jpeg vs raw

[steve_ford1]

there seems to be , at least on the forum boards, a shift from using jepg's to

raw capture when covering a wedding. Is this that big a deal to capture in

camera raw. I wonder how many working wedding photog. are working in either

file type. What about the large file size camera raw gives you to work with

when converted to a tiff or psd file for further processing. I guess my main

question is can anyone give a comparision of jpeg vs raw files procession time

[ronaldo_r]

</p>

<i>"...there seems to be , at least on the forum boards, a shift from using jepg's to raw..."</i>

</p>

Is there? Only twenty of so RAW vs JPG questions a week here, that's all. Doesn't mean there's "a shift" from anything, does it? One has still use the search function before posting, hasn't he?

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

if you use lightroom oe CS3, there is a certain amount of flexibilyt in shooting jpeg files compared to previously. It just depends on how good you are at dealing with exposure. I still am not sure I want to convert that many raw files and spend that much time post processing. Admittedly Raw shooting gives you that option, however I know photographers that spend 30 hours post processing after a wedding because they are shooting raw. That is just too much time. There is little or no benefit shooting candids that will not get larger than 5x7 in raw format. There is a case to be made in shooting formal portraits in raw format, as this gives you the most flexibility.

[stephen dohring]

It's about quality - and file size. If you are perfect out of the camera most of the time inlcuding White Balace, and don't do too much PS work Jpg is fine.

 

If you want complete image control with exceptional lattidue for ajustments without image degredation, RAW is better. If you have a decent computer and can afford some memory cards it is really beyond me why anyone would shoot jpg for a wedding. Using Lightroom you can edit the raws and only convert to tiff or PSD if editing in PS, other wise you can convert the edited RAW files when done with editing to print size jpgs. It is an extra step but the color corection and white balance control results in higher quality IMO and is worth the 10 min or so to batch a few hundred edited Raws.

[ni_gentry]

Let's not get into another this versus that.... you can search and find enough arguments

about this to make you sick.

[jimstrutz]

Processing RAW is as fast or faster than JPG's if you need to make adjustments to exposure or color balance. With a good RAW processor there is very little time involved, and is certainly faster than firing up Photoshop to open every other image to fix.

 

Also, no matter what the planned print size there are plenty of good reasons to to use RAW. You have more latitude in saving overexposed, underexposed and off color images, and those issues can easily be seen in 4x6 prints. If you are very good at nailing exposure and always take care to nail it *every time,* and keep the white balance correct *every time,* jpg's will do great, but if you're in a hurry and miss something, RAW can often save your image. Wedding photographers are often in a hurry.

 

There are a few very good wedding photographers shooting JPG, but not very many.

[phoneguy]

I find it hard to believe Wedding Photogs would shoot in jpeg only, when raw is available. But, I know there are plenty that do.

[michaelmowery]

There is no right answer. They both are useful. You first need to understand each ones

function and purpose. THe main difference is the Raw is the digital negative so to speak.

The camera captures all the data in a scene and stores it as a raw file then if you have

choosen the camera to output jpeg it will then take that raw file and process and convert to a

jpeg throwing out all the left over data. If everything is controlled in a scene like in a studio

you could save time and shoot in jpeg mode and get great results.

[edsel_adams]

Ask your lab what they prefer. And then learn to shoot RAW to accomodate them!

[devoted]

As everyone keeps saying, there is no right answer. I've shot weddings in both, for varying

reasons. Sometimes I will shoot both at the same wedding, depending on what my light

meter tells me is the case. If I need more of a dynamic capture range, then you bet I'll shoot

it in RAW. If I'm lurking around working on candid style shots, JPEG is often enough.

 

Use what works for you. Plenty of photographers still use JPEG, it's not a sin as some might

have you believe!

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Considering that memory cards have dropped so low in price of late (B&H: Sandisk Ultra II 2 gig = $44) and together with the workflow abilities of using a program such as lightroom, some of the objections to RAW are disappearing so that many photographers who know of the RAW advantage but have shot jpg for other considerations, are now able to shoot RAW.

[nancy s.]

Well, this has been beat to death many times before.

I see no reason not to shoot RAW. It is just fewere images on the card and I really don't see it slowing down the post shoot workflow enough to matter.. but I surely do see the advantage when it comes time to make prints of any size.

 

Each to his own.

I prefer RAW because if something is out of whack there is more information in the image so there is a better chance of rescue. However, I shoot a lot of film so I still stand behind getting right out of the camera as opposed to fixing it all with the computer.

 

but, whatever works for you and your workflow is the way to go.

[conraderb]

steve - raw takes more time.

 

shoot a few frames of JPG and then raw and compare the results. over and under expose and see what you can do.

 

IMHO, the extra space and processing power and time is completely worth it when you have a frame that doesn't have perfect exposure.

 

I shoot raw, and while I do not encourage everyone to shoot raw, I encourage everyone to TRY raw AND TRY jpg and see what THEY like.

[kelvinphoto - arlington, t]

it's your choice. stick to what you comfortable with

[ian_cooke1]

Whenever I shoot a sporting event it's all JPG. I can shoot quicker with JPG (the 1DMkII buffer

doesn't fill up as fast), and I regularly end up with thousands of images from a weekend.

There's no way I'd dream of sorting through and dealing with all those RAW files. I'd have to

buy a new hard drive every couple months. I get the image right in the camera, edit down

the shoots in PhotoMechanic, and do a minimal amount of post processing for posting good

looking proofs to an online shopping cart gallery within a couple days.<p>

For the weddings I've done so far, I've shot a combination of RAW and JPG. I see no huge

advantage to shooting RAW as long as my exposures are on.

[rtrace]

You may want to take a look at this thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Jq1E

 

For me, it has nothing to do with cost, storage, etc. The issue, which BTW few have refuted, is that all the third party RAW converters out there are do not produce accurate color - ACR being the worst and the hardest to calibrate. So I shoot mostly JPEG. If I shoot RAW, I convert with the camera maker's RAW software - Canon DPP or Nikon NX. But DPP and NX are slow and cumbersome. So that's why I mostly shoot JPEG. When there is a good RAW converter out there that can produce accurate colors without ridiculous calibration routines (like ACR) or fiddling with profiles, then I will shoot 100% RAW. Until then, I'll take accuracy.

 

Before anyone replies, please look at the link I posted. Shoot RAW + JPEG and use ACR/C1/Bibble/LR/etc. and compare the colors. Do this for daylight, flash, tungsten, etc. Compare the colors. Daylight will probably be the only one that looks OK, though reds are always an issue. If you are happy with the colors you get from your RAW converter when comparing with the JPEG, I'm happy for you! I wasn't from the moment I did this. And over the years, not much has changed unfortunately. Of course, there are people who will fiddle with a picture in ACR for hours on end, so in that case it may not matter. I don't have time for that.

 

Bogdan

[William Michael]

> I guess my main question is can anyone give a comparison of jpeg vs. raw files procession time <

 

Arguably, in theory anyway, JPEG processing time could be zero: RAW can not.

 

Without wishing to begin the `what is better argument`: if the camera parameters are used to suit the scene; exposure is correct; accurate colour balance can be achieved; and framing is correct: then one could get suitable prints ex camera / ex card.

 

WW

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Bodgan, your point would only be valid if the white balance and exposure are perfect. If the white balance or exposure are off then correcting the jpgs will result in a large shift in colour accuracy and posterization. Canon DPP will give exactly the same colours as the jpgs, the processing engine is calibrated the same way, interface is horrible though.

[rtrace]

"Bodgan, your point would only be valid if the white balance and exposure are perfect. If the white balance or exposure are off then correcting the jpgs will result in a large shift in colour accuracy and posterization. Canon DPP will give exactly the same colours as the jpgs, the processing engine is calibrated the same way, interface is horrible though."

 

What point is that Ben? Not sure I understand. I don't shoot perfectly, nobody does. But I shoot carefully and try to get it right in camera as much as possible. So when I have to do minor corrections to the JPEGs, I don't see "large shifts in colour accuracy and posterization". This latter point is overly exaggerated math-nerd type stuff, not reality IMO. If I did, I wouldn't shoot JPEG! Neither would others.. Do you think I'm blind or want crappy pictures? Do others? LOL. I would shoot RAW, and play with sliders all day or go back to film. DPP's interface may be crap, true, but if you want accurate colors, it's the way to go if you need to shoot RAW.

 

Bogdan

[ni_gentry]

Does anyone think they are going to change anybody else's minds about this pointless topic?

It's the same people always spouting the same things... just read that other thread... and who

knows how many other threads... too funny.

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

Bodgan, I doubt we will ever agree on a whole bunch of stuff, but then I have a wedding tomorrow and the day after, I know what I believe to be the right tools, method and workflow to achieve the end product that I am happy to sell to my clients as I'm sure you do to for your weddings. If we are both happy with our end results, and more importantly the clients are happy so that we make our living, then who really cares about the aforementioned differences in style, technique and opinion at the end of the day?

[rtrace]

"If we are both happy with our end results, and more importantly the clients are happy so that we make our living, then who really cares about the aforementioned differences in style, technique and opinion at the end of the day?"

 

I agree - I never said use this or that. I just stated what I found: Third part RAW converters don't have as accurate colors as the ones that come with the camera. And since I don't like using the latter for reasons mentioned, I shoot JPEG, because the colors are more accurate.

 

I never said to agree with JPEG or RAW, but don't try and say my point is not valid, because you haven't shown the contrary (nor has anyone else).

 

 

Bogdan

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

"I never said to agree with JPEG or RAW, but don't try and say my point is not valid, because you haven't shown the contrary (nor has anyone else)."

 

When exactly did I say that or are you just trying to be argumentative for the sake of it?

[rtrace]

Ben - never mind! The point was lost apparently. Have fun at the shoots.

 

Bogdan

[ben_rubinstein___mancheste1664880652]

I agree with you about ACR, the facial colours are fustrating to say the least, especially with mixed lighting. DPP is far better but almost unuseable from a workflow point of view. Does anyone know if ACR 4 or Lightroom 1, given that it encorporates Rawshooter which was far better at colour, is any better at facial colours?

 

I've got about half an hour to the shoot, there is a low mid day winter sun which will be a nightmare to work with, but hey that's what they pay us for!