What are you using and why?
JPEG or RAW
(204 posts) (69 voices)-
Posted 4 years ago #
-
JPG, No one has ever shown me a noticeable advantage to IQ when shooting RAW. Nor has anyone shown me you can't do something to a JPG that you CAN do to a RAW file.
The biggest thing... paying clients have no idea and don't care. I'll save some money and buy less memory cards.
Posted 4 years ago # -
For those who can nail the exposure every time, jpg is a good option, taking up less space, no raw conversion, as is WB, etc. But for people like me who really need headroom for fixing my imperfect photos afterward, RAW is a must. I usually take NEF+JPG. JPG for sending off to friends and families quickly, NEF for all the rare keepers I took.
Posted 4 years ago # -
JPEG but I have no adversion about using raw
Posted 4 years ago # -
I have been shooting raw - don't always have to perfect WB until later, etc. But I am just starting RAW + jpeg for the convenience of sending off quick copies of photos to people.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I shoot RAW to take advantage of the 14-bit dynamic range.
Nikon's debayer algorithm could be better. When I need maximum effective resolution, I debayer in DxO, which you obviously couldn't do with a JPEG.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I did shoot JPEG only mainly due to Rockwell's insistence that I'm not a real man if I shoot RAW. I'm feeling more comfortable with myself now though and shoot RAW instead. ;) I like to be able to mess with the white balance in DxO, and it's nice knowing you are getting the most detail (and noise reduction) in PP. I have a quad-core PC also so the processing times aren't an issue, even for hundreds of photos at a throw.
Posted 4 years ago # -
always shooting with RAW+JPG in two CF cards.JPG for quick review, RAW for postprocessing
Posted 4 years ago # -
12bit, loss less compressed raw. I never could find a diffrence using 14bit and ACR (adobe camera raw).
Jpeg for High ISO photo's and ones that dont matter much.
Posted 4 years ago # -
If you shoot in good light conditions usually JPG is enough, but for this smooth aftertouch RAW is much better. You work on pure matrix file so if you change setting like brightness, contrast, saturation you won't see so many artefacts on the image as when editing JPGs. If the photo you did requires only light changes then JPG is enough. I shoot usually in JPG Fine+RAW like doubletoplei and Nikon1dsmarkIII just in case I will need more advanced post processing.
Posted 4 years ago # -
RAW for everything ! I can always make smaller jpeg versions for web use etc at a later stage, not so easy to make something satisfactory the other way, being old and having been brought up in the days of wet darkrooms I value the extra flexibility a RAW file gives me for post work. My RAW files are stored untouched, I open a copy in PS and after post work I save a TIFF file and if required from that I make a jpeg version.
I am only a keen amateur but my basic approach to photography is that the next image I take will be a lifetime best and to that end I want the best image file I can produce.Posted 4 years ago # -
I shoot JPG. I use my camera's LCD to determine if I like the shot or not. When you shoot it in RAW, what shows up on the LCD, and what shows up on the computer can be very different things! I've never had much luck getting my RAW shots adjusted so that they look as good or better than they do in camera.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I started shooting RAW recently and actually like the extra control I can get from them. I shoot wildlife and as any wildlife shooter will tell you, it's not always possible getting everything just perfect if you care not to miss the shot.
RAW also preserves a lot more of the archival data that the camera usually loses when it converts to JPG. The processing in a computer is said to preserve this better when the files are converted. I like being able to control not only things like WB but also active D-Lighting which I cannot do to a JPG. I do miss being able to fire off 6FPS however. I use Capture NX almost exclusively now to post process.
Posted 4 years ago # -
Since the time I've got mac, I use RAW (not significant delays in postprocessing between jpg and nef). However I set my camera to NEF+JPG (lowest quality jpgs) to be able to send pics on the move. The reason I use raw is because it gives me much more flexibility, although don't see to much IQ difference between them.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I shoot raw in challenging situations when I know I'll have to do some PP. In very low light situations where I'll have to push things an extra stop, etc. But in general I do very little PP, and it doesn't make much difference, so JPG is the majority of what I shoot.
Posted 4 years ago # -
RAW. I fought it for a long time, but I'm so glad I finally bit the bullet, and I regret not doing it sooner. The main disadvantages of raw are the larger file size and the need to "process" them before you can do anything with them. But there is no comparison to the control you have over a RAW file. White Balance and Dynamic Range alone make it worth it.
Also, every change you make to a jpeg is a destructive change. Make it darker, then make it lighter again, and you don't have the same picture you started with. Not so with a RAW file, where every change--white balance, exposure, even cropping--is completely non-destructive.
Honestly, JPG is just fine. I know some great photographers who shoot jpg only. But just as honestly, RAW really is better.
Posted 4 years ago # -
JPEG some of if I use D40X, all NEF if D2Hs.
D2Hs files was duller than D40X files and need some process.
Posted 4 years ago # -
jpgs for snap shots (fun shots that I will never use for more thn a laugh after)
everything else is RAWwhy would u spend $1k+ on your camera and use it for something thats limited by JPG compression ?
Posted 4 years ago # -
RAW plus JPEG fine.
RAW mainly for white balance reasons, especially for night shots.
But I also have seen that with my old Fuji DSLRs the quality from RAWs got better with newer RAW converters over the years as re-processing some old Fuji RAFs (RAWs) showed clear improvements. So I believe in RAWs being something like "digital negatives". And storage space is cheap these days, so I simply use RAW + JPEG fine.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I know that sometimes it would be more reasonable to take snapshots in JPEG, but I don't do it for two reasons:
1. Even with snapsshots I want some more editing freedom (especially when doing them indoors where there are different types of light sources)
2. I'm often forgetful and I don't want to discover that I forgot my camera into JPEG mode after a nature trip with some nice shots and have less opportunities for making them a bit better :)Posted 4 years ago # -
I have recently moved to the RAW side. Since I got the D3, I have card 1 raw and card 2 Jpeg fine. I was first intimadated by the RAW format, but have since gotten my confidence and love it. I use a couple PS plug-ins that are geared to the RAW format taking advantage of the full DR. 9 out of 10 times the jpeg is good enough, but that 1 out of 10 may make the difference and its great knowing its there! Memory is so cheap now that its not a consideration in my book.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I shoot JPEG because I don't like to edit my pic's and try to get it right when I take the pic. Plus I really don't see any difference in a camera JPEG and a RAW converted JPEG.
Posted 4 years ago # -
I mainly shoot JPEG Large/Fine but have been toying with the idea of going to RAW, but my timing is not good right now since we are leaving next week on a three week trip to Las Vegas and several National Parks near there, and don’t think this is the time to experiment.
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
