Got a 20D? What do you shoot? jpeg or raw?

[keith warren]

I moved up from the digital rebel to the 20D today. I also added a

70-200/2.8 to the collection. My initial snapshots in the yard of

the kids were better than expected and I am looking forward to what

this combination will allow me to do. With the Rebel, I always shot

raw and converted using DPP. While researching to be sure that I

wanted to upgrade from the Rebel to the 20D, I read a couple of

articles questioning shooting in raw with the 20D. I also question

shooting 'snapshots' in raw, but I am standing strong in shooting

planned shots in raw. I guess I am curious as to what mode others

shoot in for 'snapshots', serious amateur work and pro work? I

intend to fully investigate this myself, but again, I am curious as

to what others have decided for themselves.

[jcolwell]

I shoot RAW plus small/normal JPEG all of the time. I try to be consistent as it reduces the number of errors that I make. I can use simple and fast tools to preview thumbnails and for a quick look-see at the JPEG files, and then fire up the appropriate RAW file if I want to get serious. I get a nominal number of 99 images per 1 GB SanDisk Ultra II card, which is 198 files.

[PuppyDigs]

I always shoot RAW as I prefer to control the parameters during conversion as I see fit.

Once you commit to JPEG you lose options and possiblities. I consider RAW files to be

similar to a negative when I had a darkroom: it's always open to interpretation and

improvement (especially in the future when your skills and/or tastes change).

[gavin_.1]

JPEGs, mostly of my kid. If you shoot masses of photos to catch those fleeting expressions, RAW soon becomes limiting...

[robin_sibson1]

I always shoot RAW. I can think of circumstances where RAW+JPEG would be useful, for various kinds of quick-preview purposes. If you plan to shoot JPEG only, you are throwing away a lot of your investment in the upgrade to the 20D.

[bobatkins]

Mostly JPEG. If you get the exposure and color balance right, you don't lose anything by not shooting RAW. I'll shoot RAW if I don't know what I'm doing and/or expect to have to do a significant amount of post-exposure processing.

[david_french3]

I have a 10D, but I shoot mostly JPG for travel shots, architecture, candids etc, only using

RAW when I'm shooting something in controlled circumstances - such as portraits.

 

I've not found that JPG quality is limiting, even for "good" pics being printed at A4 size and

mounted, but prefer that little bit extra control you get with RAW if I'm doing something I

want to get perfect. Particularly when I'm shooting indoors and want to easily fiddle with the

white balance.

[jim_larson1]

I am always confused by this question. This is digital. Why NOT shoot raw? You can always process "as shot", and walk away from the computer after 2 minutes of work.

 

Having said that, My "basic" raw converter is old -> I am probably 3 or more versions back on my Canon software. I recently tried to pump out "as shot" JPEGs after a trip -> Ewww. What a mistake! The images were a blocky, blurry, low contrast MESS. Now processing the batch using C1 -> but even working quick, that takes 2-3 minutes per image.

[ozone42]

I only shoot raw if I have a difficult lighting situation as you've got a bit more data to work with in recovering shadowed areas. I find the jpegs to be very good in most cases. I have lots of prints from jpgs with just a little USM in photoshop that get rave reviews.

[dogbert]

Nearly always JPEG. I tend to shoot a lot of pics, mostly travel and landscape and prefer not to have to process most of them. The good ones I season to taste a bit with Photoshop. I don't feel I miss anything with large/fine JPEG, but I am always careful with exposure when shooting.

[Rob_L1664876404]

Always RAW. I do a lot of shooting in lighting situations that aren't a good fit for either auto or the preset color temps in the camera. I usually shoot a gray card and/or ExpoDisc frame in each lighting situation and do my conversions in Capture One where I can get the white balance right.

[chrisjb]

Hi, 99% Jpeg. we do mainly flash pix restaurant and event, weddings etc we rarely have problems with colour or exposure so its more convenient. Our work is downloaded printed and in the post a lot quicker than RAw. Occasionaly use RAW for personal stuff like landscape or one off images in the studio to print beyond 12 x 18. Otherwise Jpegs are fine I generally convert to TIF if printing elsewhere.

 

Good luck

[jon_austin]

Only JPEG. I'm an amateur, and I only shoot for myself / my family. I did a shoot in RAW once, just to learn the workflow process, and to assure myself that I knew what to do should I ever need it.

 

But I've been very satisfied for my purposes with the processing capabilities in PSE 3 (levels, color correction, etc.), especially when combined with the Noise Ninja plug-in. I rarely spend more than a minute or two on any image in post process, and that includes cropping (where deciding how I want to crop is the most time-consuming part) and saving the results in both JPEG/Q-11 and JPEG 2000 lossless formats.

 

If I ever did a wedding for hire, or someone wanted some images for high quality or very large output, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot RAW.

[ted_marcus1]

<i> I read a couple of articles questioning shooting in raw with the 20D.</i>

 

<p>As indeed they should. If you try this anywhere in the United States, you'll probably get arrested and spend the rest of your life as a registered sex offender no matter what camera you're using.

 

<p>With that out of the way, I shoot only raw with my Rebel XT. I've found that the highest-quality JPEGs look indistinguishable from raw files converted using the "as-shot" parameters. I've also found that the automatic white balance setting does a good job almost all the time, as does evaluative metering. However, the additional information available in a raw file is a good insurance policy against those times when the automation (or, more likely, my use of it) doesn't produce the correct results. It's also useful for the more frequent situation of the automation (or my use of it) yields a good result but later more careful adjustment yields a better result. A raw file has a wider dynamic range, which makes adjustment less likely to degrade the image than with a JPEG file.

 

<p>However, most of my photography involves fairly static travel and scenic images, for which I want the most detail and flexibility. I suspect that if I were shooting family snapshoots I would use JPEG, as the need for fast burst processing and less likelihood of adjustment makes that more sensible. It really comes down to what you shoot and what you do with the files.

 

<p>By the way, did you know that a 20D or Rebel XT raw file includes an embedded 1536x1024 JPEG? I had originally planned to shoot raw+JPEG, and use the JPEGs to select the raw files that were worth processing. That turns out not to be necessary. IrfanView and various other image viewers can display the embedded JPEG, as can the SmartDisk Flashtrax portable storage device.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>My standard mode is RAW + small/normal JPEG. The JPEG is essentially a quick thumbnail to help me sort out which shots are definitely not worth keeping, and once I've finished processing all the RAW files from that shoot, I delete the camera's JPEGs.</p>

 

<p>RAW is 12 bits and lossless; JPEG is 8 bits and lossy. The extra bit depth helps with pulling data out of shadows and with maintaining smooth tonal transitions when doing things like levels. AWB works quite well but for the occasional shot where the white balance is wrong, again, I want to work with the extra bits when fixing the image (and I'd also like to work from the original data, without an incorrect white balance already having been applied). And since I do at least a little bit of editing on almost every shot, I'd rather not have had a lossy algorithm throw some of the data away before I even get to start.</p>

 

<p>If it's a shot I don't particularly care about (e.g. I'm writing a response on photo.net to someone who asks "Are Canon's white lenses actually white?", or I'm sending a JPEG to the author of <a href="http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/">PTLens</a> so he can add one of my lenses to his collection of profiles), I may switch to a JPEG-only mode. But if it's a shot I care about, it's always RAW.</p>

[mendel_leisk]

I've had a 20d (my FIRST digital camera) for all of 3 days now. I've been

saving full res raw with embedded best quality jpeg, which is reducing my

capacity per card (or disk or whatever) by a factor of around 2/3.

 

What I understand from Ted Marcus' response:

 

1. I could replicate that jpeg quite easily, when converting the raw.

 

2. There is a half decent jpeg emedded in the raw, even if you don't ask for

one, suffice for reference purpose.

 

Ted, did I get this right? I'm not at home, with (my own) pc access, so haven't

attempted any downloads. I have hooked the camera up to a tv, to view the

back-of-camera screen preview images (and info/histograms), and it does

appear to be reduced quality jpeg, sim to what you describe.

[ted_matsuoka1]

I agree with Bob Atkins - I shoot 98% jpg. The camera does a fine job with jpg. I shoot RAW when the lighting is something I know the camera doesn't handle well. If you are shooting indoors without flash using artificial lighting, use RAW. In all other circumstances, I wouldn't bother - just shoot jpg.

[jayme]

Hi- I shoot both. For me it really depends on the situation and what I want from the end result. Bob's statement "I'll shoot RAW if I don't know what I'm doing and/or expect to have to do a significant amount of post-exposure processing." sounds a little absurd. I've read good & bad about both.

 

I look at it just a little differently. I like that RAW images give ME control over the final processing of my image. If you are happy with what you get when you shot jpeg, then continue, don't worry about RAW. But you should try shooting RAW, it is a wonderful eye opening experience.

 

I started using RAW because I would shoot an image in jpeg, check it out on my LCD screen and it looked great. Then, when I looked at it in PS, it didn't look the same. I wondered why? Then I read an article (not by Bob) about RAW images & the real differences between RAW & JPEG. I wanted my real images, not how my camera saw fit to correct it for me or how I thought I had the camera set up. But I must add, I am not as experienced as Bob, but there is no harm in trying RAW.

[david_lau3]

I only shoot RAW + small jpeg for quick review. I find the colour/contrast/sharpness of the image after post processing by PS is almost always better than straight from the camera jpeg. This is time consuming but it gives me total control and satisfaction.

 

Arguably you can also do post processing using jpeg, but its 8 bit image and the lack of exposure control is much less versatile than RAW.

[weim_tan]

I have just switched to digital and this thread caught my attention instantly. Just to add to the question of whether to shoot jpeg or raw - how much image quality do I actually lose by doing one-time-only editing and saving of jpeg files (just the simple unsharp mask, for example). For those of you who shoot almost entirely in jpeg, do you apply USM later on?

[kiloromeo]

It seems to be a question of storage to me, why not shoot both and use whatever you want to use after the fact. I have large CF cards just for this purpose. I guess if I was far away and unable to upload my images to another device I would opt for jpeg only, but probably, only for my last card.

I am so dazzled by the speed of this camera I may not be getting as much of it as I can. Would I be able to take more multi shots in a burst with jpeg only? I haven't run across a situation that required more than my buffer can hold by using both jpeg and raw. I should say that I don't shoot sports. I use 80X lexars and haven't had to wait for them to write in any real life situation. If I where running into that problem and jpeg only was the fix I would go to that mode happily.

[marcelocampiglia]

Hello,

 

I have my 20D since February and i am very happy with it. I shoot almost exclusivly in RAW. I try almost all the converters and i have decided to use Adobe Camera Raw. I advacie you to spend some time with the camera and the converter so you can choose the best settings for you.

 

 

Thanks,

 

 

Marcelo.

[chrisjb]

Weim Tan ask ,do you apply USM later on?

 

Sharpening tools vary according to subject matter, We shoot people so don`t use USM much at all as it sharpens the whole image, we prefer to leave background alone with most shots. If we sharpen at all we use FM`s 20d CSPRO as a plugin for PS.(for the 20d.) With the D30 use an action called `ES PRO`. We don`t pixel peeep, use either 24 70 f2.8 or sigma 15 30 and have no problens up to 12 x 8. OTOH The kit lens which sometimes gets use in nightclubs does need a hand especially f4 to f7.1. (Why kit lens 18 55?) at 2am in nightclubs drinks hands & bodies are rolling everywhere its cheeper to replace if. it is slow but it does a reasonable job BTW sharpness in 20d parameter set2 std setting.

 

have fun

[peterb1]

RAW... RAW... RAW.

[jnicholson]

Most of the time I shoot RAW plus large. I figure I've got lots of CF cards and why go home with some empty ones. I can always delete what I don't want. A short term insurance policy.

 

The choice can depend on what you're shooting. Don't forget, with RAW you get a burst of six shots before the internal buffer is filled but with JPG you get 28, I think. For moving subjects where burst mode is useful, birds for me, those numbers can make a big difference.