Raw vs Jpeg - my thoughts, which apply only to me

[famico]

<p>Wasn't really sure where to put this, but since I'm a Nikon shooter, thought I'd start here (mods - feel free to move to a more appropriate forum). For a number of years I have followed the Raw versus Jpeg debate, and happily continnued to shoot in Jpeg Large, even as I continued to read the sometimes (well, often times) raging debate about which is better. <strong>;-)</strong></p>

<p>Fast forward to the past twelve months for me. Although I am not a full-time wedding photographer, I was asked to photograph a low budget, simple wedding for a friend. I reluctantly agreed. To hedge my bets, I shot in Raw, because, quite frankly, I was terrified I would screw up big time, and wanted the latitude that Raw provides.</p>

<p>Well, true to form, I did make some mistakes, but Raw saved the day for me. I found that in post processing I had so much more ability to fix something that was way off in terms of exposure, etc. Was the photograph perfect when I was done? Certainly not, but it was much better than if I had shot in Jpeg to begin with.</p>

<p>Please understand that I am not trying to fuel the debate as to which format is better for anyone other than me. Simply put, I tend to be a 'sloppy shooter'. By that I mean that many times I don't remember to check all the variables like current ISO, exposure compensation, etc., and wind up with a less than perfect exposure. Sometimes my mind is so focused on just getting the shot, that I tend to forget the technical aspect. Doing that wedding opened my eyes. For my style of shooting and memory lapses, Raw works best. It's more forgiving of my lapses, and allows me to wind up with a reasonably decent final product.</p>

<p>As noted earlier, if you are shooting in Jpeg with good to great results, continnue to do so. If you're like me, and have more than just a few 'problem images', consider trying Raw to see if it helps you. No matter what you decide, Happy Shooting! <strong>:-)</strong></p>

[dwight200]

<p>I used to shoot RAW+jpg. 90% of the time the jpg was just fine. The other 10% of the time I used the RAW to do the postprocessing.</p>

<p>Once I got over 20K pictures on my disk I started to have trouble finding things. I then switched to RAW only, not because I needed to postprocess more, but because shooting RAW forces me to do the conversion from RAW to jpg. I use Lightroom, which enables (even encourages) me to tag the photos at conversion time. Lightroom pops up a window at import time that asks for tags for the imported photos. You don't *HAVE* to enter them, but the tags make a big difference in whether or not I can find things later. Vista can look for tags as well as file names. Not sure about Mac.</p>

<p>If I continued to shoot RAW+jpg I wouldn't go through Lightroom as much, and a lot of photos would wind up untagged. That would make it harder for me to find things, so shoting RAW only is my solution.</p>

<p>These thoughts apply only to me.</p>

[fk319]

<p>There really is only one question the determines the answer, what are you going to do with the pictures after you click the lens.<br>

I personally save them to disk, post a few on the web and print a few so that my wife can scrapbook. 1 out of 10,000 will get blown up larger that 8x10. The only post processing I do is crop. So guess how I shoot, yes, jpeg.<br>

You in this case planed on possibly post processing, where 'reimbursed' for your time, and you expected to have several enlarged. raw seems like the correct solution to me.<br>

From what you said here, there was one mistake, you shoot raw for the first time when it mattered. (I will presume that this was not the case, but I will elaborate as it is my pet peeve.) So many people buy a good camera right before going on vacation and then can't figure out why the stupid camera did not work. I encourage those who are going to do something new for an important event, spend time practicing the new well before the event!<br>

Frank</p>

[ben_goren]

<p>I think modern cameras have reached the point where there are no longer any advantages to

shooting JPEG, and only a few trivial disadvantages to shooting RAW.</p>

 

<p>What I mean by that is that there isn’t anything that you can do in JPEG that you

can’t in RAW, and only a few things that are marginally more cumbersome in RAW than in JPEG.</p>

 

<p>What are the disadvantages to RAW? Really only three.</p>

 

<p>First is performance. Frame rates and buffer size are both less with RAW. However, with my 5DII

and SanDisk Extreme IV cards, the frame rate is almost too fast for me and I’ve yet to fill the

buffer in actual shooting. In testing, even after holding down the shutter for a half minute or more, the

camera kept shooting at significantly faster than 1FPS. I’m sure SI photographers would be less

than thrilled with a 5DII in RAW mode, but it’s more than ample for us mere mortals.</p>

 

<p>Second is storage space. RAW files are a lot bigger than JPEGS, yetI can still make hundreds of exposures on a single 8 GB card. I managed to

fill up three of them once…by machine-gunning my way through a parade. For a few hours. And

disk space is dirt cheap; a hundred bucks will get you more than a terabyte.</p>

 

<p>And third is post-processing. But you could trivially batch-process RAW files with the software that

came with the camera and get the exact same JPEGs as you would have from the camera, and

it’ll only take a few minutes.</p>

 

<p>I won’t claim that there’s no point in shooting JPEGs any more. But I will suggest

that, for most serious photographers, the reasons to not shoot RAW have largely become moot. (I rather suspect that

the SI guys still shoot JPEG, will shoot JPEG for a long time, and have excellent workflow-related

reasons for doing so — but they’re hardly “most people.”)</p>

 

<p>Of course, if you’re just shooting snapshots, using the DSLR as a glorified P&S

camera, then there’s nothing to be gained from shooting RAW. But I’d like to think that

most people on Photo.net who shoot with DSLRs are a bit less casual about their craft and art.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

[Tom Wiggins Photography]

<p>Go RAW, simple answer is you have all the data available and the greatest flexiblity.</p>

[Leroy_Photography]

<p>I love the flexibility of RAW, but only use JPG sports. The disadvantages noted by Ben are more fully realized when shooting sports: (1) performance; (2) storage space; and (3) processing. Processing is the biggiest reason. If I shoot 800-1,000 photos at a game, I don't want to have to convert any of them. I simply want to review, crop, and post. I use RAW for my daily photographs, but switch to JPG when covering any sport. </p>

[stephanie_w]

<p>I am a beginner, can someone enlighten me what the advantages are of shooting raw+jpg? It just seems like a waste of space to me, why not shoot raw only? Am I missing something?</p>

[samn]

<p>See Bob Atkins article on Raw here. <a href="../learn/raw/">Link</a></p>

[drjoder]

<p>Stephanie, I´m new as well and am just making that transition to shooting RAW only. I thought the RAW plus JPEG option on my Nikon sounded good at first since I could just play with the JPEGS if I wanted (something familiar and easy). However, the JPEG that comes out is a small file...called JPEG "Basic" on my Nikon. I guess it would be OK for the web or for a quick reference peek, but not much more, it seems to me. So, now I am going with RAW only and out of, say, 100 shots I might take on a morning of urban landscape hunting, I will actually only process the keepers (which number from zero to maybe 6-8 at the most). After a bit of work in Bridge I do most of my fiddling on a TIFF file of the image and then save a JPEG version of the final, sized, ready-to-print version. I always save the original RAW file of my keepers (I delete most of the other RAW files) because I have a feeling that my Photoshop skills will be vastly improved in a year or so and I may want to revisit some of those images. (I am currently more of a Photoshop butcher than artist). Comments from more experienced folks?</p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>RAW Vs JPG?</p>

<p>This type of comparison really needs to end.</p>

<p>It should read "RAW & JPG"..."What are the differences?"</p>

<p>I've yet to hear anyone ever say "Ferrari Vs Ford."</p>

[famico]

<blockquote>

<p>From what you said here, there was one mistake, you shoot raw for the first time when it mattered. (I will presume that this was not the case, but I will elaborate as it is my pet peeve.)</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Hello Frank,</p>

<p>Your presumption is correct, as I did do some shooting in Raw and post-processing prior to the wedding. I would agree that it would be very foolish indeed to change something so dramatic, especially for an important event, without some practice.</p>

[sasishan]

<p>Personally, I wouldn't want to pay $3000 for a camera and then use only ~80-90% of its image quality and capabilities by shooting JPEG.</p>