Shoot JPEG or RAW? Advantages/Disadvantages

[steve_c.5]

Yes, George, the article is relevant. In 2005, we had RAW software and converter software. But, let me copy/paste my comments from above:

 

"I do use RAW for critical portraits and difficult lighting, so I'm not against it at all. I'm just selective about using it when it's really needed."

 

"If I shoot 15 or 20 images of a bride dancing with her groom/father, how many of those will be printed any larger than 4 x 6? Answer: often none, maybe one for the album at 8 x 10 (and it will be printed from a JPEG)."

 

"JPEG works perfectly fine for most wedding shots. After all, who ever tries to blow up all those reception snapshots, ceremony shots, or prep shots? And, at 12 megapixels, even if they do, there's plenty of resolution there to handle it."

 

Master work is master work, whether it's from 2005 or 2007. In that time, the fundamental change is that 2007 cameras have higher megapixel sensors. In '05, I had 6 megapixels. In '07, I have 12. My JPEGS and RAWs now take up more space, but are fundamentally the same. I can blow up a JPEG bigger now. Big deal. I never have clients that want poster-size shots.

 

I understand the wider latitude of RAW. It's wonderful. But let's be realistic. I don't shoot $16,000 portrait sessions. I don't know anyone who does. I don't even shoot $16,000 weddings, and I doubt you do either. I can't imagine anyone paying that much, but I guess they're out there. However, if I did that kind of work, of course I'd shoot RAW. I'd also be using a Hasselblad for that kind of money.

 

I shoot RAW for portrait sessions anyway, because there are fewer images, and why not take advantage of the format? But again, out of a 1000 image wedding, how many shots will really require the attributes of RAW? Probably the formal portrait that gets blown up and printed on canvas. Beyond that, it's a waste.

[ilkka_nissila]

A waste? A waste of what?

[russ_konrad]

It is really a shame that many people are defending their using JPEG with the concept of "good enough".

 

I guess that I care too much about the product that I deliver to my customers to ever say that it is "good enough" when I know that I can produce BETTER results shooting RAW.

[rtrace]

"A waste? A waste of what?"

 

Time & storage. Simple really. Yeah, I know hard drives are cheap, blah, blah, and everyone works faster with RAW than JPEG, blah, blah. To each his own, but like I said, people make conscious choices - don't criticize or think you know more.

[rtrace]

"I guess that I care too much about the product that I deliver to my customers to ever say that it is "good enough" when I know that I can produce BETTER results shooting RAW."

 

That's good for you! I can maybe produce better images, regardless of format.. How about that?

[russ_konrad]

<B>"...That's good for you! I can maybe produce better images, regardless of format.. How about that?"</B>

<P>

"maybe"? Don't you know?

<p>

Rationalize and try to justify all you want.

<p>

It is a fact that a RAW file contains more information and consequently more detail than the compressed JPEG that has thrown away three-fourths of the data.

<p>

You have made a conscious choice that "good enough" works for you.

<p>

Good For You!

[grant g]

"If I shoot 15 or 20 images of a bride dancing with her groom/father, how many of those will be printed any larger than 4 x 6? Answer: often none, maybe one for the album at 8 x 10 (and it will be printed from a JPEG)."

 

That addresses my previous point, Steve. I have a few father/bride dance shots in my portfolio and I'm glad they were all shot RAW. Especially the one shot with the old 10D...

 

And reading that article...the only thing that stood out to me was that Yervant shoots a 1Ds2 on MEDIUM JPEG...Wow. I can't imagine *choosing* to do that.

 

And I'm not all about bigger files or more megapixels...If Canon made a FF 8 to 10 MP camera...that's what I'd use for weddings...and would still shoot RAW.

[steve_c.5]

I don't think anyone here believes that JPEG is technically better than RAW. We all know that RAW files have more data. They're uncompressed. They are pre-processed data. They have latitude of adjustment that JPEG does not have. Nobody is arguing that, but Russ seems to think I am.

 

What I argue is that RAW is necessary for every stinkin' shot taken at a wedding. Each shot from a wedding is not a portrait. Out of a 500 or 1000 image wedding, only 1, 2, or maybe a handful of those shots will ever benefit from the additional data. For the rest, it's simply a waste, in my opinion. Waste of memory card space, waste of additional download time, waste of storage space, and a waste of additional time to process. And, a waste because only highly trained professionals like those who watch this forum even know the difference or care 98% of the time. Unless a client is schooled in the intricacies of digital photography, they simply won't know or care whether I used RAW or JPEG to shoot their wedding.

 

I also argue that RAW is faster to process than JPEG. Maybe in your dimension, but not in the real world. Uncompressed images have more data than compressed images. Lots more. No computer or software maker has come up with a way to defy the laws of computing physics. And, on my box, RAW takes significantly longer. Period.

 

Listen, I don't begrudge any person here for their opinions. I appreciate your feedback, and respect you all. You're all very intelligent people. And each person here has a button on their camera they can use to select which capture method they want to use. Some are JPEG all the way. Some, like me, use both. And some use RAW. We all win. And 100% RAW shooters really should not look on the rest of us with disdain or snobbery. We're all in the same business.

 

Now go forth, be great shooters, and let's quit wasting time on this!

[rtrace]

Steve,

 

I'm on the same page, and said something quite similar several posts back. People come here with mathematics and it's quite funny. These arguments don't go anywhere - people don't want to hear anything more than RAW is a better format, therefore shooting JPEG is dumb and a disservice to your clients. That is what some here say "good enough". The funny thing is that these are people on photo.net saying that about one of the best photographers out there - Yervant. So it's silly to say the least.

 

Bogdan

[rtrace]

""maybe"? Don't you know?

 

Rationalize and try to justify all you want.

 

It is a fact that a RAW file contains more information and consequently more detail than the compressed JPEG that has thrown away three-fourths of the data.

 

You have made a conscious choice that "good enough" works for you.

 

Good For You!"

 

I said maybe as in "maybe you can imagine?". I *do* know. But I guess you can't imagine producing an image from a JPEG file as well as you can from a RAW file, ever? If so, that speaks of your own photographic skills, not RAW or JPEG. Because I doubt you are making huge prints of all your images (where maybe you could see the difference on a heavily edited file, in which case RAW would be better). So then I have to believe (if what I just said is true), that you are using RAW as a crutch...

 

Bogdan

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...What I argue is that RAW is necessary for every stinkin' shot taken at a wedding. Each shot from a wedding is not a portrait. Out of a 500 or 1000 image wedding, only 1, 2, or maybe a handful of those shots will ever benefit from the additional data. For the rest, it's simply a waste, in my opinion...."</b>

<p>

As I already said - in your opinion - in camera JPEG is "good enough" for you and your shots.

<p>

Myself and many others in this thread disagree. I refuse to settle for "good enough" in any of my photography. I want to decide how much (if any) compression is applied to the final image rather than having the camera do it for me.

<p>

BTW - I don't take any "stinkin'" wedding shots. My partner and I take about 1000 or so shots at every wedding and none of them are "stinkin'". But again - that is just me.

<p>

Another question - how do you know beforehand which of those handfull of shots out of a thousand will benefit (in your opinion) from being captured in RAW?

<p>

<b>"...I also argue that RAW is faster to process than JPEG. Maybe in your dimension, but not in the real world..." </b>

<p>

Since you shoot a Sony DSLR - it is obvious that you do not use Nikon's Capture NX. It works much better than anything else I have tried and in MY workflow - it IS faster. That is just my experience. Unlike you - I won't make any broad generalizations about what other people experience. Even if it did take longer - I would STILL shoot in RAW for the flexibility and control it gives me over every image.

<p>

And as you stated in an earlier post - <b>"...why not take advantage of the format?</b> Everyone here who shoots in RAW is TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE FORMAT - just like you do when you shoot portraits.

<p>

<b>"... let's quit wasting time on this!"</b>

<p>

No one is forcing you to respond and basically say the same thing over and over again.

[russ_konrad]

<b>"...But I guess you can't imagine producing an image from a JPEG file as well as you can from a RAW file, ever? If so, that speaks of your own photographic skills, not RAW or JPEG. Because I doubt you are making huge prints of all your images (where maybe you could see the difference on a heavily edited file, in which case RAW would be better). So then I have to believe (if what I just said is true), that you are using RAW as a crutch..."</b>

<p>

Ah yes - the mark of a mature individual. Start questioning my photographic skills. I really did hope that we could carry on this discussion in an adult manner.

<P>

Yes - I can produce very good images while shooting in JPEG. But I can get better results letting my desktop computer convert the RAW files into the final JPEG image. (AS was stated above in an earlier post.)

<P>

As Steve C. stated - "why not take advantage of the format?" I DO take advantage of the format and I do not settle for "good enough" in any of my photographic work.

[steve_c.5]

C'mon, Russ, you know what I meant by "stinkin'". It's a figure of speech, not a comment on the photos I take. We've communicated many times in these discussions before, so there's no need to take things to the n'th degree.

 

Each of us have stated our positions. You capture your way, and we capture our way. What are you trying to do here, "win"? With choice of formats, we ALL win. Give it a rest.

[mc2imaging]

I used to agree with David Ziser when he said that RAW=Wrong.

 

After I got my K10D's, I changed my mind. I can shoot plenty fast with RAW, and disc space

is cheap. I'd be using Aperture either way, so I find no reason NOT to take advantage of the

flexibility it gives me.

 

When I was using an older platform that couldn't keep up, it was a different story...

[blueworldstudios]

With Lightroom, the RAW is faster thinking doesn't stand anymore as LR will handle JPGs

with the same batch correction and generation. IF you use LR, JPG workflow is now faster

simply because of file size.

 

Shooting JPGs will force you to pay more attention to what you're doing, just like shooting

slide film used to. It's great for forced learning.

 

There's no shortage of great photographers that shoot JPG.

 

All that said, we are headed out this weekend to shoot our first RAW wedding. With the

current price of CF cards, disk space, and processing power, RAW now seems like a nice

little bit of latitude.

 

For the record, Yervant now shoots raw for these same reasons.

[john_williams_iii]

Since 2007, for social events (i.e., weddings, anniversaries, birthdays), I have set my digital SLR to RAW+jpg combination. Images are selected from the jpg files. RAW images come in play when the jpg image is not as good as it should be due to the camera's internal conversion to jpg from RAW. RAW is an image savior!

[panorama333]

Shoot gif.

[edrodgers]

GIF is for people that are truly masters at their art. I shoot PNG because it gives me a greater latitude and multi-level transparency. The PNG format doesn't do multi-frame animation, and isn't supported by all browsers, but the compression is better, and the algorithm is not lossy like GIF. I can open, edit, and save as many times as I like with PNG while a GIF can't stand up the the punishment.

 

I'm just being silly now.

[tails]

LOL Jeff!!

 

Well guys, what a thread! After sifting through all the bickering, I can say I've decided to shoot my upcoming modelshoot in RAW and see what I can do in post processing. Never tried before, and although I have 250gig hard drive space, I do use my computer for webdesign as well so the space is limited for photos, so I'll see what I manage to keep :)

 

I'll come back and let you know what I think (for what its worth :P). Cheers!

[steve_c.5]

Yes, Courtnay, this is one of those great debates. I'm sure the OP didn't have any idea of the can of worms he'd open! It's like Fords vs. Chevys. Democrats vs. Republicans. Christians vs. Athiests. Dry clean vs. wash and wear!

 

Just pick what works best for YOU, and YOU are the winner!

[bob_curtis2]

Jae - I know that I am late for this, but I have been at a Photoshop Seminar in San

Antonio and just got back home today. First, DON?T forget one very important factor -

Have a PLAN, and shoot the PLAN. I am a retired professional photographer who did

weddings and portraits for 26 years in a medium size town in the Gulf Coast Region of

Texas. Also, during this time I was a full time Band Director and this was way before the

days of Digital Photography.

 

I NEVER did a wedding without a conference with my subjects. If they couldn?t agree to

this I sent them somewhere else. We discussed everything, asked questions, made

suggestions when I saw a possible problem arising, gave alternate suggestions, and

double checked everything with the Bride and Groom and both sets of parents if

possible. This way they all knew what I was going to do AND I knew what and when

things were supposed to be happening. This way I did not have to worry about all of the

number of photos which were taken. However, I always had room for impromptu

situations. If you will follow this type plan of attack you will avoid a lot of the problems

that crop up from time to time. I?m not saying that it will solve all of the problems and

requests, but it will help save your sanity and give you much more control over the

wedding.

 

As for the other suggestions and answers, just remember that you CAN open a jpeg

photo in RAW in Photoshop using the Browse mode. This way you can do a lot of of

things using the Raw format plus getting down to the fine tuning with Photoshop on the

special photos. All of the suggestions have really been worthwhile. Just pick and choose

the ones that will fit your particular situation and go for it. It doesn?t take but just a

moment to change your camera from jpeg to Raw format and back. Choose those

photos that you feel are really worthwhile before you shoot it and set your camera for

Raw and you won?t regret it. The others you can change later. Don?t forget that you

NEVER lose your negatives when you process your cards for digital processing - just be

sure you save them and then do the altering from downloads from this batch of

negatives. Back ups never hurt anyone, and saved the day on many an occasion. Good

luck!

[johnmottershaw]

"Shooting JPGs will force you to pay more attention to what you're doing, just like shooting

slide film used to. It's great for forced learning."

 

By that logic we should all stop using the best quality cameras and buy something cheaper!

[tails]

Ok well I tentatively offer my thoughts on shooting in RAW.

 

I chose to shoot RAW and JPG, the JPG merely there as a point of reference for the photo in Windows Explorer. Then I went out and got Lightroom and a Lightroom Tutorial DVD. Watched it, and then started playing.

 

What a difference! There is just so much room in RAW files to tweak W/B, fill light, exposure, etc! I'm not suggesting anyone just go out and snap photos and expect to produce miracles in LR but its sure handy when you mess a really nice photo.

 

When I'm done editing my photos (only the ones I want), then I delete the rest, burn to DVD and voila.

 

Lastly, because I'm working with models, owning the RAW file of a photo proves my ownership of the photo if copyrights are infringed. Bonus!

 

Just thought I'd share. There are lots more perks which I wont go into, but I dont think I'll go back to just JPG shooting.

 

The only downfall I can see is space. My 2gig card gets filled with 100 photos (on RAW&JPG mode, shooting in max res) so I have to offload more often, and my hdd space gets filled quicker. Ended up with 4 gigs of photo data from the modelshoot I did (took 304 photos haha), which included the original files in RAW & JPG, edited versions in PSD, and then exported versions in 300dpi CMYK JPGs haha.