or RAW+JPEG
    Snappers use DX, Slow Zooms and take only JPEG.....RAW means un-cooked.
    ...at-least that's how NIKON see the World..:)
     
  33. pge

    pge

    Several people have explained why they shoot Raw and Jpeg so I now see how that might look in a workflow. For me, if I want small jpegs to email around or post on facebook I just set Lightroom to export small jpegs. It would drive my archive system crazy to have two formats of every photo. As for quick viewing away from my home, for some reason beyond my understanding my iPad has no problem with Raw files, I just use my camera connection kit and they pop right up.
     
  34. Phil: What your iPad is actually doing is slurping up the lower-resolution JPG that's embedded in the RAW file. You'll notice that no matter what you do, there's a (rather severe) limit to the resolution you can work with when the CCK pulls in a RAW image. It's very cool that it can do it at all, of course! But it's not the same as actually processing the entire image file.
     
  35. I have heard for years that professional sports shooters for the NFL use JPG. Scott Kelby recently confirmed that the professional sports shooters he knows also use JPG. Based on this post, it seems most of the amateurs use raw. Interesting.
     
  36. Michael: Horses for courses. Most professional sports shooters are probably trying to get an image in the next day's news (or possibly the same evening's, now). They likely need to shoot - and review - a large number of images without running out of storage space or risking the camera's buffer being full, a lot of the shots will be in similar lighting so they can take their time to pre-dial white balance and exposure (sometimes, but more than the average shooter), and the results are likely to be seen in a 3" x 2" accompaniment to an article. They probably don't have time to do very much to the image on a computer, and even a graphic designer doing layout probably doesn't have time to do much - and transmitting JPEGs is much easier and faster than doing the same in raw. The more that the camera can be set up to do for you, the more saving there is in the shot-to-publication critical zone.

    A few shots of critical moments will make it to magazine publication, get printed full page on decent paper and have a bit of post-processing, so you wouldn't want to limit the resolution or JPEG quality too much, but I suspect that's a small minority of images, and the money comes from getting the right shot of a sequence to the right publication quickly (and before everyone's blogged a "good enough" version with their phones).

    A staged shot in a magazine is another matter and people can take time to edit the results on a computer; I believe the same is true for wildlife shooting, where quality is more important than timeliness even if you want to avoid a full buffer sometimes - so raw has its place for what I'd call "finer art" images. If it has a timescale on it, JPEG makes a lot of sense. Which isn't far off how I use it: if I don't have time to go and edit starting with the raw files, the JPEGs will often do, and will do faster.

    Not that I'm a pro, and I'm guessing somewhat with the above, but it tallies with what I've generally heard.
     
  37. +1 Andrew G
    Time is very often an issue. For sales on the day, JPEG rules....crop & print = ££s
    On-line sales afterwards may benefit from RAW tweaking. If the light is 'evil', taking RAW is essential.
     
  38. While most answers were interesting, the question wasn't answered. I had hoped someone
    knew of some statistic what percentage of Dslr users used RAW. Some here questioned the
    question, when I went to engineering school in the stone age, asking questions was a sign
    of a mind thirsting for knowledge. This is a forum, one I posted on years ago about 2,000
    times under another username. Much is the same, but kibitzing, and snarkiness, and
    looking beneath the question for relevance if you didn't understand it wasn't usual.
    Shun is their a way to mark the Snarks with Ignore User to filter this pettiness out.
    This isn't relaxing or friendly like it used to be on Photo.net. If you can implement
    ignore user like Yahoo does, it would allow us to talk only with pleasant gentlemanly
    and lady like people.
     
  39. T - I think in the absence of a larger sample, you're getting what people can answer, which is what they do. I don't think questioning a question is a bad thing - it's not like there is a shortage of badly-posed questions on the internet! Some of us are interested in the answers (and in polls elsewhere) for the sake of it; some might like to know what to gain from the information, or think a question might be misleading (and that may just be because they misunderstood it). Sometimes - and I'm more guilty of this than most (and probably more than some would like!) - threads divert from their original subject, but in a way that is interesting and educational; not everyone can be interested in everything, but there's a cost to a rigid adherence to the initial question (though I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't try to answer the question before taking a diversion).

    Maybe I've been on the internet long enough to be immunized to the occasional comment that could be interpreted more aggressively than intended; I've certainly made a few myself. T, I'd encourage you to give people a chance: I find photo.net, and especially the Nikon forum, to be full of helpful and intelligent people. I don't always agree with them, I occasionally wince when I see a choice of turn of phrase, and I sometimes want to sit two people down and get them to solve an argument over a drink, but it's generally worth hearing what people have to say. (Heck, I'm even sometimes interested in what KR has to say, though I certainly don't agree with all of that.) My experience is that this forum is full of balanced people who will point out when something could be misleading if taken out of context. Many places online are populated by people who say a lot and have strong opinions, but have little knowledge and limited reasoning skills. This isn't one of those places, and I find it well worth any slight that I may feel.

    Of course, I could be ignorant of all the people insulting me, and they say that if you can't see the annoying person in the room, it's you. But I'm grateful that people here seem to tolerate me. I'm sorry you feel that you've been treated otherwise.

    Let me put it another way: People can be rude, ignorant, harsh and insulting - less here than in some other places, but it happens. They can still sometimes be right, or there can be a pearl of useful information hidden within the rest of a painful post. I'd hate to see you dismiss everything someone says just because you disagree with some of it. Most of what I say is gibberish, but I hope I'm occasionally useful; your tolerance for sorting the wheat from the chaff is your own business, but I've found few people here who aren't genuinely trying to be helpful most of the time, and I find it well worth any necessary internal filtering on my behalf. I hope you'll choose to feel the same, even if there are forum tools to allow you to do otherwise.
     
  40. I only shoot RAW. With Lightroom or Aperture it is trivial to generate JPEG of any desired size you want.
     
  41. it

    it

    And what does this have to do with photography?
     
  42. I never shoot in .jpg and I think you are mistaken, I would say more shoot in RAW than in .jpg.
     
  43. RAW+jpg:

    OK, I bought a P&S and used it for a while. Then I bought a DSLR. I was clueless about processing so I used some hokey programs for a while to crop, adjust brightness and contrast and things like that. All was OK. I didn't know any better.

    Then one day I changed the white balance away from auto. That was OK, the light was tungsten and the camera had a tungsten white balance setting. The pix looked OK. I forgot to change it back.

    Then the next few shots I took were all blue. I tried to adjust them with my hokey programs and got sort of close to something useful but not very close. So I started to look into better postprocessing programs. Lightroom. DxO. A couple others I don't remember.

    Then I read that the RAW file did better in the postprocessing programs. Since I didn't really have any proficiency with the programs yet, I didn't want to jump into it with all four feet. So I used RAW+jpg. That worked great for me. The jpg was just fine for 90% of the shots (neglecting composition, timing, color sense, etc). The RAW file was there if I needed to adjust something.

    Eventually I developed a modicum of proficiency with the programs and noticed that RAW+jpg was taking up about 30% more space on my cards than the RAW alone. So I switched to RAW only. There was a period of adjustment since now I had to postprocess everything. It turned out to be a good move, because Lightroom encourages me to tag my photos when I import them. Since I am not good at deleting stuff, I have way too many photos in my catalog. The tags are essential to me in finding stuff.

    So essentially I use RAW only because it forces me to go through Lightroom (or whatever other program you might like). That means that all my shots will have at least rudimentary tagging in place and I have a better chance of keeping track of stuff. The 30% is not important any more because I have larger cards. RAW+jpg is the lazy man's way out. No postprocessing required (most of the time).

    Sure, you can add tags outside of Lightroom, but I find it cumbersome so I don't do it.
     
  44. I always wondered why the Nikon D3*** series takes RAW at-all?? (Only half kidding...:))
    After-all, Nikon treat them as so entry level that even their own tethering software doesn't support them!
    RAW+jpg is the lazy man's way out​
    Dwight. Guess that might be true for you, but I suspect you don't take 1000's of images and need to sell 'on the day', usually printed to 12" x 9"...fine JPEG is ideal. However, for on-line sales later, the clients have the option of large to very large Canvas or Poster prints where RAW files rule.
     
  45. Ian and Jeff: the more I learn, even with limited context, about how others use their cameras (and how
    they assume everyone else should use theirs!), the more I think about how I shoot. The more I know
    about how Nikon prioritise their camera interface (which hopefully they do based on similar
    statistics), the less I'll be fighting that interface, or the less I'll resent behaviour that doesn't match my
    workflow. The more I know about what others do, the more practically I can advise others in their
    shooting. Maybe I'll write some software that implements an interesting feature and I want to know
    how many people it'll help - or whether to prioritise raw or JPEG. Maybe I'm writing a camera guide
    and want to know whether raw should be buried at the back "for experts". Maybe I'm offering a cloud
    storage system and want to estimate the average file size.

    You can suggest that the question might tell us something else if it were more specific ("how many of
    you shoot JPEGs when doing event photography?") or if it were rephrased (do you care about the
    difference between raw + JPEG and raw alone?) but there are plenty of possible uses for the question
    alone. (I'm not sure why it needs to be Nikon-specific, but there may be reasons, and I probably
    wouldn't have found the thread in casual conversations, so this isn't a criticism.)

    On the other hand, it's also interesting - without judging - to know what prompted the question.
    Which I hope T will answer, rather than relying on my guesswork.

    To pick another example, I frequently complain that I don't understand how anyone with a lens bigger
    than 50mm can find the AF mode switch to be in a helpful place (I know the manual component is
    dictated by mechanics, but not the AF-S/AF-C or area selectors), or how the ISO button can be
    reached by anyone who hasn't got the camera on a tripod. My photography is unlikely to be improved
    by understanding those who aren't frustrated by these, but I'd feel better if I knew the inconvenience
    was a trade-off that improved ergonomics for someone else. Likewise the removal of trap focus.
    Some have struggled to understand why moving the aperture control to the body has helped - it
    doesn't mean ergonomics will be better for them once they know, but at least there's a reason.
    Sometimes, it's good knowing how the masses are shooting and what (hopefully) drives Nikon and
    others in their decisions.

    (As for why I'm trying to smooth over misunderstandings, it's because I believe everyone on this
    forum can contribute, and I'd like us all to learn from each other as much as possible. If that means
    trying to mollify a member who feels slighted, that's a small price to pay.)
     
  46. Has anyone seen a statistic answer to this question?​
    I'm afraid such a statistic would be impossible to compute in a way to include everybody and even if you use a sample to generate it I doubt you could find a really representative one and you would for sure end up with a degree of confidence that would make it to say you something you couldn't trust.
    In one of the first answers Matt referred sports and with the changes in the media a lot of people, not just in sports, need to send their images right a way from their cameras via wi-fi or they'll loose to the competition, and Jpeg has to be the file format. But will they also record a RAW?
    On the other hand, you will find a lot of beginners that will record RAW+Jpeg because they know Pros and Fine Art photographers only use RAW. Some of these people will end up using only the Jpeg files others will eventually start to convert the RAWs and from this point I suspect not everybody will adopt the same practices in the future.
    But you question could include another aspect: how many people that use Jpeg set their cameras to generate files for direct printing (sRGB, and other adjustments) or in a way that will require digital edition (Adobe RGB)?
     
  47. No statistics, but I'll wager that the larger percentage of DSLR users shoot only/mostly jpegs.
    That's because the vast majority of DSLR users (of which participation in the photo.net forums does not proportionally represent) are entry level users shooting pics of their kids and such.​
    Agreed, but the percentage also applies to the PN participants, entry level or otherwise. I will also add the following percentages, in descending order:
    - those who have neither the patience to read the 500 page user's manuals, nor the technical knowledge about their dslrs' capabilities, and turn over all the controls to the auto (and/or default) settings
    - those who have read the 500 page user's manuals, from cover to cover
    - those who can digest everything they have read and get them right
    - those who can digest the sections they are interested in and get them right
    - those who can set up their dslrs correctly for their needs based on what they have digested
    BTW, why is the thread in the Nikon forum?
     
  48. Spearhead

    Spearhead Moderator

    Ian and Jeff: the more I learn, even with limited context, about how others use their cameras​

    Knowing how many people do something is useless information unless you have no interest in making photos the way you want to.
     
  49. In martial arts, knowing what people (opponents do) are apt to do is essential knowledge, why
    they do it explains a thought process. "unless you have no interest in making photos the way
    you want to" what are you babbling about? Who takes an exposure with a camera not
    the way they want to? The camera made you do it.
     
  50. Robert: You're quite possibly right that those who shoot JPEG through choice and those who shoot it through "not knowing any better" may be two different sets. :) I'll defend T's original question in that the total numbers are quite interesting to know as well, but I certainly think that a breakdown of the information would be even more informative in some areas. But not knowing why T (primarily) wanted to know, I wouldn't want to divert people from answering the original question!
    Knowing how many people do something is useless information unless you have no interest in making photos the way you want to.​
    Jeff: Could you elaborate on that conclusion? I disagree so violently that I think I must misunderstand what you're saying!

    If a large majority of people are doing something, that's a strong indication that there's a common reason for doing it. That reason may or may not be valid for what I'm doing, but I'd at least like to consider it. You can be shooting for a long time and still realise that you're doing something wrong - technology changes, for a start. For example, it took me over a year of shooting in auto-ISO and aperture priority before I realised that - on a D700 - the way to be able to adjust the shutter speed to compensate for lens zoom is to use manual mode and auto-ISO instead (though it's a little less flexible when you bump into minimum ISO unexpectedly). Admittedly, I'm an idiot, but there are still occasionally posts from people who haven't realised that manual + ISO is useful (KR included). If I'd asked "how many people shoot in manual mode" at some point, the answer might have prompted me to ask "why?" and learn from it. We've had a recent thread discussing whether to turn off VR on supertelephotos - the numbers of people getting success from each approach is interesting.

    One person saying "I've tried this and it worked" is only a very limited recommendation - as I proved in the recent thread about shooting events in the dark, where my "out of the box" suggestions were clearly not the accepted practice for getting reliable images. (That's fine, I learnt that most people get enough good images by doing the default thing, and the OP hopefully learnt not to follow my suggestions to the exclusion of the advice of more experienced event photographers; win/win.) If it had just been two sets of competing advice - though I'd always defer to the people in question - a reader may not know who's right. If only a minority of people ever disagreed with KR, people might not treat him with the desired caution. Occasionally, numbers tell us about equipment - I'm not alone in having trouble with my 150-500 or 135 f/2, but clearly there are happy customers as well. The recent thread about the Sigma 35 f/1.4 indicated to me that more people have it than I'd realised, and I've been encouraged to consider the effect of that focal length and a fast aperture more than I otherwise might.

    There are plenty of things in photography that make no sense to me. Why do consumer DSLRs beep by default? Why are most tilt-shift lenses set up to shift at 90 degrees to the tilt? (I know an answer why this is sometimes useful, but not why it's usually useful.) Why are flashes not set to default to second curtain? Did Canon put the DoF preview on the wrong side of the mount on consumer bodies just to differentiate the high end? Why does Nikon put the AF and ISO controls where I can't reach them without putting the camera down? Who benefits from the removal of trap focus? Why can't AI-S lenses be used with automatic aperture control on a DSLR? Why won't Canon activate the AF sensor on manual focus lenses? Why did Samsung design a new mirrorless lens mount that can't have M lenses adapted to it? What's the compelling feature of the Leica X-Vario? If most people understand all these, I'm missing something that may make me better. If only a few people benefit from the things that seem strange to me, either we should petition the manufacturers to fix it, or we all have something to learn.

    Just because I can work out one way to make the photos I want doesn't mean I've worked out the best way. Lots of people here will choose to dismiss any information about a rangefinder or a waist-level finder as antiquated and unnecessary, but may lose out by doing so (just as some obsessive Leica shooters could do with seeing what the fuss is about). Most of the information posted here is useful in some shape or form - sometimes it needs thinking about, sometimes it's a straight answer that avoids the need for a lot of research, and sometimes a question prompts me to go off and learn about something. "There are no stupid questions," and there aren't many stupid answers - just ones that require further analysis, if you can take the time to do it. The worst case is when you know better than everyone who's posted, in which case you get to teach and improve everyone else.

    And if you really can't see any reason to need to know something (and you are either sure you won't learn from being given a reason, or you know the reason doesn't apply to you), you can always ignore it. There's no rule that every post - or thread - has to be of interest to everyone. And I'm certainly prepared to be ignored.
     
  51. In martial arts, knowing what people (opponents do) are apt to do is essential knowledge, why they do it explains a thought process.​
    Absolutely. (Though I'm also interested in whether your question had an ulterior motive!)
    "unless you have no interest in making photos the way you want to" what are you babbling about?​
    I may be sensitive because I sit on a standards group in which people recently started to call each other's ideas "half-baked" and "deliberately obstructive", but given that tempers already seem to be a little inflamed on this thread, could you please try to avoid words like "babbling"? It feels as though people might not be in the mood to take a slightly pejorative term in a way that would be constructive. I'm also confused by Jeff's statement and would like an elaboration, but I don't think accusing him of babbling is productive. (Likewise for any other heated remarks - by anyone - in this thread.)
    Who takes an exposure with a camera not the way they want to? The camera made you do it.​
    You're welcome to borrow my old Eos 300D and see whether you still think that statement is facetious... (Especially if you switch it back to the default BIOS, which is especially crippled.)
     
  52. It's ironic this question would turn up in the Nikon forum because Canon does "simultaneous" RAW + JPG better because they can give a half-resolution file of under 1MB which is handy for unprocessed distribution. But I still turn these two-file options off when I need the continuous shooting speed. When I am certain I have the white balance nailed I feel safe with JPG.
     
  53. Nico - you mean Canon's "small raw" formats? I do envy that (as a D800 owner), though I've also been known to use the DX crop (or the 5x4) to save space. I'm too incompetent to trust my exposure and white balance for a critical subject in JPEG, but I'll resort to it when needed. I'm still getting used to the D800's writing the raw and JPEG to different cards meaning that I need to delete the same junk image twice... Still, the higher-end Nikons give you separate control of the size of the JPEG. (I'm not very pleased that, e.g., the D3000 will only let you store a JPEG in basic quality next to the raw file.)
     
  54. Canon does "simultaneous" RAW + JPG better because they can give a half-resolution file of under 1MB which is handy for unprocessed distribution
    I think that is just awesome, I wish we had that in the Nikon D7100, sending out emails of small size is a great idea.
     
  55. Phil, I used to shoot Raw plus JPEG so that I could do full-screen previews of my images in order to decide which to process and convert from Raw to jpeg. I'd never save those in-camera JPEGS. then, I found the Irfanview program and now use that to preview my Raw images. --David Stephens (Emphasis supplied.)​
    David, I have shooting raw plus JPEGS for years, but until I read the above I had no idea that Irfan view would allow one to preview raw files using Irfan. I have never been able to see the raw files on Irfan--but I just did a download of all plug-ins, and now I can! Oh, wow, is that going to save me some time and space.
    The nice thing about Irfan is how fast the free Irfan program loads and how fast the files display. This is great news.
    Thank you!
    --Lannie
     
  56. I use Photo Mechanic which shows full screen previews of RAW files based on the jpg image imbedded in the RAW file. Apparently all RAW files have an imbedded jpg image but I don't know how to extract the jpg image separately.
     
  57. Cameras like the Canon XXD series now allow both half-resolution raw and half-resolution jpeg simultaneously at a fine and normal setting. You can set the size of both independently. For 8 megapixels small normal jpeg gives a 400-500KB file, for 18 megapixels Canon says 1.1MB.
    If you've never read a photography article you might never learn the advantages of shooting raw, so I suppose there must be a high percentage of people who forego it for the smaller file sizes and quicker reading. But probably NOT the people who are going to see and respond to an online poll!!! (A self-selecting bias).
    Personally I do not find raw + full size fine jpeg useful. It doesn't really back up the file if written to the same card, and if I am using raw as well then I will only want jpeg as something rough and ready to quickly display on the computer screen or send immediately. So I think Canon has it right on these options. Is there any Nikon that will do a reduced-resolution jpg secondary file? The D300s wouldn't do this for me.
     
  58. Just RAW for me now. I import everything into lightroom onto two hardisks. I find it works well for me but I am usually importing less than 400 photos at a time. I have tried to shoot only JPGs and will experiment with that some more. I like the idea of just JPGs shot correctly and not needing to be post processed at all. Seems a shame to me that many compacts can produce really nice looking JPGs but JPGs from higher end DSLRs often fall short with the excuse that serious photographs like to post process their own photos.
     
  59. If a large majority of people are doing something, that's a strong indication that there's a common reason for doing it.​
    There are several reasons why the buyers own dSLRs, AND can't get the MOST out of them, AND don't care. The vast majority of them.

    - With the encouragement of the manufacturers, these buyers believe that the dSLRs will get them better photos, and the newer version the better.
    - The dSLRs' auto/default settings will get them "satisfactory" photos easily, and most of the time.
    - They want instant gratification, from releasing the shutter to using an image.
    - They can't tell the difference between photos taken with the auto/default settings vs those taken with customized settings.
    - They don't make poster size prints to be hung in galleries.
    - They just want to take photos that they think are "good", and don't give a *&%$ about the nitty-gritty crap they don't understand. [And how I envy them.]
    - Carrying a dSLR with a name brand strap tells the world that they are "serious".
     
  60. No, I've never seen a statistic about this.
     
  61. If one want to know what the overall general population of DSLR users do, this is not, or any other internet forum, the place to find out. People who search out and join forums are a self selected group of enthusiasts. In addition, only a small number of forum members contribute to threads. I also find it interesting that most of the responders to this thread interpreted your question as Do you set the camera to JPGs, RAW or both? and not Do you always shoot JPG's, or RAW, or it depends on what you're shooting? Pnet is the home of 2 dimensional, linear thinkers.
     
  62. Pnet is the home of 2 dimensional, linear thinkers.​
    Thank you very much Bruce...and it's good to count on the exception to alert the linear masses...as a matter of fact it wouldn't be even conceivable a linear thinker could read the "depends on what you're shooting" part of the OP's initial question.
     
  63. Do you always shoot JPG's, or RAW, or it depends on what you're shooting?

    It depends on what I'm shooting -- the majority being RAW only, for landscapes. Jpeg large/fine for sports/action/buffer-filling shoots, and family/casual.
    A sub-set question of the "Joint Photographers Expert Group" capture method is, do you often convert your Jpeg large/fine to a TIFF file prior to editing -- if they do need to be edited? I do convert to Jpegs to TIFF ... sometimes, but I don't always save the TIFF + Jpeg. There isn't much that I always do. That is, I like to shoot film too.
    Pnet is the home of 2 dimensional, linear thinkers.
    Where do the multi-dimensional, non-linear thinkers call home? Maybe not on the Internet. Maybe in camera clubs.



     
  64. I also find it interesting that most of the responders to this thread interpreted your question as Do you set the camera to JPGs, RAW or both? and not Do you always shoot JPG's, or RAW, or it depends on what you're shooting? Pnet is the home of 2 dimensional, linear thinkers.​
    We Cartesian logic linear thinkers immediately saw the logical implications of what would be the case if we did NOT shoot only JPEGs or raws.
    Long live logic. Long live linearity. Long live Descartes.
    Viva la fotografía.

    íViva!
    --Lannie
     
  65. Again another person who misunderstood the question or read into it something not there.
    I came to PN asking a question because people here read web posts, books, articles in
    magazines, and I thought maybe someone could answer the question with some
    source I could not find. While what you do with your own photography was interesting
    alas nobody had any more of an answer than I could find just using Bing and Google
    searching.
     
  66. pge

    pge

    Seems a shame to me that many compacts can produce really nice looking JPGs but JPGs from higher end DSLRs often fall short with the excuse that serious photographs like to post process their own photos.​
    This doesn't have to be true. If you want that sort of Jpeg out of a DSLR just set it up that way. Lots of colour, lots of sharpening, lots of noise reduction, it will produce photos any way you want. It just takes some time in the settings to match your taste. Yes it is true that many like a more neutral photo because they work better in post production, but that does not mean that a dslr is only capable of producing that kind of shot.
     
  67. "Again another person who misunderstood the question or read into it something not there.
    I came to PN asking a question because people here read web posts, books, articles in
    magazines, and I thought maybe someone could answer the question with some
    source I could not find. While what you do with your own photography was interesting
    alas nobody had any more of an answer than I could find just using Bing and Google
    searching."
    You were given the answer very early that you were going to get no objective answer because the only way a sample is likely to be obtained is from visits to a photography website which is a self-selecting sample and not representative of the rest that don't bother to read about photography. You also were questioned by someone on why it should matter, since you could use your own rationale for what you do. The rest was people chattering, which is what happens on a forum. Well I never :D
    Oddly enough I don't remember anyone mention printing. I have no idea if any printing terminal in any shop reads raw files.
     
  68. Wow, you'd think the original poster had asked if "photoshop is cheating." Not an emotional decision for me. I want and must produce the best image possible, often instantly in less than ideal situations with little control, eg. events, weddings. In studio I usually have the time and control, but the quality and flexibility I have with post makes my choice pretty easy. RAW. I do understand the need to get images posted quickly, but I don't and prefer not to even let the unedited images be seen. My final work product isn't just capture or photoshop, it's my entire workflow from the moment I load the gear in the truck to delivery of the final image. I do know of famous wedding photographers shooting in jpeg only and getting 50k/wedding. Get it right in camera. As a fisherman, I am constantly checking my knots in case a fish of a lifetime comes by. I don't want a jpeg limiting potential fixes for a shot of a lifetime that couldn't be captured even close to perfect, but could have made the cut if shot in RAW. Besides, can't you just create an action to do exactly what jpeg does to the raw and bulk process the whole download in a couple of clicks? I would expect there is an action on line somewhere.
     
  69. There are no reliable statistics on this.​
    and....
    Again another person who misunderstood the question or read into it something not there.I came to PN asking a question because people here read web posts, books, articles in magazines, and I thought maybe someone could answer the question with some source I could not find. While what you do with your own photography was interesting alas nobody had any more of an answer than I could find just using Bing and Google searching.​
    brings us back to....
    That's because it's not a very useful question. Knowing some statistics would not help anyone's photography or equipment purchases. What people have done is answered the useful questions, "When do you shoot (one or the other)?"​
    Could that be the answer to the OP's actual question? Just asking.
     
  70. Oddly enough I don't remember anyone mention printing. I have no idea if any printing terminal in any shop reads raw files.​
    Nico - you got there before me. It's possible that some online print shops might keep some internal statistics that would allow them to tell whether an image appears to be being printed exactly as captured by the camera, or whether it's been edited. That's not the same thing as "shooting raw", because editing may have started with a JPEG (some forensic analysis - are there signs of repeated JPEG compression? - might help) and the EXIF data may be mangled, and it would be selecting the subset of people who use (that) print service, but that data set might be available somewhere. You might be able to get at the EXIF data from one of the image sharing sites, though that may be the kind of thing they'd like to charge you for - again, you'd be selecting the people who use file sharing. You could probably abuse the Google image search interface, or write your own web crawler, to peer at EXIF data but again, images on the web are not all images, and a lot will have EXIF stripped.

    For compacts, there are probably some statistics on the proportion of cameras that can't shoot raw; for DSLRs, not so much.

    Clearly nobody who's posted so far has the statistics available (or wants to keep them as a commercial advantage!), but I hope the above suggestions might be a way to get a better sample set than we can provide here. T: should you manage to acquire this data, I'm sure it'd be interesting to know. What did you find from Bing and Google?
    Again another person who misunderstood the question or read into it something not there.​
    T, I was hoping you might share why you wanted to know. We're generally trying to be helpful, and that sometimes means providing peripheral information that might be of use - and we don't know it isn't until you tell us what you're actually trying to find out. Frankly, compared with some people I've interviewed recently, an answer that's even vaguely related to the original question is an improvement.
    There are several reasons why the buyers own dSLRs, AND can't get the MOST out of them, AND don't care. The vast majority of them.​
    Absolutely, Robert. I'm not saying that if the majority of people do something, they're right - I've used Microsoft Word, for example, but nobody will persuade me that everyone uses it on merit. (In my experience, people are, on balance, idiots. That includes me.) I'm just saying that if the majority of people (or a large minority) do something, it may be worth finding out why they're doing it - then I can decide whether I disagree. It's sometimes worth working out why a very small number of people are doing something as well, but it seems sensible to rely on the masses to notice when something's a good idea and treat this as triage. There will always be a small number of people doing something weird for bad reasons.
    I also find it interesting that most of the responders to this thread interpreted your question as Do you set the camera to JPGs, RAW or both? and not Do you always shoot JPG's, or RAW, or it depends on what you're shooting?​
    Actually, you're quite right that the original question was ambiguous. I would think that anyone on this forum would know enough to adjust their settings depending on what they shoot, which is why the answers based on personal experience have tended to be, at least implicitly, "I usually do this". If the question is "how many images were captured in raw vs the number captured in JPEG?", the best source for that statistic may be the suggestions I made above. If the question is "how many DSLR users only ever use raw?" then I suspect the answer is "a vanishingly small number", because even those who almost always use raw are likely to know enough to switch to JPEG when it makes sense to do so (yes, Stuart?) If the question is "how many DSLR users only ever shoot JPEG?", that's going to be almost impossible to know without a big survey, and - while I could believe that one of Amateur Photographer's weekly reader polls might have asked this - I doubt many such surveys are well-phrased and unbiased.
    Pnet is the home of 2 dimensional, linear thinkers.​
    A little harsh, since the posts based on personal experience usually clarified either interpretation. The question didn't even mention JPEG + raw, though there were plenty of answers that resolved that ambiguity. Of course Pnet is the home of two-dimensional thinkers: it's full of photographers. Linear is one-dimensional.

    I'm proud to be a linear thinker. Although the line in question may be a Hilbert curve...
     
  71. A sub-set question of the "Joint Photographers Expert Group" capture method is, do you often convert your Jpeg large/fine to a TIFF file prior to editing -- if they do need to be edited​
    I'd meant to pick up on that one, Christopher: for what it's worth, having had to try to read the format in the past, TIFF generally fills me with dread because the format's so complicated, especially where 16-bit support is incorporated. If I want to store images in a portable lossless format I've tended to use PNG, but to be honest I tend just to save the (16-bit) Photoshop files of anything I've spent time editing; if the cloud dies, I'll live with needing to reconstruct things from raw or the final (usually) JPEG edit. Since I keep the raw files, I don't bother to save a separate "pre-editing" version.
     
  72. pge

    pge

    Besides, can't you just create an action to do exactly what jpeg does to the raw and bulk process the whole download in a couple of clicks? I would expect there is an action on line somewhere.​
    Bob, it sounds to me like you use Photoshop to process your Raw files. Just an assumption based on the word "action" and the question about how one might process all of their raw files in a couple of clicks. If I am right I highly recommend that you give Lightroom a try. Yes you can convert all of your raw files in a bulk process in a couple of clicks.
     
  73. Sports and news shooters shoot JPEG files and work hard to get them to look right in camera. If you shoot the winning touchdown in the Super Bowl, your editor will need to have that image available immediately so they can up load it to, say, ESPN or CNN/SI's website. There's no time to process a raw file.
    The raw file might be used to optimize the shot for print media if there's enough time before the issue's deadline, but in today's fast paced world, even that is questionable.
     
  74. +1 Dan South. I'will be shooting at the local carnival for my local village newspaper. After the event, I hand over my SD card to the paper. They look at the images to decide what they can use. There's no time for RAW processing, so it's JPEGS for this situation. I'll be shooting RAW plus fine JPEG in case there are images I can use in other ways. For the rest of what I shoot, it's RAW only.
     
  75. Can't answer the poster's question directly but I'm getting closer: Pro sports 100% jpg, pro journalists 80%+ jpg, pro marriage 50%+ jpg, consumers 90%+ jpg, and serious amateur 80%+RAW. No actual statistics to support my percentages, just estimates based on conversations on this post and other photography blogs. Many fine art photographers still use film.
     
  76. I am a professional photographer (4-decades as a pro) supplying high resolution images for books, calendars, adverts,
    magazines (including covers and double-page spreads), large posters and gallery framed prints, but shoot all my pro
    cameras in jpeg (large-fine) format. Sometimes I shoot Tiffs in-camera, but 98% is in-camera jpeg. For many years I shot
    in Raw only or Raw + Jpeg, but because I set up the Canon, Panasonic and Nikon pro bodies to capture images that
    reflect my inner-vision on location, drastic post-editing is rarely needed so I stopped using Raw. However I would also add that in-camera
    jpegs/tiffs shot on cameras such as D800, 5D Mk3; GH3/4 etc can be post-edited and adjusted a lot without degrading an
    image enough to show on the printed page, even for high quality landscapes.
     

Share This Page