Ok, here's the deal. If you are shooting a high volume of images then use JPEG. If you want to make a select number of good photos then go RAW.
I spoke to a wedding photographer who said he show all his weddings in RAW...I guess he didn't do too many weddings. RAW is much slower and is a time consuming prcedure. 3000 RAW images to open, process, edit and save is a rather daunting task - this would be better served with JPEG.
Going a once-in-a-lifetime vacation... shoot RAW. Might as well make use the camera's fullest potential to capture great pictures. If you have Lightroom you can also do non-destructive editing in RAW and there are some realy cool effects you can use too (the gradient filter is my fav).
I shoot a full frame camera. I shoot JPEG for events and RAW for fine-art- because my clients want the event pix ASAP and I can take my time with fine-art images.
JPEG or RAW
(204 posts) (69 voices)-
Posted 3 years ago #
-
snaketail - unless You have a mac, and aperture, I shoot raw only, and never had any problems with going through them and usually I take around 500-1000 shots. As for weddings, I'm not a pro but have done couple weddings in my life, and would never use jpg's over raw, as the situations can be very tricky. However, I agree with You that exporting files takes a little time, but still it's less than 15 minutes to export 300 images to jpg's, and another 15min to put it online - is it a lot? the answer is Yours.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I just got back from a trip to San Francisco. I shot the entire trip in RAW, but I didn't realize that iPhoto converts them to JPEG on import (Normally I use aperture, but I haven't intslled it on my laptop yet), so my first day of shooting is now JPEG. Now that I'm back and I'm post processing, I can say with confidence that there is no material difference in the quality of the results I'm getting.
To be sure, the RAW files let me push things a little further when I'm messing with them using the excellent NIK software suite. Its just that the added flexibility doesn't equate to a more satisfying image. The differences are subtle at 100%. Any advantage you get is thrown away looking at the photos at a reasonable size.
Even if your printing a very large photo, you have to think about how your audience will view the photo. On my trip, I spent a few days in Carmel. Carmel is loaded with photo galleries and I walked through every one I passed. You know what you don't see happening in these gallerias? You don't see people standing point blank in front of a 30 inch print lamenting the fuzzy edges. Doesn't happen... ever. You do, on the other hand, see them standing a reasonable distance away from the print, trying to think of something clever to say about the composition so that the gallery owner will be impressed. Most of those comments are complete rubbish as well, but that's for a whole different post.
Bottom Line: Shoot RAW if your camera's LCD is broken and you can't tell if you nailed the white balance. Shoot RAW if you only have a 128mb memory card and are likely to come back from a shoot with only 30 photos. Shoot Raw if your friends bust out a loupe every time you show them your photos (or get new friends... your call). Shoot raw if your client is a Nikon Rumors forum regular and specifically requests it. Otherwise, do yourself (and your hard drive) a favor and shoot JPEG. You'll be glad you did... especially if you wind up coming home with more photos as a result.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Sorry, but I'm not going to discard all the extra information that RAW offers just for convenience's sake. You never know what extra printing/viewing possibilities we will have in the future where the difference will actually be visible on the computer screen as opposed to now. Most PC screens today are not even able to display what RAW has to offer especially in terms of colour depth.
With each picture I take, I want to keep the option of printing it out as an A2 or A1 and this is why I prefer to keep my options open.Posted 3 years ago # -
Monty - Good points, but a few things to consider:
Monitors will never be able to display your RAW file in all its fullness because 1. RAW files aren't actually images (hence the conversion). 2. Once we do get spiffy giant OLED monitors with better dynamic range, you are still going to have to hope your audience uses the same conversion process. Otherwise they aren't seeing what you are seeing (It already drives my girlfriend bonkers when she's doing he web-page and it looks slightly different in different browsers).
If you shoot enough RAW, you will eventually miss a shot (all that extra time has to go somewhere). When that happens, no software is going to recreate it for you. You'll probably tell me that by my logic (Quantity trumps quality), we should all be shooting JPEG - Basic. You'd be right. I'd reply however that by your logic (Quality trumps convenience), we should all be shooting film.
My middle ground is JPEG-Fine. Your's is RAW. That's fine. You'll have to spend an extra $200 to pay for some extra hard drive space About once few years. That's all.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I shoot mainly RAW but sometimes RAW plus jpg. Using ViewNX you can convert a RAW file directly to a 16mb Tiff. It works great. If the image does not need a lot of Raw processing I think this is the way to go. Then tweek it in PS.
Have a great day,
JohnPosted 3 years ago # -
Willis, I'm going to have to disagree with you on some points here or just express a different view of things.
I've never had to get an extra HDD because of my photos and the main reason is that in the end I keep only a few photos from a photo trip. Sometimes when I have extra time and nothing else to do, I sift through older photos and delete some what no longer make any sense to me. Often when time passes, the emotional tie is weakened and you see your photo for what it really is. A good saying from my teacher (I'm sure he's not the author of it): If you feel the need to add to the picture "You should have been there", then you shouldn't really be showing it to others because they weren't there and they don't have the emotional bond that you do.
The only extra time you lose is when you convert RAW to JPEG. 4 gigs of pictures whether they are RAW or JPEG will download at the same speed, especially as you pointed out you can shoot a lot more and faster in JPEG and this will result in more pictures. Now you must have real trust in your camera's auto white balance or you must be fast changing them in accordance with the lighting conditions because trying to change WB in JPEG (as Gentoo pointed it out also) will take considerably more time than in RAW. You will also lose time when sorting through the multitude of JPEGs. When I come from a photo trip with 300 RAWs, then the first thing is to go though them all and throw out the crap and doubles. I usually leave about 50 that I tinker with and then 20 that I edit more thoroughly, maybe 40 when I'm shooting some events.
As for QvsQ, I would choose quality over quantity any day, isn't that the goal of every photographer? Willis, can you honestly tell me that you would prefer to have 10 mediocre shots instead of one brilliant one?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Willis, I'm going to have to disagree with you on some points here or just express a different view of things.
I've never had to get an extra HDD because of my photos and the main reason is that in the end I keep only a few photos from a photo trip. Sometimes when I have extra time and nothing else to do, I sift through older photos and delete some what no longer make any sense to me. Often when time passes, the emotional tie is weakened and you see your photo for what it really is. A good saying from my teacher (I'm sure he's not the author of it): If you feel the need to add to the picture "You should have been there", then you shouldn't really be showing it to others because they weren't there and they don't have the emotional bond that you do.
The only extra time you lose is when you convert RAW to JPEG. 4 gigs of pictures whether they are RAW or JPEG will download at the same speed, especially as you pointed out you can shoot a lot more and faster in JPEG and this will result in more pictures. Now you must have real trust in your camera's auto white balance or you must be fast changing them in accordance with the lighting conditions because trying to change WB in JPEG (as Gentoo pointed it out also) will take considerably more time than in RAW. You will also lose time when sorting through the multitude of JPEGs. When I come from a photo trip with 300 RAWs, then the first thing is to go though them all and throw out the crap and doubles. I usually leave about 50 that I tinker with and then 20 that I edit more thoroughly, maybe 40 when I'm shooting some events.
As for QvsQ, I would choose quality over quantity any day, isn't that the goal of every photographer? Willis, can you honestly tell me that you would prefer to have 10 mediocre shots instead of one brilliant one?
Posted 3 years ago # -
I shoot Raw + Jpg Fine on my Nikon camera all the time. On my S5 pro I find that the Jpg that comes out of it is as good as the Raw from my nikon, so I mostly shoot jpg fine on my s5pro unless the lighting is really challenging (ie wierd WB or high contrast, Really High DR where I want to keep the detail in both the highlights and the shadows.) I treat all the files that come out of the camera like raw Ie never modify them and archive a copy asap.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"snaketail - unless You have a mac, and aperture, I shoot raw only, and never had any problems with going through them and usually I take around 500-1000 shots. As for weddings, I'm not a pro but have done couple weddings in my life, and would never use jpg's over raw, as the situations can be very tricky. However, I agree with You that exporting files takes a little time, but still it's less than 15 minutes to export 300 images to jpg's, and another 15min to put it online - is it a lot? the answer is Yours."
I mostly agree with adamz here. RAW is the way to go. I must be missing something though; I keep hearing how RAW takes extra time and whatnot. Not for me. What am I not doing? I touch up all my photos in PP before I finish them. If I have an off color or WB I have to really screw with setting to get them right in JPEG. With RAW it's usually just one click. Exporting sometimes takes a bit longer, like a few seconds or so.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"Bottom Line: Shoot RAW if your camera's LCD is broken and you can't tell if you nailed the white balance. Shoot RAW if you only have a 128mb memory card and are likely to come back from a shoot with only 30 photos. Shoot Raw if your friends bust out a loupe every time you show them your photos (or get new friends... your call). Shoot raw if your client is a Nikon Rumors forum regular and specifically requests it. Otherwise, do yourself (and your hard drive) a favor and shoot JPEG. You'll be glad you did... especially if you wind up coming home with more photos as a result."
Ken Rockwell could not have said it better himself.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"You'll have to spend an extra $200 to pay for some extra hard drive space About once few years. That's all."
Where the hell are you getting that price??? I just got a 750 gig HD for around 120 dollars and the price per storage continues to get better.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"Where the hell are you getting that price??? I just got a 750 gig HD for around 120 dollars and the price per storage continues to get better."
Primary plus backup.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Gentoo - Don't drop the KR bomb on me. Just show me a Raw vs. JPEG comparison from your own library that are identical (aside from the conversion) that makes the case for RAW. All I'm trying to say is that the RAW doesn't matter under most circumstances, and where it does matter, the differences are subtle enough that you only notice them if you view the same photo side by side at very high magnifications. The only photos that I look at that closely are my own because I'm kind of OCD about my own work. Anyone else, I just look at the composition first, colors second, and sharpness only matters if it is visibly un-sharp.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"I keep hearing how RAW takes extra time and whatnot."
The time premium is threefold.
1. Slower image capture - Whatever your FPS is, RAW slows it down. No big deal for people that shoot one frame at a time, but crucial to sports shooters.
2. Longer upload \ export times - Again, no big deal if you've got something else to do while this is happening.
3. Post production - Raw's big selling point is that you can correct mistakes after the fact. That's valueble, but it involves several steps. Like opening the RAW file, evaluating the exposure, deciding to adjust or not, making the adjustments, saving over \ alongside the original, move on to the next photo.Even if you identify an opportunity to make corrections, You can re-shoot the photo about as fast as you can edit it in photo-shop. The exception to this rule is the moving subject delima. But then you wouldn't be shooting RAW because it slows down your FPS. High FPS is more likely to get you a winner in that sort of situation.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"Don't drop the KR bomb on me. Just show me a Raw vs. JPEG comparison from your own library that are identical (aside from the conversion) that makes the case for RAW. All I'm trying to say is that the RAW doesn't matter under most circumstances, and where it does matter, the differences are subtle enough that you only notice them if you view the same photo side by side at very high magnifications. The only photos that I look at that closely are my own because I'm kind of OCD about my own work"
Too late, I dropped the bomb and I think it fits in this case. I think you may be missing the point of RAW. In the end, RAW becomes a JPEG anyway so as far as I know, I don't think anyone said anything about it being better overall as far as IQ is concerned. What I'm getting out if this discussion is that RAW gives one the extra controls one needs or wants and that is what makes it better. I've some very good shots that I did in JPEG so I know how one can get to where you are. Don't talk to me about OCD ok? My hands are dry becuase I wash them a million times a day and I have re-post processed some files many times because I found something eles that I can do to make them just that much better. RAW or JPEG.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"1. Slower image capture - Whatever your FPS is, RAW slows it down. No big deal for people that shoot one frame at a time, but crucial to sports shooters."
This is only true if I shoot 14 bit RAW, otherwise it does not slow my FPS down at all. I shoot wildlife trust me, I know about this.
"2. Longer upload \ export times - Again, no big deal if you've got something else to do while this is happening"
If it's that slow then you need a new computer.
"3. Post production - Raw's big selling point is that you can correct mistakes after the fact. That's valueble, but it involves several steps. Like opening the RAW file, evaluating the exposure, deciding to adjust or not, making the adjustments, saving over \ alongside the original, move on to the next photo."
Doesn't take any longer than JPEG at all. I know I've done both.
So I'll ask you again, what's the downfall or slowing down effect that RAW causes? Are you sure it's not your issue?
Posted 3 years ago # -
"1. Slower image capture - Whatever your FPS is, RAW slows it down. No big deal for people that shoot one frame at a time, but crucial to sports shooters."
I shot RAW only, and do wildlife - means that very often I just press the shutter and take 5-6 frames (up to 20 something files I don't have any problems)
"2. Longer upload \ export times - Again, no big deal if you've got something else to do while this is happening."
get the right stuff and You will forget about the time difference - 8gb of pictures are 8gb of pictures no matter either You shoot RAW or JPG
"3. Post production - Raw's big selling point is that you can correct mistakes after the fact. That's valueble, but it involves several steps. Like opening the RAW file, evaluating the exposure, deciding to adjust or not, making the adjustments, saving over \ alongside the original, move on to the next photo.""
involves almost the same steps that involve jpg processing - downloading, backup, adjustments; I guess Willis You are forgetting that there is an option to copy Your adjustments from one file to another.So, basically my point is. If You have good equipment (not the cheapest card readers and memory cards on the market), You know Your software and You don't shoot only for Yourself than go for RAW, it takes a little bit more time to learn this and that, but can save You a lot of time when problems start to show up on Your jpg's.
Posted 3 years ago # -
Looks like the forum lost track of time and made my post look like it was posted 7h ago :D
So here it is again:
Willis, I'm going to have to disagree with you on some points here or just express a different view of things.I've never had to get an extra HDD because of my photos and the main reason is that in the end I keep only a few photos from a photo trip. Sometimes when I have extra time and nothing else to do, I sift through older photos and delete some what no longer make any sense to me. Often when time passes, the emotional tie is weakened and you see your photo for what it really is. A good saying from my teacher (I'm sure he's not the author of it): If you feel the need to add to the picture "You should have been there", then you shouldn't really be showing it to others because they weren't there and they don't have the emotional bond that you do.
The only extra time you lose is when you convert RAW to JPEG. 4 gigs of pictures whether they are RAW or JPEG will download at the same speed, especially as you pointed out you can shoot a lot more and faster in JPEG and this will result in more pictures. Now you must have real trust in your camera's auto white balance or you must be fast changing them in accordance with the lighting conditions because trying to change WB in JPEG (as Gentoo pointed it out also) will take considerably more time than in RAW. You will also lose time when sorting through the multitude of JPEGs. When I come from a photo trip with 300 RAWs, then the first thing is to go though them all and throw out the crap and doubles. I usually leave about 50 that I tinker with and then 20 that I edit more thoroughly, maybe 40 when I'm shooting some events.
As for QvsQ, I would choose quality over quantity any day, isn't that the goal of every photographer? Willis, can you honestly tell me that you would prefer to have 10 mediocre shots instead of one brilliant one?
Posted 3 years ago # -
Lets discuss religion instead, no wait, this is just as good! :D.
Some shoot JPEG because they see it more convenient for them, some shoot RAW because thats what they find most convenient.
Me, i shoot RAW because it gives me the freedom i need, it also means ive got a server with 20TB of space (10 backup).
The thread seems to have gone from "What are you shooting and why",into people trying to convince each other of which format is best, because they believe the format they are using is the best.I believe RAW is best, because it does what i need it to do,not because someone else told me so.
But if ya'll feel like argueing about it, go right ahead =), its going to be just like discussing religion.Posted 3 years ago # -
I started digital photography using JPEG and wasn't too happy about the result, I then read in some mag that RAW was better, so I had a go at it and, sure enough, I managed to correct my photos in a significant way. That was when I purchased my D100 (i.e. centuries ago !… :o)
SInce I often shoot in continuous, apart from the fact that RAW slowed down my picture shooting a lot, I soon found out that processing hundreds of pictures was a real time-consuming pain, and I reverted to JPEG. Things got a lot better when I bought my D70, provided I had everything set up correctly before I took the photos. Then I got my D300, and decided that there was no more question about it: JPEG with a D300 (and most Nikon dSLR's these days) is the final answer. It is fast, files have a reasonable size, and it doesn't slow down my continuous picture taking.As a matter of curiosity, I keep asking many friends who also take pictures of airplanes, some of whom are real pros, and invariably I get the same reply: I use JPEG !
Therefore, I guess the answer is: If you have time and think you can spend it adjusting finely one or two of your best pictures, by all means, feel free to use RAW, otherwise, use JPEG and enjoy photography ! :o)
Posted 3 years ago # -
"So, basically my point is. If You have good equipment (not the cheapest card readers and memory cards on the market), You know Your software and You don't shoot only for Yourself than go for RAW, it takes a little bit more time to learn this and that, but can save You a lot of time when problems start to show up on Your jpg's."
Exactly! You get what you pay for. Don't buy the cheapest stuff then wonder why it doesn't perform up to standards. Come on, we spent how much money on our equipment? I don't even use a card reader because I can copy the files much quicker directly from the camera quite quickly. Very quickly actually. Knowing your sofware is another good point adamz. If I were to use Lightroom which I'm sure is excellent software, my results would not be what they are using Capture NX or NX2. I also firmly believe that RAW files are best done in Capture NX. Perhaps that's why I have no trouble with them.
Posted 3 years ago # -
"I started digital photography using JPEG and wasn't too happy about the result, I then read in some mag that RAW was better, so I had a go at it and, sure enough, I managed to correct my photos in a significant way"
That's pretty much what happened to me. I shot JPG for a long time and swore by it. Then on birdforum.net I kept reading about RAW shooting. Well my D300 came with Capture NX for free. I decided to experiment with RAW, I had the software which, I may swear by it now but before that I never used it. Now JPG to me just seems so unforgiving. It's too final. In Digital photography, that's the last thing you want. With film we had negatives which we could screw with anyway we liked. IMO that's what a RAW file is...a digital negative. Why wouldn't a photographer want a negative to work with? Ok ok fine, it's not an actual negative but the digital equivalent of it all the same and gives you the same control.
Of course I could only agree with the first paragraph here.
Posted 3 years ago # -
I used to shoot JPG a lot but once I got into editing them with Lightroom, I just couldn't recover hardly the detail I can with RAW (in highlights and shadows).
Posted 3 years ago # -
I never quite understand why some on this forum always take offense to people not agreeing with them and then trying to make points back and forth why they are correct and everyone else is wrong. Guys jpg is meant for convenience and not image quality. That's why there are JPG versus JPG comparisons between cameras on dpreview and then RAW versus RAW. To each his own whatever you want to shoot with, if it works for you then awesome. For me the only reason I ever shoot jpg is because....the camera I'm shooting with doesn't have RAW.
I want to be ready and shoot RAW or with the highest quality avaliable from my camera in case this ever happens to me! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/ufo/6148974/Chinese-scientists-filmed-UFO-for-40-minutes.html
Posted 3 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
