How many of you shoot .raw .jpeg or both ??

[Deleted member 34016]

that's why i try to get it right in the camera and most times i do you can still adjust wb tint etc to a lesser degree anyway .
I could say people shoot raw because they can't get it right in camera but i won't say that as it causes argument's lol
People should shoot what there happy with Raw or jpeg or both it really doesn't matter to me just enjoy your photography.
Rob

Best not to start that old argument Rob

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

The vote in this thread shows a large majority of Photographers reading this prefer to shoot raw.
The only legitimate reason I can see to shoot Jpeg is for speed of work flow.
However there are good arguments for shooting both raw and jpeg.

A raw file always captures far more usable data, and give more flexible options in pp with more and much finer controls than are available in camera.
However a raw file also has the option to process the file to Jpeg as shot, for a quick and dirty output. this will be identical to the jpeg conversion in camera.

 

[ancient_mariner]

However a raw file also has the option to process the file to Jpeg as shot, for a quick and dirty output. this will be identical to the jpeg conversion in camera

I think you may be forgetting the additional processing that camera makers build in to their jpg output to make the image pop a bit, let alone if an effect/film SIM is used. But yes, they will throw away a lot of data while doing that.

 

[woof woof]

Not necessarily - with something like Photoshop you can use adjustment layers, whose effects are combined into one hit at the time of saving ...?

However - it depends on how you are trying to communicate through your photography. Even in colour how we 'read' a photograph depends on how the tones in it are disposed. Relying on an in-camera preset, or one in software, removes a significant element of control in this regard and others.

RAW all the way for me.

When applying changes that may give a knock on effect and affect things you will want to change later such as for example NR and sharpening I guess most would be applying NR first because if you apply sharpening first you'd be sharpening noise. The order in which you do things is sometimes therefore likely to matter. You may be able to apply things in layers and then combine them later but that must be more of a faff on and more time consuming than just setting the sliders and applying the changes en masse in raw.

With colour, cameras just do not see things as our eyes see them so the image as recorded may look radically different to how we perceive it at the time. Sometimes we may decide that we like the output but if we don't like it I do believe that raws are easier to work on and "correct." Getting it "right" in camera will mean having multiple presets to cover different lighting scenarios or doing a custom white balance or adjustment at the time but as lighting can change from scene to scene or indeed sometimes from minute to minute at the same location that's a lot of time spent faffing with camera setting or WB adjustments when "correction" in raw could be one click away or could be gained by moving some sliders and can be batch applied if suitable.

I can see situations in which jpeg is superior to raw particularly such as when wanting to save time when taking hundreds or thousands of shots and needing them to be ready immediately or when applying some in camera filter effect but for future proofing pictures and for the maximum flexibility in processing I thing raw is better, time allowing, and if you're looking at doing things like working on layers to combine changes to jpegs I think raw will actually probably be quicker too.

 

[SMGPhotography]

RAW - 100% of the time.

 

[ShinySideUp]

That old chestnut yet again!

What chestnut?

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

The camera processing of the raw to a JPEG makes use of manufacturers presets.

And these presets are not really presets anymore as you can adjust to your own settings quite easily, by doing this I get images 90% of the time how I want them straight from camera sort of batch processing in camera, the other 10% of the time they are scrap with no hope of getting them right no mater how much processing. AT first I found the images from my Sony using it's original manufacturers settings to be a real let down the JPEGs looked as raw files do with no processing totally bland and lifeless. I at first started to work on the .raw file to get what I wanted ( and hated every second of it !) but then found that all the setting were adjustable in camera and I now love what I'm getting without having to sit in front of a PC. Using a camera get me outside where I like to be and processing gets me inside in front of a computer where I hate to be.

I look at it as not using the jpg processing possibilities in camera is not using the camera to its full potential

A bit like shooting in auto all the time !

 

[woof woof]

I think the best thing to do is to assess the cameras output and decide when it's appropriate to use jpegs and when it isn't.

I see too many limitations and drawbacks with jpegs to use them regularly but some seem more than happy and as always there's room for all views.

 

[the black fox]

RAW only for me , I have fun on the puter gives me something to do as well

 

[Kell]

I could say people shoot raw because they can't get it right in camera but i won't say that as it causes argument's

The thing is - there's a lot of truth in that.

The more prep you do upfront, the less you'll have to do in post.

That said...

Every single professional photographer I've ever worked with has done a massive amount of post work, high-end retouching, colour grading etc etc.

They all shoot RAW and they all shoot looooooads more than they need to.

Maybe I'm swayed by that approach. I always shoot RAW, and I always do PP. Like most people I tend to have a few settings pre-programmed into LR, but this is mostly by lens rather than by 'looks' - so it cancels out the distortion and removes chromatic aberration. One lens in particular has several spots on it, so that lens is set up to heal those spots. Letting the camera do it's stuff wouldn't correct those (I don't think).

But also, if I've been away on holiday, I might have images from Main camera, waterproof/tough camera, my phone, my wife's phone so I can import them all to Lightroom. cull and amend them all and have them all in date order. A lot of the time, it's just straightening horizons and adding contrast, but even with some of those JPEGs, you can do a basic edit.

You could decide to never use PP - i.e. make a real point of doing everything in camera. But that would also mean setting your camera to not apply any setting to your images before it spits them out. So all those people saying they don't see the point of LR because the camera does a good enough job aren't doing any less PP. They're just automating the process and speeding it up.

On my 80D it's set up to do only RAW as it only has one card. The 5D had two slots and I've only recently set that up to do RAW on one and back-up JPEGS on the other. But I'm not really sure why I've done that. Both cards are the same size, so I might as well do two sets of RAWS if I want backups.

People have always done PP - even with film. Many of the LR/Photoshop tools are based on darkroom practices.

Mostly, I do what suits me. I've never really thought about setting the camera up to do JPEGs. Maybe I'll have a go...

 

[Nod]

You could decide to never use PP - i.e. make a real point of doing everything in camera. But that would also mean setting your camera to not apply any setting to your images before it spits them out.

Not really. Back in film days, we would choose films for particular uses - the old way of "applying presets"? I have set my Fujis to give me the results I like rather than the results Fuji San would like me to choose. I can still fiddle a bit with colour temperature, curves/levels etc if I feel I need to but I rarely do.

As said many times above, there's no right or wrong way, just different!

 

[EJB]

I shoot both, download all to my PC and delete all the jpegs after I have tweaked and filed the RAW images.
Thank goodness I bought a big memory card!

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Next time I get to take the Big (Sony) camera out ,I'm going to try shooting .raw and jpeg edit the .raw files as I like them and see how they compare. I suppose they will be fairly close but it will be interesting to see. In what sort of extreme situations am I likely to see a difference using .raw as a starting point ? Then I can try and make a point of shooting a number of shots in those situations. I'm guessing low light and high contrast situations !

 

[Ed Sutton]

I could say people shoot raw because they can't get it right in camera but i won't say that
Rob

I'll say it.

Because that's why I use raw. Being able to correct minor exposure or white balance 'mistakes' in post means that technically lazy folks like me can concentrate on making pictures. Which is what photography is about for me, not technical proficiency.

 

[ancient_mariner]

I'm not likely to do this as I'm very happy with Gimp but will LR and PP work in Linux ? After all the comments on here I going try shooting in raw and .JPEGs again and see if my .raw edits end up close to my cameras .JPEG. A lot of my photography is done with a very small point and shoot that I carry at all times and generally the subjects are things I come across while doing other things as I have very little time for hobbies, this camera does work really well but you can see the difference between it and my Sony , it will only do JPEGs so I'm a little stuck with that one but my next dog walk in day light I do I'll take the Sony and post up my results of the edits and jpegs from camera.

You need Raw Therapee or Darktable for Linux. LR and pretty much all the paid processor/editors won't run on Linux, which is one of the reasons I use Windows as my main OS.

 

[jdburkedjburke]

I usually shoot both.

 

[Dewi S]

RAW in the Canon, Raw + JPEG in the Fuji. I've always shot RAW purely because it retains all the info of the file, i never liked the idea of the camera doing the conversion and "throwing away" what it considers to be unnecessary data. The RAW is more of digital negative and I love working in Photoshop to bring out the best in it. Having said that, the Fuji does produce some stunning JPEG images.

 

[TimHughes]

RAW in the Canon, Raw + JPEG in the Fuji. I've always shot RAW purely because it retains all the info of the file, i never liked the idea of the camera doing the conversion and "throwing away" what it considers to be unnecessary data. The RAW is more of digital negative and I love working in Photoshop to bring out the best in it. Having said that, the Fuji does produce some stunning JPEG images.

I'm also shooting Canon and Fuji, in my view, Canon is also capable of stunning jpegs. Did you try the picture style editor https://global.canon/en/imaging/picturestyle/index.html?

 

[welshwizard645]

Each of my cameras is set up for RAW and JPEG, regardless of subject. Most of the time the JPEG does exactly what I want, rest of the time the NEF/DNG files are useful for highlight/shadow recovery. For my Pentax cameras, there is a button which if you are not careful means you can inadvertently switch the WB from 5600k to 'weird', so RAW comes in useful for that. On the odd occasion when I have used 10000k to recreate a nice evening sunset I have forgotten to reset the camera...

 

[Dewi S]

I'm also shooting Canon and Fuji, in my view, Canon is also capable of stunning jpegs. Did you try the picture style editor https://global.canon/en/imaging/picturestyle/index.html?

No not tried those Tim but it looks interesting, I'll give them a proper look.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

You need Raw Therapee or Darktable for Linux. LR and pretty much all the paid processor/editors won't run on Linux, which is one of the reasons I use Windows as my main OS.

I must admit I would be lost in Windows it's been at least 15 years (probably more like 20) since I last used it ( Early XP). I'm sure I've used Gimp for .raw files in the past but I'm guessing although I cannot remember doing so that I must have installed the Dark table plug in as it says it will not do .raw out the box. I remember trying Dark table as a stand alone editor but did not like it.

 

[Olly B]

I use both, and download the raw files to my external hard drive and the JPEG’s to Apple photos, which then get backed up to icloud. The JPEG’s are quite useful for viewing on the tv!!

 

[gremlin16]

I shoot both, but rarely use the jpegs. Even commercially, I prefer to edit and then send a raw (as a jpeg).

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I just took a shot in .raw and JPEG mode and wow there is some mega lens distortion in the .raw file. I've never come across this with any camera apart from in the Plastic Holga 120. I'm guessing the cameras jpeg processes the cameras flaws out as well as thing like exposure. Is this normal in digital for them to use rubbish lenses and then correct them ? I'll try it with a film lens !

 

[ancient_mariner]

I must admit I would be lost in Windows it's been at least 15 years (probably more like 20) since I last used it ( Early XP). I'm sure I've used Gimp for .raw files in the past but I'm guessing although I cannot remember doing so that I must have installed the Dark table plug in as it says it will not do .raw out the box. I remember trying Dark table as a stand alone editor but did not like it.

If you can use Linux you can use Windows, although gnome is a little bit out there as a de.

All modern cameras have internal lens correction, so many makers use less heavily corrected lenses at the consumer end to save money/keep the price down.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Just tried it with a film Lens no distortion ! The Sony Lens almost looks like a Fisheye Lens

 

[ancient_mariner]

Just tried it with a film Lens no distortion ! The Sony Lens almost looks like a Fisheye Lens

Curious. I have no experience with the mirrorless crop zooms, but the 24 to 105 has just a little distortion, and it's hard to spot unless you go all architectural.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I'm quite amazed how bad it is Toni ,I can honestly say the Holga is better, The photo had a wall on either side giving it a barrel like look ! It a Sony A6000 which I have seen various things on line about the distortion when at the wide end but I thought it was just pixel peepers being overly fussy. Looks great as a Jpeg but a cheap film lens to Sony lens comparison really shows the difference.

 

[Nod]

I have a lens that distorts like that - the Sigma 8mm. Without telling us which lens you find is distorting a lot, it's hard to offer much help. I bought all my Nikon lenses (bar the 24-120) to use on film and none of them distort horrendously on film.

 

[Retune]

I just took a shot in .raw and JPEG mode and wow there is some mega lens distortion in the .raw file. I've never come across this with any camera apart from in the Plastic Holga 120. I'm guessing the cameras jpeg processes the cameras flaws out as well as thing like exposure. Is this normal in digital for them to use rubbish lenses and then correct them ? I'll try it with a film lens !

Which raw processor? Some raw processors have lens correction profiles that should do something similar to what your camera does when making a jpeg. Sony's recommended software is Capture One, and there's a free basic version of that, but not for Linux:

Buy Capture One

Get Capture One's flagship photo editing software, trusted by pros and studios worldwide. Capture One Pro supports files from all major camera brands.

www.captureone.com

It looks like RawTherapee and Darktable can be made to work with Lensfun, which has a correction profile for the Alpha 6000 kit lens:

Lensfun

Homepage of the Lensfun library and database

lensfun.github.io

Lensfun

Homepage of the Lensfun library and database

lensfun.github.io

Lens/Geometry - RawPedia

rawpedia.rawtherapee.com

On Lens Detection and Correction

darktable (and some other projects, like for example ufraw) don’t do any real lens detection or correction by itself. We depend on two libraries which in most cases are provided by the Linux distribution you’re using. Lens Detection Many image files contain metadata about how the image was...

www.darktable.org

 

[Kell]

Just thinking that a lot of people mention the JPEGs being useful (for displaying on tvs etc).

It’s not like I don’t then convert my RAWS to JPEGs.

My usual ‘work flow’ is to export all the RAWS, open a new catalogue in LR, adjust all the levels. But ordinarily this doesn’t involve a ‘one size fits all’ approach. Which is why I don’t yet understand how letting the camera do it all for you would work as a blanket approach.*

But I then end up exporting them all as JPEGS and, in most cases, then deleting the RAWS. So I still end up with a folder full of JPEGs

I normally have a five star export where the JPEGs are of the highest possible quality. And then a RED folder which is an alternative version which I don’t like quite as much which I export as lower quality (ie max file size of 3mb) which I keep as back ups.

I only use this system because those two Smart Folders are already set up in LR and it’s easy to mark something as ***** or RED and group them for export.

There are a couple of exceptions - big holidays, for example, where I will keep the RAWS as well.

Part of the reason is that over the 8 or 9 years I’ve been using LR I’d like to think I’ve become a bit more ‘sympathetic’ in the PP work.

Keeping the RAWS means I can go back in and tweak levels a bit - especially as LR uses a non-destructive approach. So any changes are always reversible. Keeping the RAWS means that no matter how much time has passed you can go back into the image and reset it and start it all again, or just remove a certain effect.

It can be hard work though, and it would often be good to be able to automate that process.

*But as I’ve never actually tried letting the camera do all the heavy lifting, I might give it a go next time by setting up my camera to do it.

 

[NickD]

Which is why I don’t yet understand how letting the camera do it all for you would work as a blanket approach.

Others may vary, but it's not necessarily a one size fits all approach. For a walkabout taking random snaps, maybe, but if I'm setting out on a certain day, with certain light, to take a certain kind of photograph, dialling in an appropriate 'recipe' for my jpegs can bring a nice consistency to a set. If the light changes, or my mood changes, or I want to grab a shot outside the type I'm set up for, I'll just pull up something more appropriate in camera. I'd rather do this on the move, rather than sat in front of a screen in a darkened room when I could be playing with the kids, or relaxing with my other half, or making music, or reading... etc. But I get that others really enjoy that part of the process too.

 

[Nod]

Which is why I don’t yet understand how letting the camera do it all for you would work as a blanket approach.*

One argument I've heard about raw conversion is that it's very easy to do a batch conversion on a whole imported folder - basically doing what the camera does but to the user's preferences (which may or may not be "better" that the camera's conversion.)

deleting the RAWS.

IF I shot raw, the original raw files would be the ones I kept rather than a couple of alternative JPEGs. I keep all my SOOC JPEGs so I have them to work on should they need it.

 

[Kell]

I'm quite amazed how bad it is Toni ,I can honestly say the Holga is better, The photo had a wall on either side giving it a barrel like look ! It a Sony A6000 which I have seen various things on line about the distortion when at the wide end but I thought it was just pixel peepers being overly fussy. Looks great as a Jpeg but a cheap film lens to Sony lens comparison really shows the difference.

I suspect what you’re seeing is that RAW files give you exactly what the camera sees with no processing of any kind. Whereas an in-camera JPEG gives you all the stuff you would do in PP already corrected - including barrel distortion.

I’m not sure why you’re getting different results with a film lens, but it could be just that some lenses suffer massively from barrel distortion and some hardly at all. It’s just possible that the film lens plays particularly well with your camera.

Normally, in LR, you can click on a preset lens correction setting for most major lenses - this will be essentially what your camera does before giving you a JPEG.

As I mentioned previously, I have all my lenses set up as presets so I can select all the shots from one lens and correct them all in one hit.

I have just bought a Compact Canon G5 X and have set it up to shoot RAW. When I was just messing about and importing the CR files into my WIndows photo app for qucik viewing, they'd come in with no distortion and then suddenly snap to loads of distortion. I suspect what I'm seeing is that the photo app is somehow reading the JPEG information, then going 'oh no - he wanted a RAW file' and showing me that instead. Almost like Jim Bowen saying: "Let's have a look at what you could have won"

 

[Ed Sutton]

Import raw files into Lightroom automatically applying the picture profile the camera shot with (or a preferred profile/preset of your choice). Process if required - usually some tonal adjustment in my case, maybe a crop or levelling), then export as jpeg in whatever size required for display digitally or in print (or print direct from LR). It's little more work that shooting jpegs which will need resizing for export in most cases. Then delete jpeg after use. Seems pretty simple and easy to me.

The original 'negative' is retained, the processing is retained for repetition but can be altered.

I think some people who say they don't like processing their files imagine that you always have to do as much work as the Youtube experts show, when often all that's needed is some highlight or shadow recovery and/or a tweak of contrast or the tone curve that takes a few seconds. Or maybe they don't have the visual awareness to know what needs altering in their pics.

When I started digitally my camera only shot jpeg and I never did any processing, treating the files as if they were slides. So if that's what floats your boat stick with it.

 

[Retune]

I suspect what you’re seeing is that RAW files give you exactly what the camera sees with no processing of any kind. Whereas an in-camera JPEG gives you all the stuff you would do in PP already corrected - including barrel distortion.

I’m not sure why you’re getting different results with a film lens, but it could be just that some lenses suffer massively from barrel distortion and some hardly at all. It’s just possible that the film lens plays particularly well with your camera.

Normally, in LR, you can click on a preset lens correction setting for most major lenses - this will be essentially what your camera does before giving you a JPEG.

As I mentioned previously, I have all my lenses set up as presets so I can select all the shots from one lens and correct them all in one hit.

I have just bought a Compact Canon G5 X and have set it up to shoot RAW. When I was just messing about and importing the CR files into my WIndows photo app for qucik viewing, they'd come in with no distortion and then suddenly snap to loads of distortion. I suspect what I'm seeing is that the photo app is somehow reading the JPEG information, then going 'oh no - he wanted a RAW file' and showing me that instead. Almost like Jim Bowen saying: "Let's have a look at what you could have won"

If you use the camera manufacture's own software, you usually get a raw conversion close to an in-camera jpeg by default (though of course you have the option to make whatever adjustments you like). Appropriate colour profiles and lens correction profiles are applied automatically (the software detects the camera and lens models from metadata in the raw file). If you generally like the results from the in-camera jpegs, but want the flexibility of raw, this can be a good option.

Lenses from the film era had to be pretty well-behaved because there wasn't the possibility of correcting anything later. Current lens designers who factor in that distortions can be fixed in software may take more liberties, perhaps to make a smaller lens or a wider-range zoom than would otherwise be possible, or simply to keep the cost down.

Raw files usually have embedded preview images, typically a small jpeg, which may be read initially before a viewer or converter does anything with the raw data.

 

[Kell]

If you use the camera manufacture's own software, you usually get a raw conversion close to an in-camera jpeg by default (though of course you have the option to make whatever adjustments you like). Appropriate colour profiles and lens correction profiles are applied automatically (the software detects the camera and lens models from metadata in the raw file). If you generally like the results from the in-camera jpegs, but want the flexibility of raw, this can be a good option.

Lenses from the film era had to be pretty well-behaved because there wasn't the possibility of correcting anything later. Current lens designers who factor in that distortions can be fixed in software may take more liberties, perhaps to make a smaller lens or a wider-range zoom than would otherwise be possible, or simply to keep the cost down.

Raw files usually have embedded preview images, typically a small jpeg, which may be read initially before a viewer or converter does anything with the raw data.

That all makes perfect sense.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

Without telling us which lens you find is distorting a lot, it's hard to offer much help

The standard 16- 55mm kit lens, it is the only lens I have which was made for the camera all the others are film lenses

I think some people who say they don't like processing their files imagine that you always have to do as much work as the Youtube experts show, when often all that's needed is some highlight or shadow recovery and/or a tweak of contrast or the tone curve that take a few seconds. Or maybe they don't have the visual awareness to know what needs altering in their pics.

That's pretty much what I do, first I look at the photos most will be fine as is, a few will need a little tune up and there will for various reasons some fit for the bin. In a previous job I spent hours in front of a computer I hated it then (I soon dumped it) and still do now I would rather be physically doing some thing else that needs doing.

 

[BADGER.BRAD]

I'll have a look Retune if the Sony software will work with Linux although I doubt it as there are a few things that I can do on all my other cameras without any software that will not work with the Sony as they have decided to do things differently than the standard. Thanks for all the other links I'll have a look through them.

 

[Retune]

There's no Capture One Express for Linux, unfortunately (or any Capture One version). But give RawTherapee or Darktable a try and see if you can get lens correction working as above.