What percentage of Dslr users shoot Jpeg vs. Raw only?

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Why do companies do consumer research? Why do we care what others think, and why they<br>

hold those opinions. Can we learn from others, can we use deductive reasoning why even<br>

very savvy people make choices. If one can answer these questions and learn from others<br>

one knows the answer to learning about the world not just photography. Not snarky remarks,<br>

that have no affects on photography.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>Maybe that is why Nikon didn't design the D7100 with a larger buffer. They seem to<br />have designed the D7100 to do Jpeg shooting at full frame rate pretty well, and<br />faster in crop mode to meet the expectations of most amateurs that don't use RAW<br />but occasionally.<br>

Guess Nikon IS ONE SOMEBODY WHO WANTED TO KNOW THIS SO THAT THEY COULD<br>

cut some corners and give most of the people something that they would buy.<br>

THAT's WHY!!!</p>

[mike dixon]

The limited sample in this thread indicates that most people shoot RAW or RAW + JPEG, so you've concluded that Nikon made their design decisions based on people not shooting RAW. Ahhh, the joys of the internet . . .

[dave_redmann]

<p>I almost always shoot raw+JPEG. The best / most important pictures have the raw files added to my permanent archive. JPEG's are great for proofing and providing to friends etc.</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>Here comes an idea...how to separate photograhers from plain quiche eaters?..:)</p>

<p>... photographers use RAW.</p>

<p>If ayone is old enough to remember days when computer programmers were using an Assembler, and Visual Basic was for ""quiche eaters".</p>

<p> </p>

[Uhooru]

<p>So is thread then market research?</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>Pro Photographers use FX, Fast Glass and take RAW or RAW+JPEG</p>

<p>Snappers use DX, Slow Zooms and take only JPEG.....RAW means un-cooked.</p>

<p>...at-least that's how <em>NIKON</em> see the World..:-)</p>

[pge]

<p>Several people have explained why they shoot Raw and Jpeg so I now see how that might look in a workflow. For me, if I want small jpegs to email around or post on facebook I just set Lightroom to export small jpegs. It would drive my archive system crazy to have two formats of every photo. As for quick viewing away from my home, for some reason beyond my understanding my iPad has no problem with Raw files, I just use my camera connection kit and they pop right up.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Phil: What your iPad is actually doing is slurping up the lower-resolution JPG that's embedded in the RAW file. You'll notice that no matter what you do, there's a (rather severe) limit to the resolution you can work with when the CCK pulls in a RAW image. It's very cool that it can do it at all, of course! But it's not the same as actually processing the entire image file.</p>

[Mike D]

<p>I have heard for years that professional sports shooters for the NFL use JPG. Scott Kelby recently confirmed that the professional sports shooters he knows also use JPG. Based on this post, it seems most of the amateurs use raw. Interesting. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Michael: Horses for courses. Most professional sports shooters are probably trying to get an image in the next day's news (or possibly the same evening's, now). They likely need to shoot - and review - a large number of images without running out of storage space or risking the camera's buffer being full, a lot of the shots will be in similar lighting so they can take their time to pre-dial white balance and exposure (sometimes, but more than the average shooter), and the results are likely to be seen in a 3" x 2" accompaniment to an article. They probably don't have time to do very much to the image on a computer, and even a graphic designer doing layout probably doesn't have time to do much - and transmitting JPEGs is much easier and faster than doing the same in raw. The more that the camera can be set up to do for you, the more saving there is in the shot-to-publication critical zone.<br />

<br />

A few shots of critical moments will make it to magazine publication, get printed full page on decent paper and have a bit of post-processing, so you wouldn't want to limit the resolution or JPEG quality too much, but I suspect that's a small minority of images, and the money comes from getting the right shot of a sequence to the right publication quickly (and before everyone's blogged a "good enough" version with their phones).<br />

<br />

A staged shot in a magazine is another matter and people can take time to edit the results on a computer; I believe the same is true for wildlife shooting, where quality is more important than timeliness even if you want to avoid a full buffer sometimes - so raw has its place for what I'd call "finer art" images. If it has a timescale on it, JPEG makes a lot of sense. Which isn't far off how I use it: if I don't have time to go and edit starting with the raw files, the JPEGs will often do, and will do faster.<br />

<br />

Not that I'm a pro, and I'm guessing somewhat with the above, but it tallies with what I've generally heard.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>+1 Andrew G</p>

<p>Time is very often an issue. For sales on the day, JPEG rules....crop & print = ££s</p>

<p>On-line sales afterwards <em><strong>may </strong></em>benefit from RAW tweaking. If the light is 'evil', taking RAW is essential.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>While most answers were interesting, the question wasn't answered. I had hoped someone<br>

knew of some statistic what percentage of Dslr users used RAW. Some here questioned the<br>

question, when I went to engineering school in the stone age, asking questions was a sign<br>

of a mind thirsting for knowledge. This is a forum, one I posted on years ago about 2,000<br>

times under another username. Much is the same, but kibitzing, and snarkiness, and<br>

looking beneath the question for relevance if you didn't understand it wasn't usual.<br>

Shun is their a way to mark the Snarks with Ignore User to filter this pettiness out.<br>

This isn't relaxing or friendly like it used to be on Photo.net. If you can implement<br>

ignore user like Yahoo does, it would allow us to talk only with pleasant gentlemanly<br>

and lady like people. </p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>T - I think in the absence of a larger sample, you're getting what people can answer, which is what <i>they</i> do. I don't think questioning a question is a bad thing - it's not like there is a shortage of badly-posed questions on the internet! Some of us are interested in the answers (and in polls elsewhere) for the sake of it; some might like to know what to gain from the information, or think a question might be misleading (and that may just be because they misunderstood it). Sometimes - and I'm more guilty of this than most (and probably more than some would like!) - threads divert from their original subject, but in a way that is interesting and educational; not everyone can be interested in everything, but there's a cost to a rigid adherence to the initial question (though I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't try to answer the question before taking a diversion).<br />

<br />

Maybe I've been on the internet long enough to be immunized to the occasional comment that could be interpreted more aggressively than intended; I've certainly made a few myself. T, I'd encourage you to give people a chance: I find photo.net, and especially the Nikon forum, to be full of helpful and intelligent people. I don't always agree with them, I occasionally wince when I see a choice of turn of phrase, and I sometimes want to sit two people down and get them to solve an argument over a drink, but it's generally worth hearing what people have to say. (Heck, I'm even sometimes interested in what KR has to say, though I certainly don't agree with all of that.) My experience is that this forum is full of balanced people who will point out when something could be misleading if taken out of context. Many places online are populated by people who say a lot and have strong opinions, but have little knowledge and limited reasoning skills. This isn't one of those places, and I find it well worth any slight that I may feel.<br />

<br />

Of course, I could be ignorant of all the people insulting me, and they say that if you can't see the annoying person in the room, it's you. But I'm grateful that people here seem to tolerate me. I'm sorry you feel that you've been treated otherwise.<br />

<br />

Let me put it another way: People can be rude, ignorant, harsh and insulting - less here than in some other places, but it happens. They can still sometimes be right, or there can be a pearl of useful information hidden within the rest of a painful post. I'd hate to see you dismiss everything someone says just because you disagree with some of it. Most of what I say is gibberish, but I hope I'm occasionally useful; your tolerance for sorting the wheat from the chaff is your own business, but I've found few people here who aren't genuinely trying to be helpful most of the time, and I find it well worth any necessary internal filtering on my behalf. I hope you'll choose to feel the same, even if there are forum tools to allow you to do otherwise.</p>

[stevenseelig]

<p>I only shoot RAW. With Lightroom or Aperture it is trivial to generate JPEG of any desired size you want.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

And what does this have to do with photography?

[scott_murphy5]

<p>I <em>never</em> shoot in .jpg and I think you are mistaken, I would say more shoot in RAW than in .jpg.</p>

[dwight200]

<p>RAW+jpg:<br>

<br /> OK, I bought a P&S and used it for a while. Then I bought a DSLR. I was clueless about processing so I used some hokey programs for a while to crop, adjust brightness and contrast and things like that. All was OK. I didn't know any better.<br>

<br /> Then one day I changed the white balance away from auto. That was OK, the light was tungsten and the camera had a tungsten white balance setting. The pix looked OK. I forgot to change it back.<br>

<br /> Then the next few shots I took were all blue. I tried to adjust them with my hokey programs and got sort of close to something useful but not very close. So I started to look into better postprocessing programs. Lightroom. DxO. A couple others I don't remember.<br>

<br /> Then I read that the RAW file did better in the postprocessing programs. Since I didn't really have any proficiency with the programs yet, I didn't want to jump into it with all four feet. So I used RAW+jpg. That worked great for me. The jpg was just fine for 90% of the shots (neglecting composition, timing, color sense, etc). The RAW file was there if I needed to adjust something.<br>

<br /> Eventually I developed a modicum of proficiency with the programs and noticed that RAW+jpg was taking up about 30% more space on my cards than the RAW alone. So I switched to RAW only. There was a period of adjustment since now I had to postprocess everything. It turned out to be a good move, because Lightroom encourages me to tag my photos when I import them. Since I am not good at deleting stuff, I have way too many photos in my catalog. The tags are essential to me in finding stuff.<br>

<br /> So essentially I use RAW only because it forces me to go through Lightroom (or whatever other program you might like). That means that all my shots will have at least rudimentary tagging in place and I have a better chance of keeping track of stuff. The 30% is not important any more because I have larger cards. RAW+jpg is the lazy man's way out. No postprocessing required (most of the time).<br>

<br /> Sure, you can add tags outside of Lightroom, but I find it cumbersome so I don't do it.</p>

[mike_halliwell]

<p>I always wondered why the Nikon D3*** series takes RAW at-all?? (Only half kidding...:-))</p>

<p>After-all, Nikon treat them as <em><strong>so</strong></em> entry level that even their own tethering software doesn't support them! </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>RAW+jpg is the lazy man's way out<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dwight. Guess that might be true for you, but I suspect you don't take 1000's of images and need to sell 'on the day', usually printed to 12" x 9"...fine JPEG is ideal. However, for on-line sales later, the clients have the option of large to very large Canvas or Poster prints where RAW files rule.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

Ian and Jeff: the more I learn, even with limited context, about how others use their cameras (and how

they assume everyone else should use theirs!), the more I think about how I shoot. The more I know

about how Nikon prioritise their camera interface (which hopefully they do based on similar

statistics), the less I'll be fighting that interface, or the less I'll resent behaviour that doesn't match my

workflow. The more I know about what others do, the more practically I can advise others in their

shooting. Maybe I'll write some software that implements an interesting feature and I want to know

how many people it'll help - or whether to prioritise raw or JPEG. Maybe I'm writing a camera guide

and want to know whether raw should be buried at the back "for experts". Maybe I'm offering a cloud

storage system and want to estimate the average file size.

 

You can suggest that the question might tell us something else if it were more specific ("how many of

you shoot JPEGs when doing event photography?") or if it were rephrased (do you care about the

difference between raw + JPEG and raw alone?) but there are plenty of possible uses for the question

alone. (I'm not sure why it needs to be Nikon-specific, but there may be reasons, and I probably

wouldn't have found the thread in casual conversations, so this isn't a criticism.)

 

On the other hand, it's also interesting - without judging - to know what prompted the question.

Which I hope T will answer, rather than relying on my guesswork.

 

To pick another example, I frequently complain that I don't understand how anyone with a lens bigger

than 50mm can find the AF mode switch to be in a helpful place (I know the manual component is

dictated by mechanics, but not the AF-S/AF-C or area selectors), or how the ISO button can be

reached by anyone who hasn't got the camera on a tripod. My photography is unlikely to be improved

by understanding those who aren't frustrated by these, but I'd feel better if I knew the inconvenience

was a trade-off that improved ergonomics for someone else. Likewise the removal of trap focus.

Some have struggled to understand why moving the aperture control to the body has helped - it

doesn't mean ergonomics will be better for them once they know, but at least there's a reason.

Sometimes, it's good knowing how the masses are shooting and what (hopefully) drives Nikon and

others in their decisions.

 

(As for why I'm trying to smooth over misunderstandings, it's because I believe everyone on this

forum can contribute, and I'd like us all to learn from each other as much as possible. If that means

trying to mollify a member who feels slighted, that's a small price to pay.)

[ant_nio_gomes]

<blockquote>

<p>Has anyone seen a statistic answer to this question?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm afraid such a statistic would be impossible to compute in a way to include everybody and even if you use a sample to generate it I doubt you could find a really representative one and you would for sure end up with a degree of confidence that would make it to say you something you couldn't trust.<br>

In one of the first answers Matt referred sports and with the changes in the media a lot of people, not just in sports, need to send their images right a way from their cameras via wi-fi or they'll loose to the competition, and Jpeg has to be the file format. But will they also record a RAW? <br>

On the other hand, you will find a lot of beginners that will record RAW+Jpeg because they know Pros and Fine Art photographers only use RAW. Some of these people will end up using only the Jpeg files others will eventually start to convert the RAWs and from this point I suspect not everybody will adopt the same practices in the future.<br>

But you question could include another aspect: how many people that use Jpeg set their cameras to generate files for direct printing (sRGB, and other adjustments) or in a way that will require digital edition (Adobe RGB)?</p>

[robert_k1]

<blockquote>

<p>No statistics, but I'll wager that the larger percentage of DSLR users shoot only/mostly jpegs.<br /> That's because the vast majority of DSLR users (of which participation in the photo.net forums does <strong>not</strong> proportionally represent) are entry level users shooting pics of their kids and such.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Agreed, but the percentage also applies to the PN participants, entry level or otherwise. I will also add the following percentages, in descending order:</p>

<p>- those who have neither the patience to read the 500 page user's manuals, nor the technical knowledge about their dslrs' capabilities, and turn over all the controls to the auto (and/or default) settings</p>

<p>- those who have read the 500 page user's manuals, from cover to cover</p>

<p>- those who can digest everything they have read and get them right</p>

<p>- those who can digest the sections they are interested in and get them right</p>

<p>- those who can set up their dslrs correctly for their needs based on what they have digested</p>

<p>BTW, why is the thread in the Nikon forum?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Ian and Jeff: the more I learn, even with limited context, about how others use their cameras</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Knowing how many people do something is useless information unless you have no interest in making photos the way you want to.</p>

[t._zenjitsuman]

<p>In martial arts, knowing what people (opponents do) are apt to do is essential knowledge, why<br>

they do it explains a thought process. "unless you have no interest in making photos the way<br>

you want to" what are you babbling about? Who takes an exposure with a camera not<br>

the way they want to? The camera made you do it.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>Robert: You're quite possibly right that those who shoot JPEG through choice and those who shoot it through "not knowing any better" may be two different sets. :-) I'll defend T's original question in that the total numbers are quite interesting to know as well, but I certainly think that a breakdown of the information would be even more informative in some areas. But not knowing why T (primarily) wanted to know, I wouldn't want to divert people from answering the original question!</p>

 

<blockquote>Knowing how many people do something is useless information unless you have no interest in making photos the way you want to.</blockquote>

 

<p>Jeff: Could you elaborate on that conclusion? I disagree so violently that I think I must misunderstand what you're saying!<br />

<br />

If a large majority of people are doing something, that's a strong indication that there's a common reason for doing it. That reason may or may not be valid for what I'm doing, but I'd at least like to consider it. You can be shooting for a long time and still realise that you're doing something wrong - technology changes, for a start. For example, it took me over a year of shooting in auto-ISO and aperture priority before I realised that - on a D700 - the way to be able to adjust the shutter speed to compensate for lens zoom is to use manual mode and auto-ISO instead (though it's a little less flexible when you bump into minimum ISO unexpectedly). Admittedly, I'm an idiot, but there are still occasionally posts from people who haven't realised that manual + ISO is useful (KR included). If I'd asked "how many people shoot in manual mode" at some point, the answer might have prompted me to ask "why?" and learn from it. We've had a recent thread discussing whether to turn off VR on supertelephotos - the numbers of people getting success from each approach is interesting.<br />

<br />

One person saying "I've tried this and it worked" is only a very limited recommendation - as I proved in the recent thread about shooting events in the dark, where my "out of the box" suggestions were clearly not the accepted practice for getting reliable images. (That's fine, I learnt that most people get enough good images by doing the default thing, and the OP hopefully learnt not to follow my suggestions to the exclusion of the advice of more experienced event photographers; win/win.) If it had just been two sets of competing advice - though I'd always defer to the people in question - a reader may not know who's right. If only a minority of people ever disagreed with KR, people might not treat him with the desired caution. Occasionally, numbers tell us about equipment - I'm not alone in having trouble with my 150-500 or 135 f/2, but clearly there are happy customers as well. The recent thread about the Sigma 35 f/1.4 indicated to me that more people have it than I'd realised, and I've been encouraged to consider the effect of that focal length and a fast aperture more than I otherwise might.<br />

<br />

There are plenty of things in photography that make no sense to me. Why do consumer DSLRs beep by default? Why are most tilt-shift lenses set up to shift at 90 degrees to the tilt? (I know an answer why this is sometimes useful, but not why it's <i>usually</i> useful.) Why are flashes not set to default to second curtain? Did Canon put the DoF preview on the wrong side of the mount on consumer bodies just to differentiate the high end? Why does Nikon put the AF and ISO controls where I can't reach them without putting the camera down? Who benefits from the removal of trap focus? Why can't AI-S lenses be used with automatic aperture control on a DSLR? Why won't Canon activate the AF sensor on manual focus lenses? Why did Samsung design a new mirrorless lens mount that can't have M lenses adapted to it? What's the compelling feature of the Leica X-Vario? If most people understand all these, I'm missing something that may make me better. If only a few people benefit from the things that seem strange to me, either we should petition the manufacturers to fix it, or we all have something to learn.<br />

<br />

Just because I can work out one way to make the photos I want doesn't mean I've worked out the <i>best</i> way. Lots of people here will choose to dismiss any information about a rangefinder or a waist-level finder as antiquated and unnecessary, but may lose out by doing so (just as some obsessive Leica shooters could do with seeing what the fuss is about). Most of the information posted here is useful in some shape or form - sometimes it needs thinking about, sometimes it's a straight answer that avoids the need for a lot of research, and sometimes a question prompts me to go off and learn about something. "There are no stupid questions," and there aren't many stupid answers - just ones that require further analysis, if you can take the time to do it. The worst case is when you know better than everyone who's posted, in which case you get to teach and improve everyone else.<br />

<br />

And if you really can't see any reason to need to know something (and you are either sure you won't learn from being given a reason, or you know the reason doesn't apply to you), you can always ignore it. There's no rule that every post - or thread - has to be of interest to everyone. And I'm certainly prepared to be ignored.</p>