5d: is there any reason to shoot jpegs?

[john_kramer3]

I'm going on long trip with a new 5d, and despite my memory cards and external

hard drive, storage space is still an issue. The primary purpose of my shooting

will be to get about 1000-2000 images and wind up with maybe 20 fantastic shots

to later frame/etc.

 

I'm wondering - is there any reason in the world I would need to shoot jpegs? It

seems that I can just shoot in raw, and if I want jpegs later, get them off the

raw. I think I'm missing something, as there obviously must be reason the

camera supports shooting raw and jpeg simultaneously, and my photographer

friends all seem to shoot in raw + small jpeg mode. Can somebody explain this

to me? Is it just so much more difficult to proof images off of the raw format?

you can't tell what's a good shot and whats not? thanks!

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

Just shoot raw. That's all you need. You're on the right track--don't worry about the "why". Good luck.

[PuppyDigs]

5D Jpegs are excellent. However RAW is even better and loaded with additional creative and

technical options. After spending all the time and money to buy a 5D, travel and shoot

thousands of images, why settle for second best?

 

The only reason to shoot JPEGs is if you were out in the sticks and about to run out of CF card

space.

 

When I first bought a 10D in 2003 I shot RAW + JPEG. After a year I realized I hadn't opened a

single JPEG file, so I decided to save space and shot RAW only.

[ilkka]

A few reasons come to mind that might be important during your trip. In many cameras, you cannot enlarge Raw images on the camera's LCD screen. With these cameras, taking a jpeg as well allows one to check the focus and thus delete some bad images and actually save space that way. Not sure how 5D works in this respect. Similarly, in some portable hard disks, you can only see jpegs, while in others you can see raws but not enlarge them. So again, a small jpeg might help verify what you got. And finally, if you transfer images to CDs along the way, it may be easier to check jpegs in the shop or at your friends house where you transfer the images. Jpegs can be seen in just about all computers while raws need specific software. Even more finally, while raw is better, it does take more space. If you run out of card space it is better to start shooting jpegs well before that happens rather than not to shoot at all.

[bobatkins]

Coverting RAW files takes time. It can take a LOT of time depending on your workflow and PC speed, especially if you want to convert 2000 of them! You don't have to convert them to proof them, but they are still slower to load and you need software that can handle them.

 

If I'm worried I'll shoot RAW+ large/fine JPEG. The JPEG files are immediately available and 95% of the time (maybe 99% of the time) they are all I need. If I have to do some extreme corrections I'd do it via a RAW conversion. I then file the rest of the RAW files away on DVD just in case I ever need them. Usually I don't. I normally wouldn't worry just shooting JPEGs. I stil think the advantages of shooting RAW are overated for most images, though I do agree that if you really screw up with exposure etc., RAW can save an otherwise unusable image (though it still won't be good!).

 

Most of the time storage space isn't an issue. I have a 20GB backup portable drive and a laptop with 40GB od free disk space and a dual-layer DVD burner, as well as about 5GB of CF cards. As long as I have the laptop along, storage space is essentially infinite.

[lovcom_photo]

I shoot 4,200 images on a recent trip to Italy. All raw. Sure it takes a lot of time to cull the keepers, post process, etc, but would I have it any other way? No way...for your precious vacation images, why go sub-par....shoot raw, and if your post processing skills are crud now, no matter....you can always reprocess the raws when your skills improve.

 

I hope to get at least 600 keepers from the 4,200.

 

For vacations and other important shots, I see no reason to shoot JPG...if space is what you're worried about, buy some more CF cards and/or more image tanks...they're all cheap...by the way John, since most tanks are cheap bring two....mirror them....to often harddrives crash.

[digitmstr]

RAW offers the ultimate in quality and control. JPG is the ultimate in speed and practicality. Whichever is best for the occasion is up to you to decide. I shoot JPGs most of the time.

[gluteal cleft]

Not only can you convert to RAW later, you can extract a camera-produced JPG from the RAW image, it's what the camera uses for preview. It's probably about 1500x1000, which is sufficient for preview or web use.

 

steve

[RobertChura]

I shoot raw, but recently found it is easier to shoot raw + Jpeg so I can give certain images to family as jpegs without processing the raw files. Very simple and easy to just download jpegs for them and keep a Raw file for me. The 5D has both as individual files where my 10D I had to extract the Jpegs (a pain). Otherwise I would just shoot raw.

[JeffOwen]

I am getting ready for my 2 month trip round the World and have got myself a 80Gb Archos that has a 5X3 inch LCD screen. To use it to review my shots I intend to shoot RAW and small jpg as it does not display RAW.

[j.kivekas]

To my knowledge most photojournalistic shots are taken in jpg simply for workflow reasons. When I cover a motor racing happening I use RAW when I know the photo can be used for two page opening or the lighting is difficult (lack of light or high contrast situ). When it is cloudy and easy light there is really not that much difference since the camera can make it "perfect" even with jpg. You just need to have a feel for the conditions to understand where RAW makes true difference.

[jim_larson1]

I am a RAW hog. Heck. . .I bought my P&S based on the fact that IT can shoot RAW.

 

I take 1000's of pics on vacation. I keep them ALL (of course. . only a couple are framed. . .but I keep and enjoy 95%+ of the images)

 

My goal is to finish post processing before the NEXT vacation. Drives my friends nuts :)

[gary_sissons1]

Iown a 5D and I'm really happy with the Jpegs out of the Camera, I use an Expodisc to get my white balance on shots that might be of more impotance but for general shots I shoot mainly Jpegs and I find the auto white balance acceptable, But if I was going to be shooting photo's to be enlarged and framed I would shoot Raw + Jpeg the Raw would be for my high end stuff and the jpeg to give me a quick look at what I have, I have a Vosonic VP8360 80gig Portable Storage Device

www.vosonic.com I have found this an excellent storage device and the spare batteries are cheap so you can carry an extra one with you. I think that you could take jpegs of stuff that are only for the record the sort of stuff that you wouldn't print anyway but don't forget to change to Raw for the important stuff. I have the button on the command wheel set for picture quality to make it quicker for me to adjust. I also use a sturdy tripod and use mirror lockup for the longer exposures. I hope you enjoy youre trip and have fun with one of the best cameras I have ever owned, I also own a 1D mkII although this camera is used for other types of shooting I must say the files on the 5D are fabulous. Regards Gary

[savas_kyprianides]

When not shooting raw photos for subjects I like, I am occasionally using the 5D during my

day job for

survey photos and will shoot jpeg - they are only for the record or analysis and not objects of

beauty. The 5D spoiled me and I can't bring myself to bring my pocketable point and shoot,

despite being loaded down with other gear. And I will occasionally switch to Raw when a

subject presents itself during the course of travel to and from jobsites.

[wingell]

I can think of "one good reason in the world" (I love such pronouncements) to shoot jpegs with my Canon digital SLRs: let's say I've just finished a news assignment I got a couple hours earlier; I've found a Kinko's or Starbucks or McDonalds (yes, many McDonalds have wi-fi) and I have about 30 minutes to eyeball 200 images, select a half dozen or so, process them and transmit to a photo desk person 200 miles away who really doesn't want to be responsible for delaying the early edition of a million-circulation newspaper. Large/fine jpegs are just what they say--fine, thank you. Cheers...Bill

[KenPapai]

Bill's reply, just above here, is the only argument for shooting JPG -- on assignment and the images have to be in the central office for publication NOW.

 

Only other JPG-only reason is for snapshots, pure and simple.

 

You have a 5D! It is an advanced SLR. SLR means you want to have the final say in your pictures, not the camera's processor that takes the sensor data and gives you just a JPG (final product).

 

A 5D is not a point-and-shoot.

[bennyboy]

Nobody mentioned that RAW files are 12 bits per pixel per channel as opposed to 8 for jpegs. This equates to smoother RAW colour and tone gradations allowing for superior quality prints.

[geoff_doane]

I think the question has more or less been answered by now, but here's my take on it:

 

I usually shoot RAW+Small Fine Jpeg with my 5D. That gives me all the original data in case I need to save a shot because I screwed up, the camera didn't get the white balance right (which it usually does) or I get one real killer shot that belongs on a magazine cover. The small/fine jpegs take up relatively little memory (about 10% of RAW) but they are often fine for e-mailing or web purposes (and even then, they still have to be downsized).

 

With the Drebel I used previously, I would shoot in RAW, but it took forever to review pictures on the computer. Each one had to be converted before you could check details like focus.

 

If you can shoot chromes, and nail every shot, then maybe jpeg only is for you. If you liked having the possibility of post processing with negative film, then stick with RAW.

 

The only time I won't shoot RAW is in high volume situations that aren't of any great importance, or times when I know I will get plenty of chances to get the shot right, and I don't want to mess around with post processing (the time factor).

 

Geoff

[dmanthree]

I guess I'm in the minority that feels the JPGs produced by the 5D stink, especially when compared to the results from RAW conversions. I never shoot JPG for that reason. Limited dynamic range, inability to correct white balance, etc really ruin JPG for me. I never shoot JPG.

[shawngibson]

Jpegs from the 5D DO stink. Get it right and you're fine, otherwise, especially with groos underexposure or a little overexposure...good luck!

 

Though I'm not sure it's a 5D thing, per se. I always shoot RAW.

 

Shawn www.shawngibson.com

[jon_austin]

Ken Papai: "SLR means you want to have the final say in your pictures, not the camera's processor that takes the sensor data and gives you just a JPG (final product)."

 

I shoot JPEGs almost exclusively, but the images out of my camera (20D) are *rarely* "final products." I'll still crop them, frequently correct for lens distortions, occasionally adjust levels or colors, and usually clean up high ISO noise. But the quality of the JPEGs is so fantastic that I'm rarely interested in shooting RAW.

 

"A 5D is not a point-and-shoot."

 

But it can be used as one, if and when you want to.

[lovcom_photo]

Word to the wise....you better get a 2nd image tank...to depend upon one tank for so many images (5,000+) is suicidal at best.

 

Tanks are cheap....and they often crash....mechanical drives can crash, so are you going to trust your one tank to hold 2 months of images? 5,000+ images?

 

The 2nd tank should be used as a mirror of the first tank.

 

Imagine how you'll feel if you lose, or damage your 1 image tank!

 

Ouch!

[KenPapai]

<i>"I shoot JPEGs almost exclusively, but the images out of my camera (20D) are *rarely* "final products." I'll still crop them, frequently correct for lens distortions, occasionally adjust levels or colors, and usually clean up high ISO noise. But the quality of the JPEGs is so fantastic that I'm rarely interested in shooting RAW."</i>

<p>

True 'nuff but editing images shot exclusively in JPG is editing images with your hands tied behind your back. With RAW you have the full 12 bits of data to work with (and I am not talking about trivial stuff like cropping or down-sizing for email or Web display). None of this is news or folklore either. I don't intend to educate anymore on Raw vs. JPG.

<p>

You'll find the quality when you start with the original RAW capture even that much slightly better, especially since you are so interested in the Top Shelf (Raw is top, and JPG about 16 levels below it). Facts are nice things.

[andrew robertson]

"In many cameras, you cannot enlarge Raw images on the camera's LCD screen."

 

I think you have always been able to enlarge RAW images on Canon cameras.

 

"When I cover a motor racing happening I use RAW when I know the photo can be used for

two page opening or the lighting is difficult (lack of light or high contrast situ). When it is

cloudy and easy light there is really not that much difference since the camera can make it

"perfect" even with jpg."

 

Some of the things that can not be corrected easily or at all in JPG are trivial to correct in

RAW including shadow noise, CA, and color casts. I sometimes have problems with them

all on a cloudy day!

[andrew robertson]

Additionally, with smarter programs such as ACR2 adjusting for color casts and optimal

dynamic range is a snap. It will suggest certain exposure adjustments for you, and while

they are not always perfect the program is pretty darn close. When going through a shoot,

it helps a lot to see the previews of the RAW file that are already adjusted for exposure,

color cast, etc.